ForumGarden

I think the universe is ever changing. What with new planets and stars being formed and discovered. I think that a million years from now, the universe will be different from what we know it now, but it will never be completly gone.

im with the scientists on this one, humans as a species are wiping the planet out before our eyes as it is

Hmm the other day in a Weekly World Report I read that Jesus would be coming back to earth on 9-9-09 because the anitichrist was born on 6-6-06

but then again can't believe that, the article before it was bout a boy turning his aunt into a robot.

Personally I don't like endings, so I never dwell on them.

I think they're taking the long view - it's been around for 15 billion years so far and will be around for longer than that but, one way or another, it will end.

We will probably wipe ourselves out long before anything drastic with the universe happens, so I'm not real concerned about it. I doubt that the universe as a whole can ever be ended, though.

All that is, always will be.

Raymond

helefra wrote: I recently visited a space centre (more like a reconstruction of a space centre) here in the UK which is near Leicester. I learned much about space travel and what it is like to be an astronaut. Also learned a lot about the planets and the universe around us. I did stop and watch a short video on how people thought the universe will end and there were some strange and funny answers. I think the universe will always continue as long as we decide it will continue and that life will continue to grow. I can't ever see the universe ending and then reconstructing itself like scientists are predicting.

So what do you think?;)


What's the National Space Centre like?

Although I live just up the road and I've parked right outside I've never had the chance to visit.

Captain Ray wrote: All that is, always will be.



Raymond
Really...

So you don't believe that before we wipe ourselves out we are going to cause massive damage to this planet?

Captain Ray wrote: All that is, always will be.

Raymond


but it's not as it was in the beginning and it's ever changing, so why should it be everlasting?

For that matter, I am but I will not always be.

this is quite interesting

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news ... 1303a.html

I agree the universe is always changing and will continue to do so. :-6 Will Mother Earth get ride of us Humans of course she will just like a dog shaking fleas off its back. :-3 Mother Earth doesn't need us for anything so when we have truly screwed thing up to the point of not return she will give us the boot..

CARLA wrote: I agree the universe is always changing and will continue to do so. :-6 Will Mother Earth get ride of us Humans of course she will just like a dog shaking fleas off its back. :-3 Mother Earth doesn't need us for anything so when we have truly screwed thing up to the point of not return she will give us the boot..
Exactly what I mean, Carla, thanks. :-4

CARLA wrote: I agree the universe is always changing and will continue to do so. :-6 Will Mother Earth get ride of us Humans of course she will just like a dog shaking fleas off its back. :-3 Mother Earth doesn't need us for anything so when we have truly screwed thing up to the point of not return she will give us the boot..


Gaia will act before the point of no return - she'll protect the future occupants.

carla - :-4

Bryn Mawr wrote: Gaia will act before the point of no return - she'll protect the future occupants.


for those unaware

http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

buttercup wrote: for those unaware

http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm


We hold these truths to be self evident

Here is the thing, the universe survived for millions of years before we got here. And it will be here for quite some time after we leave. By "we" I mean the human race. That thought rather smashes the ego down a bit, dosen't it?

self evident to you bryn & i respect much of the gaia theory just dont agree with all of it :-6

So, I take it that you guys who don't believe that the universe will ever end haven't got tickets for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Marie5656 wrote: Here is the thing, the universe survived for millions of years before we got here. And it will be here for quite some time after we leave. By "we" I mean the human race. That thought rather smashes the ego down a bit, dosen't it?


If the universe has lasted 24 hours so far then man first appeared at one second to midnight (rounded up to the nearest second)

And if man has been on this planet then recorded history started at 23:57.

What is man that he feel so mighty?

Sonething like that anyway

buttercup wrote: self evident to you bryn & i respect much of the gaia theory just dont agree with all of it :-6
I can't say as I do either but the feedback systems to keep it in control at out of this world!



No - I didn't quite phrase that right did I?

Bryn Mawr wrote: I can't say as I do either but the feedback systems to keep it in control at out of this world!



No - I didn't quite phrase that right did I?


no but im sure you will :-4

OpenMind wrote: So, I take it that you guys who don't believe that the universe will ever end haven't got tickets for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.


I will go with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

BabyRider wrote: Really...

So you don't believe that before we wipe ourselves out we are going to cause massive damage to this planet?


I don't believe that we will wipe ourselves out.. and I don't think we are capable of doing massive damage to this planet.

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: I don't believe that we will wipe ourselves out.. and I don't think we are capable of doing massive damage to this planet.



Raymond
What about what Carla said? Mother Earth will shake us off like fleas off a dog wen she's had enough of us messing about on her? Not into that line of thinking, Ray?

