If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   The Universe may tear itself apart in 16.7 billion years, which is 75% sooner than predicted. No word on how to blame someone for it. Yet   (io9.com) divider line 152
    More: Interesting, universe, magnetisms, curve fitting, redshifts, cosmologists, dark energy  
•       •       •

3976 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jul 2012 at 6:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 02:53:30 PM
OBAMA!!!!!
 
2012-07-29 03:00:58 PM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


*shakes tiny fist*
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 03:03:49 PM
That's terrible. What will -- never mind, I thought you said million.
 
2012-07-29 03:17:23 PM
Meh, I didn't have anything planned for that day anyway.
 
2012-07-29 03:45:59 PM
It's all the greenhouse gasses causing global warming and destroying the universe
 
2012-07-29 03:54:05 PM
Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 03:55:46 PM
Nabb1

We may have lost a major planet job, but we gained a whole bunch of minor planet jobs.
 
2012-07-29 03:56:02 PM

Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.


No, that was Obama's fault, too.

www.strangecosmos.com
 
2012-07-29 04:10:27 PM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


This is what I thought immediately. Hilarious.
 
2012-07-29 04:21:15 PM
I'll be roughly 6 billion years old when that happens. I'm sure I'll be pretty chill.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 04:23:37 PM

Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.


BOOYA!
 
2012-07-29 04:27:39 PM
Damn...I better get going on that "to do" list
 
2012-07-29 04:29:59 PM

FloydA: Meh, I didn't have anything planned for that day anyway.


Dude, we're supposed to have dinner that night. This is so typical of you.
 
2012-07-29 05:04:53 PM
That's cool... I have my towel ready at all times.
 
2012-07-29 05:14:47 PM

dickfreckle: FloydA: Meh, I didn't have anything planned for that day anyway.

Dude, we're supposed to have dinner that night. This is so typical of you.



Oh, you said six billion years? Damn my hearing is shot. Now you know why I looked so confused!
I thought you said "let's have dinner and sex billions of years from now."
 
2012-07-29 05:20:10 PM
And yet, it'll happen on my one day off that week. Typical.
 
2012-07-29 05:23:38 PM

Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.


You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.
 
2012-07-29 05:39:31 PM
I blame Chick-fil-a
 
2012-07-29 06:01:47 PM
But the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. Seems kind of lopsided.
 
2012-07-29 06:30:08 PM
Clearly it's the ultimate goal of the gay agenda.
 
2012-07-29 06:32:51 PM

Mugato: But the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. Seems kind of lopsided.


Are you saying God can't destroy the universe before He creates it??

HEATHEN!!!
 
2012-07-29 06:32:55 PM
Panic?
 
2012-07-29 06:34:52 PM

Lanadapter: Clearly it's the ultimate goal of the gay agenda.


yes, clearly this is the fault of the gays. So much ... dark matter & throttling.
 
2012-07-29 06:36:10 PM


To help cosmologists with their chalkboard equations, they have assigned the letter 'w' when working with dark energy - a way to mathematically depict the ratio of pressure and density of dark energy. The only problem, however, is they're not exactly sure what value to give it. But what they do know is that if they give w a value less than -1, their calculations reveal that dark energy will eventually grow to infinity - a regrettable turn of events that will cause everything in the universe to fly apart from each other - including tiny particles and any other building block of the Universe.



YAY! Unit-less numbers and pointless articles telling us nothing! How about a little more freakin' insight as t what dark matter or dark energy is fist, THEN we post pointless speculation as to what happens after humanity. Adjusting the estimated time frame for something we understand so little about we don't even have a proper name for it doesn't actually count as informative.

Besides, you can rip the universe apart much sooner than that by building a really big speaker on Africa, turning the moon into a column of ionized gases the diameter of the speaker, pointing the column at the sun, and plying the sun with non-stop boy band music. It will get so agitated that rather than nova or even supernova, it will collapse in on itself beyond gravity's limitations with a black hole and become a rift in space time itself which will spread faster than instantaneously to all corners of the sheet because I say so and that will be the end of that.
 
2012-07-29 06:37:19 PM
We must start colonizing other universes. For the SPECIES. Can someone get me Elon Musk on the phone? Gonna buy a few rockets tonight!
 
2012-07-29 06:40:22 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Can someone get me Elon Musk on the phone?


