Science going backwards

Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

05 Feb 2015, 8:15 pm

Edgar Allan Poe described in his prose poem, Eureka, that the universe began with an "instantaneous flash" and could end with a collapse (this was almost 80 years before Georges Lemaître first noted that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point).

I suppose that, as distance is increased between galaxies, science will need to be constantly rewritten. But, even the rewrites will need revision when the collapse is imminent; unless Red Dwarf is correct about life itself reversing to include backwards speech and backwards births. :lol:

_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,098
Location: temperate zone

05 Feb 2015, 10:57 pm

Narrator wrote:

In his talk, A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss made me aware of something I hadn't expected.

In many thousands of years, if humans are still here, their science will go backwards in a significant way. By that time, only our galaxy will be visible. The other galaxies will be further away and moving away so fast that we will no longer see them. The very notion of galaxies other than our own will become nothing more than myth, changing how people in that time understand the universe. We have the evidence for what's out there, right now, beyond our own galaxy, but eventually that evidence will disappear.

NO!

Not "thousands of years from now". I saw that video someone posted here (it was good).

More like 100's of billions of years from now.

After we are extinct- some future creatures will evolve in a future galaxy (long long from now, and far far away) who will become intelligent, and have opposible thumbs, and will evolve civilization. And they will look through telescopes, and they will not see stuff that we can see now.

Whats interesting about it is- that implies that there is stuff already out there that WE ourselves can't see. We may already be missing some big part of the picture because our universe has already shaken off evidence visible at an earlier time billions of years ago.

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Feb 2015, 11:54 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Not "thousands of years from now". I saw that video someone posted here (it was good).

More like 100's of billions of years from now.

Yay!
I wondered who would pick up on this.
You are correct.

And yes, I posted that video here a few days ago.

_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

06 Feb 2015, 12:01 am

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Not "thousands of years from now". I saw that video someone posted here (it was good).

More like 100's of billions of years from now.

Yay!
I wondered who would pick up on this.
You are correct.

And yes, I posted that video here a few days ago.

I picked up on this; you didn't see it?

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=276073&p=6462870#p6462870

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Feb 2015, 1:04 am

Tollorin wrote:

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Not "thousands of years from now". I saw that video someone posted here (it was good).

More like 100's of billions of years from now.

Yay!
I wondered who would pick up on this.
You are correct.

And yes, I posted that video here a few days ago.

I picked up on this; you didn't see it?

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=276073&p=6462870#p6462870

Apologies, Tollorin... you were right too. I was being pedantic on the detail. I did see your post, but I was hoping for a sign of who watched the Krauss video, to correct me on what Krauss actually said.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

06 Feb 2015, 5:28 pm

Fnord wrote:

Currently, our best telescopes have a discernible look-back of over 10,000,000,000 years. This means that even 1,000,000 years from now, our descendent will still have essentially the same view of distant galaxies as we do now.

Not quite Fnord, what Krauss and others are suggesting is that due to the increased speed of the expansion of the universe in around 2 trillion years the thunivers will exceed the speed of light meaning that light waves from other galaxies will become larger the the universe and therefore invisible

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,098
Location: temperate zone

06 Feb 2015, 6:01 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Well...Fnord obviously missed the video that the OP posted that some of us saw. But he correctly answered the question -as it was stated- which was "many thousands of years from now" (which is hardly the same thing as "a trillion years from now"). The question itsself distorted what the video lecturer said. And the OP admitted that his post was kind of trick question to see if any of us lazy people were paying attention to the video he posted.

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

06 Feb 2015, 7:20 pm

Narrator wrote:

Tollorin wrote:

Narrator wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Not "thousands of years from now". I saw that video someone posted here (it was good).

More like 100's of billions of years from now.

Yay!
I wondered who would pick up on this.
You are correct.

And yes, I posted that video here a few days ago.

I picked up on this; you didn't see it?

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=276073&p=6462870#p6462870

To be fair I didn't watched the video, I simply said what was making sense to me; thousand of years is short for the Universe.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

06 Feb 2015, 11:27 pm

Naturalplastic I did not read the rest of the posts, nor did I fully read the title, nor did I watch the vid, read the book though. So sorry Fnord, given the statement by the op you answered correctly.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

06 Feb 2015, 11:37 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I don't believe Mankind as we know it will exist in 1,000,0000 years, we have barely made it 200k so far.

The issue will concern any sentient lifeforms on any planet. Essentially in 2 trillion years or so any observer of the cosmos will not be able to discern any other galaxies, no matter where they are situated in the universe.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 Mar 2015, 4:22 am

Fnord wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Narrator wrote:

In his talk, A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss made me aware of something I hadn't expected. In many thousands of years, if humans are still here, their science will go backwards in a significant way. By that time, only our galaxy will be visible. The other galaxies will be further away and moving away so fast that we will no longer see them. The very notion of galaxies other than our own will become nothing more than myth, changing how people in that time understand the universe. We have the evidence for what's out there, right now, beyond our own galaxy, but eventually that evidence will disappear.

Only if you arbitrarily assume that the Universe is expanding. Presently, the only reason to assume an expanding Universe is the assumption of a "Big Bang".

... and the "Red Shift" of every Galaxy outside of our Local Group.

"Red shift" is arbitrarily assumed to be caused by the "Doppler effect" only because it is convenient to the "Big Bang" paradigm. There are other, more plausible and likely explanations for the phenomenon but they are edited out of the discussion.

Materialist ideologues have already destroyed science... no need to wait.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,183
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2015, 11:04 am

I suppose if we're willing to play with Hindu units of time we have quite a bit of expansion just that that it will eventually complete a collapse in something like 3.10 trillion years. In that sense for most of the 'Year of Brahma' (maybe a good 3 trillion years of that?) most places in the universe will have a pretty dark sky at night - especially if you don't have a moon! Astronomers better get while the getting is good!

_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

08 Mar 2015, 11:36 am

Oldavid wrote:

Redshift is not assumed to be caused by the Doppler effect. Some of it is, but the expansion of the universe also plays a role - more distant galaxies show greater redshift.

We've observed redshift. We haven't observed inherent differences in the EM spectra of quasars. Sorry, that's neither more plausible nor more likely.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Mar 2015, 4:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

And "more distant galaxies" are assumed to be more distant because they have greater redshift and are receding faster.

You need to do some real homework! Popular media "science docos" are only "infotainment" (sales/marketing gimmicks) flogging snake oil type ideology.

Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Science going backwards Post Reply New Topic

Science going backwards