Tell me what you do think! :-6

Captain Ray wrote: I don't believe that we will wipe ourselves out.. and I don't think we are capable of doing massive damage to this planet.

Raymond


I am not sure of that, granted Mother Nature can do some heavy damage to herself...but I think we have not exactly been leaving the place as we found it, have we??

Marie5656 wrote: I am not sure of that, granted Mother Nature can do some heavy damage to herself...but I think we have not exactly been leaving the place as we found it, have we??


Not only have we the capability to split this planet open like a ripe melon but, if we don't change our ways PDQ, then what we're alreadyt doing will poison the planet so badly that she'll *have* to wipe us out in order to heal herself.

Koyoto was too little too late

Bryn, let me just publicly say I do enjoy reading your thoughts. You have alot of interesting things to say!!

We can make the place dirty.. that is true.. doesn't really hurt the planet though. We can kill off some of the parasites that feed off of her, but that won't hurt the planet either.

The things we cannot do, is change the weather, increase or decrease the temperature, or alter it's orbit in any way. We can't do it.

Even thermonuclear war will not hurt the planet in any way that the planet cares about.. I don't think we are going to have a global thermonuclear war anytime soon.. so it's not something I would waste much time worrying about.

Raymond

The older folks here may remember this song:

Zager and Evans

"In The Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)"

Reached #1 07-12-69 on the Billboard Charts



In the year 2525

If man is still alive

If woman can survive

They may find........

In the year 3535

Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies

Everything you think, do, or say

Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545

Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes

You won't find a thing to chew

Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555

Your arms are hanging limp at your sides

Your legs got nothing to do

Some machine, doing that for you

In the year 6565

Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife

You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too

From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510

If God's a comin' he ought to make it by then

Maybe he'll look around himself and say

``Guess it's time for the Judgement day''

In the year 8510

God's gonna shake his mighty head

He'll either say ``I'm pleased where man has been''

Or tear it down and start again

In the year 9595

I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive

He's taken everything this old earth can give

And he ain't put back nothing...

Now it's been 10,000 years

Man has cried a billion tears

For what he never knew

Now man's reign is through

But through the eternal night

The twinkling of starlight

So very far away

Maybe it's only yesterday...

In the year 2525

If man is still alive

If woman can survive

They may find.......

Bryn Mawr wrote: Not only have we the capability to split this planet open like a ripe melon but, if we don't change our ways PDQ, then what we're alreadyt doing will poison the planet so badly that she'll *have* to wipe us out in order to heal herself.

Koyoto was too little too late


Brynn.. that was an incredibly dumb thing to say. We can not split the planet open like a melon. If you can name me one method that we have the technology to perform, that would split this planet like a melon..... I sure wish you would tell us about it.

Raymond

Marie5656 wrote: Bryn, let me just publicly say I do enjoy reading your thoughts. You have alot of interesting things to say!!


:-4

I don't think - it's just automatic reaction

Bryn Mawr wrote: :-4

I don't think - it's just automatic reaction


Yes.. that is something that I believe.

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: Brynn.. that was an incredibly dumb thing to say. We can not split the planet open like a melon. If you can name me one method that we have the technology to perform, that would split this planet like a melon..... I sure wish you would tell us about it.

Raymond


The last calculation I saw estimated that it would require 400 thermonuclear devices to split the crust.

What is the current US bomb count?

We could easily do it.

splitting the earths crust? Is that the same thing as "splitting the planet open like a ripe melon?"

I doubt the figures you saw could even puncture the earths crust much less split the world like a melon as you allege.

I am sure you have some math to back up your hysterical claim.

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: We can make the place dirty.. that is true.. doesn't really hurt the planet though. We can kill off some of the parasites that feed off of her, but that won't hurt the planet either.


What you don't seem to realise is that WE are the parasites that will be killed off!

Captain Ray wrote: The things we cannot do, is change the weather, increase or decrease the temperature, or alter it's orbit in any way. We can't do it.


Are you blind? It's happening already! Instead of looking at the levels look at the delta v - it's unprecedented

Captain Ray wrote: Even thermonuclear war will not hurt the planet in any way that the planet cares about.. I don't think we are going to have a global thermonuclear war anytime soon.. so it's not something I would waste much time worrying about.




We've come far too close already - or have you forgotten 1964 already?

I don't know what "delta v" is.. and 1964 has come and gone.. we won the cold war without ever having fired a shot.

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: splitting the earths crust? Is that the same thing as "splitting the earth like a melon?"

I doubt the figures you saw could even puncture the earths crust much less split the world like a melon as you allege.

I am sure you have some math to back up your hysterical claim.