Now that's a conversation I'd love to overhear.
 
2012-07-29 06:44:25 PM
I don't know where you guys will be that night, but I'll be partying with Hotblack Desiato at Milliways.
 
2012-07-29 06:45:33 PM

theorellior: Quantum Apostrophe: Can someone get me Elon Musk on the phone?

Now that's a conversation I'd love to overhear.


Big time lag to Mars, no?
 
2012-07-29 06:49:26 PM
The Milky Way will be torn apart 32.9 million years before the big rip. The Earth will be ripped away from the Sun two months before the end, and we'll lose our moon with five days left. The Sun itself will be destroyed 28 minutes before the end of time, and the Earth will explode a mere 12 minutes later.

and then there will be nothing
nothing
nothing
NOTHING
 
2012-07-29 06:52:31 PM
so what happens after time stops?
 
2012-07-29 06:54:58 PM

dready zim: The Milky Way will be torn apart 32.9 million years before the big rip. The Earth will be ripped away from the Sun two months before the end, and we'll lose our moon with five days left. The Sun itself will be destroyed 28 minutes before the end of time, and the Earth will explode a mere 12 minutes later.

and then there will be nothing
nothing
nothing
NOTHING


Actually, there will be everything.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 06:57:33 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mugato: But the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. Seems kind of lopsided.

Are you saying God can't destroy the universe before He creates it??

HEATHEN!!!



Well maybe but it sounds like he keeps farking up a lot.
 
2012-07-29 06:57:33 PM
I am immortal and can travel between dimensions sooooo it's kinda not a problem for me.
 
2012-07-29 06:59:36 PM

dready zim: so what happens after time stops?


I have it on good authority (Alan Parsons Project) that Time not only flows like a river, but does indeed go on forever. Oooooon foreeeeeeevuuhr.
 
2012-07-29 07:01:13 PM
TIME TO BAN GUNS!
 
2012-07-29 07:01:14 PM
As long some future lib types don't make the universe a gun free zone some cc citizens will be able to stop it.
 
2012-07-29 07:02:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.

You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.


Pluto Not Even Biggest 'Dwarf Planet' Any More, Thanks For Nothing W
 
2012-07-29 07:04:27 PM

man metaphysical: I am immortal and can travel between dimensions sooooo it's kinda not a problem for me.


That whole "travel between dimensions" thing never made sense... does that mean that you start being able to see the world in WxHxL instead of LxWxH?
 
2012-07-29 07:09:54 PM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


0ver in 0ne.
 
2012-07-29 07:11:17 PM

Roook: It's all the greenhouse gasses causing global warming and destroying the universe


This.
 
2012-07-29 07:16:40 PM

Makh: I'll be roughly 6 billion years old when that happens. I'm sure I'll be pretty chill.


It goes quicker than you think. Your first billion years it feels like you have all the time in the universe.
 
2012-07-29 07:19:01 PM

SevenizGud: Roook: It's all the greenhouse gasses causing global warming and destroying the universe

This.


triangulations.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-29 07:19:52 PM

Makh: I'll be roughly 6 billion years old when that happens. I'm sure I'll be pretty chill.


You aren't going to be born for another 10.7 billion years? Wow, what's life like in the future? Have they fixed the Republican Party yet?
 
2012-07-29 07:27:33 PM
Matthew 24:35: The heavens and the Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away

So at least there'll be something.
 
2012-07-29 07:43:38 PM
I would think that at some point in the vast expanses between superclusters grows so large that our current universe could fit inside it, the force would be great enough to overcome the attractive forces between the matter/antimatter pairs that spring into existence, and new big bangs take place. They are unable to observe anything of the pre-existing universe because the quark-gluon plasma phase of the new big bang is opaque to all light and radiation. Our universe is probably much bigger and much older than we could imagine and our big bang is just one of many that happen recursively all over the universe.

/I offer no evidence to support this. It merely amuses me to believe that our existence isn't finite.
 
2012-07-29 07:44:20 PM
It's God's punishment for tolerating homosexuals.
 
2012-07-29 07:53:45 PM
I blame the Big Bang going off prematurely.
 
2012-07-29 08:18:01 PM
I am much more in favor of this ending than the heat-death one. It's been a great universe, it should go out with a bang not a whimper.
 
