Is universe endless and eternally lasting?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2girl

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Sep 28, 2000
Messages
21,111
Location
slovenija
What do you think?



------------------
"It's an elevation thing." - Adam (when asked about the airplanes in the videos, and the airport pics on ATYCLB)

"It's hard being Bono..." - Bono

"I would like to apologize for last year's speech. Apparently i went on for quite a bit." - Edge at the Grammys

"Live is where we live." - Larry
 
Yes and no. But with the Spirit, the answer is yes and yes.
 
I always liked the oscillating universe theory better. Beginnings and ends for all eternity...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Spiritually or scientifically?
Spiritually - it can never be destroyed, and nothing in it can be destroyed, merely changed in form
Scientifically - it can never be destroyed, and nothing in it can be destroyed, merely changed in form

Hmm...
 
Modern scientific theories indicate that the universe is expanding (from one specific point), meaning that the universe existed at that point, at one time.

In other words, the universe had a beginning and would thus not be "eternally lasting".

Beyond that, modern theories suggest that there is a specific amount of matter to the universe, thus it's also not endless.

There's a question of whether or not there's enough matter to cause the universe collapse on itself again, but that addresses how and whether the universe will end, another question entirely.
 
so how will the universe end then?

I guess all matter has gravitational energy, so eventually the expanding universe will start to contract. As it contracts it will speed up, until it basically implodes and leaves nothing but a black hole of anti matter.

Also, if we can't see the edge of the universe, how do we know there aren't parallell universes?

We could be one galaxy of a zillion galaxies in one universe in a gazillion universes that are all but a figment of an elephants imagination.
 
Hopefully, there will be enough matter in the universe so that the universe will collapse on itself and a new one can begin. If it ends in ice, there will be no chance for life to begin once again, but merely a cold icy end.
However, if we find the formula to tie together the theories of relativity and the quantum, either way, it doesn't mean the universe will truly end...
 
According to the latest evidence there is not enough matter in the Universe to start a contraction. There for, the Universe will expand forever.
 
Not only is the universe expanding (and, it seems, will so forever), but its expansion rate is increasing...something to do with "dark energy" (different from "dark matter") in the fabric of spacetime itself. Eventually, the universe will be a very lonely place as each galaxy (and perhaps each star) will be infinitely far apart from every other galaxy (and star).

The universe is supposedly around 14 billion to 18 billion years old...if it's going to expand forever, then we're currently part of a very young (teenaged) universe.
 
Originally posted by Judah:
Not only is the universe expanding (and, it seems, will so forever), but its expansion rate is increasing...something to do with "dark energy" (different from "dark matter") in the fabric of spacetime itself. Eventually, the universe will be a very lonely place as each galaxy (and perhaps each star) will be infinitely far apart from every other galaxy (and star).

The universe is supposedly around 14 billion to 18 billion years old...if it's going to expand forever, then we're currently part of a very young (teenaged) universe.

I agree with this. If anyone wants to know more, they should read the cover article of this month's Discover magazine.
 
My army Chaplain had a great explanation of it when I asked him about eternal life, eternity and the universe; he said imagine the universe, and where it ends. What is at the end of the universe, a sign that says "end of the universe" and maybe a big wall where it ends. Then imagine if that wall had a door, and you opened it. What would be on the other side? I answered him with "i suppose more space", and he said "exactly, more space, so you see the universe does go on forever, just like time".

Your own interpretation of it defines it for YOU but it will go on with or without you.
 
Well, if there isn't enough matter in the universe for it to collapse, eventually every star will burn out, all life will end, and the universe will not be a friendly place to live.
 
you know what I've wondered ever since I was like 6 years old U2girl? if the Universe really is expanding outwards, what is it expanding into? and don't tell me nothing because that just makes my head hurt to think about!
biggrin.gif
 
The thought that always puzzled me was - if the universe started with the Big bang, what was there before - assuming nothing lasts forever?
Also, will there be a Big shrink once this universe ends?