Raymond


Yes it is. When a fluid filled ball is punctured what happens? The split spreads like a punctured balloon. The solid crust of the Earth is a max 11km surrounding a fluid centre 13,000 km in diameter. Crack the crust to that extent and we'd have another asteroid belt.



Hysterics I leave to little old ladies, try researching the facts before you pontificate.



If you want the articles from the learned journals to provide the specific equations then I'll dog them out next week.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Yes it is. When a fluid filled ball is punctured what happens? The split spreads like a punctured balloon. The solid crust of the Earth is a max 11km surrounding a fluid centre 13,000 km in diameter. Crack the crust to that extent and we'd have another asteroid belt.



Hysterics I leave to little old ladies, try researching the facts before you pontificate.



If you want the articles from the learned journals to provide the specific equations then I'll dog them out next week.


Please do.. because what you just said is bunk.

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: I don't know what "delta v" is.. and 1964 has come and gone.. we won the cold war without ever having fired a shot.

Raymond


Rate of change - rather than looking at the average global temperature or the global CO2 level, look at the rate of change of these factors.

1964 was 40 years ago. In terms of this Earth that is less than a gnat's whisker away. The fact that we scraped by this time means nothing.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Rate of change - rather than looking at the average global temperature or the global CO2 level, look at the rate of change of these factors.

1964 was 40 years ago. In terms of this Earth that is less than a gnat's whisker away. The fact that we scraped by this time means nothing.


The rate of change of what? The length of my nostril hair? If I am not supposed to look at average global temps, or CO2 levels (marginal change in the last 100 years btw) What factors are you suggesting I look at?

Raymond

Captain Ray wrote: The rate of change of what? The length of my nostril hair? If I am not supposed to look at average global temps, or CO2 levels (marginal change in the last 100 years btw) What factors are you suggesting I look at?

Raymond


The rate of change of those two factors?

And you'd better update your figures because you're way out

Rather than you suggest I update my figures.. for which thus far I have offered none.. how about you try REALLY hard to make sense!

You are English for pete's sake.. I thought you guys were good at this.. (and rioting/crying at soccer matches.)

Here is what you said:

Rate of change - rather than looking at the average global temperature or the global CO2 level, look at the rate of change of these factors.




Forgive me if I am having a hard time understanding what the heck that is supposed to mean.

Raymond

I visited NASA and it was a humbling experience. We saw the original Apollo mission control room, the original capsules and suits worn. We went out to the launch pad and the cherry on top was we saw an Eagle in its nest. We also saw film taken by the astronauts from the shuttle in Panoramic vision, that was truly spectacular.

Do we think there is any really right or wrong answer to this question? Knowledge is based on the facts as we know them. So rather than knock down someone elses knowledge, let us just all share what we know, and let everyone make thier own observasions, based on how they interpret the facts they have.

Captain Ray wrote: Rather than you suggest I update my figures.. for which thus far I have offered none.. how about you try REALLY hard to make sense!

You are English for pete's sake.. I thought you guys were good at this.. (and rioting/crying at soccer matches.)

Here is what you said:



Forgive me if I am having a hard time understanding what the heck that is supposed to mean.

Raymond


Given that you stated that there had been marginal change in the average temperature or the CO2 level over the last 100 years I assumed that you had some figures to work from rather than making an unsubstantiated claim.

I was suggesting that, rather than looking at the absolute values of the factors you mentioned, you look at the way in which those factor are changing.



Absolute values for anything other than fixed constants can and do drift in a system as complex as this and the absolute value at any given time does not tell you a massive amount about the state of the system.



The rate of change of those values – how quickly they are changing – does tell you a lot about the volatility of the system and how stable it's likely to be in the near future. Comparing historic values of the deltaV will also tell you if any new factors have come into play within the system.



Yes, there are times when the global average temperature has been higher than it is now. Yes there are times when the CO2 level has been higher than it is now. The climate goes through a long period cycle and, at its peak, the absolute values can be higher than current.



The plain fact is that never, in the million or so years for which records have been established, has the temperature been rising at the current rate – not by an order of magnitude. The other indicator is the analysis of the cyclic variations – both in absolute terms and in deltaV. The known cycles at 31, 56, 79, 204 etc years can be allowed for and any unusual variations extracted from the data.



This form of analysis shows that a new factor has entered into the equation at a time co-insidental with world industrialisation.



If you look at the attached graph which shows the change in the global average temperature, plotted as the variation from the 1960 to 1990 average, the rate of change of temperature is indicated by the slope of the trend line. The steeper the line the higher the deltaV.







Do you now understand the concept of rate of change?



Far from being bunk as you suggest, the facts of global warming are well documented.