2012-07-29 08:20:22 PM

meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.

You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.

Pluto Not Even Biggest 'Dwarf Planet' Any More, Thanks For Nothing W


The whole Pluto thing STILL bothers me... I still don't understand how you retroactively set standards when they already exist. If they had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, that would make sense. I guess that's what happens when a rocket scientist like Dubya is in charge of things. ;-)
 
2012-07-29 08:40:32 PM
could this be prevented by changing the universe's cosmological constant?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 08:45:50 PM
Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?
 
2012-07-29 08:48:13 PM
Clearly, something of this magnitude could only have been brought about by the global Zionist conspiracy working hand in hand with the Illuminati.
 
2012-07-29 08:58:41 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?


So atheists wonder why people are religious. You just gave that very reason. Faith gives reason to believe that everything doesn't simply end one day, leaving every action and event as a meaningless occurrence in a no longer existent universe. If there is no God, it doesn't matter whether anyone believes or not since it'll all be for naught anyway, but if there is, at least there is hope.

/I know, I know.
//The popcorn must already be coming out.
 
2012-07-29 09:02:35 PM
F*cking republicans and their inability to spend money on infrastructure...
 
2012-07-29 09:03:52 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?


What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.
 
2012-07-29 09:04:18 PM
Dark matter?


Everybody knows the jews are going to do it.
 
2012-07-29 09:07:30 PM

Mikey1969: meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.

You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.

Pluto Not Even Biggest 'Dwarf Planet' Any More, Thanks For Nothing W

The whole Pluto thing STILL bothers me... I still don't understand how you retroactively set standards when they already exist. If they had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, that would make sense. I guess that's what happens when a rocket scientist like Dubya is in charge of things. ;-)




The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.
 
2012-07-29 09:08:43 PM
Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.
 
2012-07-29 09:12:36 PM
I am so glad I found this out! I was all set to pre-order tickets for the 16,700,002,012 Olympics.
 
2012-07-29 09:17:30 PM

maddan: I am so glad I found this out! I was all set to pre-order tickets for the 16,700,002,012 Olympics.


Yeah, the only event will be the elementary particle at -273C walk. Probably be pretty dull.
 
2012-07-29 09:18:27 PM
Well I'm rather certain I won't be alive then unless it turns out I'm one of those Highlander immortals, so my give a damn is busted.
 
2012-07-29 09:22:00 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Dark matter?


Everybody knows the jews are going to do it.


The Jew Matter is just using the Dark Matter as it's muscle.
 
2012-07-29 09:32:19 PM

PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.


And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...
 
2012-07-29 09:35:42 PM
Universe, how quaint. All the hipster scientists are working on multiverse theories.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:24 PM
Kitty not gonna be here. Kitty gonna pick up n go to 'nother universe next door.
 
2012-07-29 09:46:59 PM
The smart money is on my liver, and the under.
 
2012-07-29 09:50:13 PM
One day after the extended warranty runs out. What are they saying on Consumerist?
 
2012-07-29 09:52:28 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.


i47.tinypic.com

All we are is dust in the wind, dude.
 
2012-07-29 09:57:57 PM
static.thecia.com.au
Don't worry, they're... dammit!
Only 15 minutes late, still improving.

kbronsito: could this be prevented by changing the universe's cosmological constant?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 692x530]

 
2012-07-29 10:07:15 PM
That infinite dark energy is just going to rip out a few of those curled-up dimensions from m-theory and it will be the next big bang. Then we get a new universe, with maybe some different rules this time.
 
2012-07-29 10:08:36 PM

Virtuoso80: Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.


The way I think about it is to try to recall everything that happened to me before I was born, which is, unsurprisingly, nothing. Then I realize that that is the exact situation I'm going back into after I die. The first was painlessly unfathomable, and so will the second be.
 
2012-07-29 10:23:46 PM

Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...


A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects).

Of course, if someone discovers a Neptune-sized TNO in an eccentric orbit, they'll have to change the definition again, unless nobody complains about a "dwarf planet" many times larger than Earth.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:50 PM

vogonity: I don't know where you guys will be that night, but I'll be partying with Hotblack Desiato at Milliways.


The Prophet Zarquon and I will be waiting for you.
 
2012-07-29 11:01:15 PM
I've seen something similar to this already.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-29 11:03:23 PM
I'm growing a goatee, perhaps I can sneak into the evil universe.
 