------------------
"It's an elevation thing." - Adam (when asked about the airplanes in the videos, and the airport pics on ATYCLB)

"Not just any band...the best band on the planet." - Bono

"It's about finding your way into the music." - Edge about playing live

"There's still stuff left for us to do, and that's why we still do it." - Larry, 1998
 
My personal opinion on that matter is that energy only changes its forms, but exists forever. So, "before" of the big bang - if there is any "before", because as we know time is relative, energy simply may have had another form.
 
The Universe is ezpanding, and increasing in it's rate of expansion. Eventually after all the stars have burned their Hydrogen into helium, that will be it. The Universe will still exist but it will be a "dead universe", no new stars or galaxies. Pretty grim but that's the way it is.
 
my question is, can true nothingness exist?

If the universe is expanding into nothingness, well that means the "nothingness" is given definition by the "somethingness" and is no longer nothing.

If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there.

Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove?

----
I tend to think the universe is holographic, but that's a whole other story.

----------

damn my horrible spelling


------------------


Same Old Story

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-21-2002).]
 
What do you guys think of multiple universes? Perhaps we are just one universe of many, but that, due to our own scientific limitations and the vastness of our own universe, we just haven't seen it?

Looking at science, in general, rarely are single things created. Even stars are usually made in pairs (Jupiter is our sun's dead twin).

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Originally posted by hermes:
If the universe is expanding into nothingness,

Who said that?

If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there.
The universe came from something that was always there and always is, yesterday, today and tomorrow; just like Love simply is.

Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove?
Hm... If a shadow is non-light, is it nothing?

foray
 
Unless I misunderstood who Sting2 was responding to, I believe he said it was expanding into nothing.

Hm... If a shadow is non-light, is it nothing?

My answer philosophy wise is no. It's been defined by it's parameters and therefore no longer nothing.

Science wise, there are things that don't give off light that are something.

I think so anyways, I had a rough night last night and am not thinking to clearly. What do you think?
---

It's just something I've been thinking about for a while. People talk abotu the emptiness of space, but it's not empty. People talk about nothing, but I don't believe nothing can truly exist.
---

I've been up for fifteen minutes now, think I'm goign to take an aspirin and get back to bed.




------------------


Same Old Story
 
Melon,

I tend to think there are multiple universes, but for reasons that probably differ from most. I'm too tired to get into it now, but I do belive they exist.


---

I was wondering, for those who do believe they exist, What do you think thier nature is?

Various timelines, basicly alternatives to our universe?

A universe seperate, but like ours in most general ways?

A universe that acts more like a dimension, where the laws of physics and nature could be completely different from what we know?

or something else?

------------------


Same Old Story
 
I believe in multiple universes too. I think they are all connected in some way. In different universe, the laws of Physics are the same as this universe that we're living, but the timelines are completely differ from ours.


And about the emptiness of the space beyond the universes, I'm always thinking and almost fighting constantly with myself for this! At this moment, I believe that there're really nothing out there. It's hard to imagine, but those x-dimensional spaces are hard to imagine either.
 
Originally posted by hermes:
This is pretty much how I think the universe is structured, though I don't agree with some of the conclusions at the end.
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

this one is acutally formatted better: http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-27-2002).]


After reading that second link - my question is - so did the trees really vanish or did the lady just convince the onlookers that they were no longer there, so they deleted them from their holograms?

This explains the power of suggestion and also gives weight to the theory of osmosis.




------------------
Mone

You ain't nothin without a rhythm section to back you up.

"What Adam does with his willy is his business..." -Bono
 
<<so did the trees really vanish or did the lady just convince the onlookers that they were no longer there, so they deleted them from their holograms?>>

I think for all intents and purposes, both. Though I don't think the trees were deleted, the people just stopped percieving those wave patterns.



------------------


Same Old Story
 
Back
Top Bottom