2012-07-29 11:06:03 PM
I want to know what happens when the quarks in protons and neutrons are forced apart. This will require giving them more mass than they have confined in particles. Do the Laws of Thermodynamics suddenly go out the window?
 
2012-07-29 11:07:32 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....


If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:30 PM

Mikey1969: Makh: I'll be roughly 6 billion years old when that happens. I'm sure I'll be pretty chill.

You aren't going to be born for another 10.7 billion years? Wow, what's life like in the future? Have they fixed the Republican Party yet?


No, I picked the short straw so they sent me back here. It's not going so well.
 
2012-07-29 11:16:23 PM

the cake is a pie: common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.


Actually Pluto and Neptune will never get closer than about a billion miles from each other. Pluto has an orbit "above" Neptune's on the plane of the solar system when they cross each other.
 
2012-07-29 11:21:48 PM
Seriously? Was I the only one who thought that a percentage preceding "sooner" should be >100% if the speed at which it is arriving is greater than previously thought?
In my mind 75% sooner is (speed) * 0.75, so... slower.
In the same way that, if you replaced "sooner" with "quicker / faster" that it would be the same.
 
2012-07-29 11:22:17 PM
I've heard this before....

There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
What?
Don't cross the streams.
Why?
It would be bad.
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Total protonic reversal.
Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:22 PM

kbronsito: could this be prevented by changing the universe's cosmological constant?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 692x530]


came here for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-29 11:48:32 PM
us9.memecdn.com

/hot, unlike heat death
 
2012-07-30 12:07:03 AM
fc05.deviantart.net
/oblig
 
2012-07-30 12:11:09 AM
I think I know the culprit.

mlkshk.com
 
2012-07-30 12:25:13 AM
Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.
 
2012-07-30 12:27:52 AM

Psychohazard: I've seen something similar to this already.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Well, it won't look like that or any of the images in TFA. Identifiable objects will lose their discrete cohesion uniformly and all at once, not break apart like broken eggs. It won't even be visible, because by that point light itself will disperse evenly in all directions at once at the same speed, making it impossible to see anything as it's coming apart. Never mind that your eyes, brain, and central nervous system -- your body and consciousness -- will be doing the same thing by that point. Everything, including time itself, will simply cease to be.
 
2012-07-30 12:28:21 AM
Wake up, Donnie.
 
2012-07-30 12:30:30 AM
pbfcomics.com
 
2012-07-30 12:41:45 AM

the cake is a pie: common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.


No. For a few reasons. First, Pluto is not a resident of Neptune's orbit, but a transient object that only crosses it from time to time. If that disqualifies Neptune, then the asteroids that cross our orbit disqualify us, and they clearly don't. Second, a planet does not need to clear its orbit. And a good thing, too, because no planet has a completely clean orbit, including ours. Under IAU rules, a planet only needs to be the dominant object in its immediate neighbourhood. Even if Pluto was a resident of Neptune's orbit, Neptune is many times larger: if Pluto got too close, Neptune's tidal forces would tear it apart. There remains some disagreement over particulars in scientific circles, but generally, a planet is the boss of its orbit and all other objects therein phear it. Trans-orbital objects, in and of themselves, do not disqualify planets; if they did, Jupiter, Earth, and Mars would also not qualify.
 
2012-07-30 12:44:02 AM

torusXL: Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.


I was thinking about that story through this whole thread, but couldn't remember enough to track it down. Thanks!
 
2012-07-30 12:46:46 AM
Previous estimates using a similar value had suggested that the Big Rip wouldn't happen until about 20-22 billion years from now, but after developing and applying a new technique, a Chinese team led by Zhang Xin and Li Miao are suggesting it could happen as early as 16.7 billion years from now

farking math: how does it work?

/16.7 is 75% of 22, not 75% less, you 'tard
 
2012-07-30 12:53:03 AM
If I had been 12 years old when I read this article, I wouldn't have slept well for a month. Jeez
 
2012-07-30 12:54:19 AM
Will there be a restaurant?
 
2012-07-30 01:13:41 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: torusXL: Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.

I was thinking about that story through this whole thread, but couldn't remember enough to track it down. Thanks!


It gives me chills and an ominous feeling every single time I read it.
 
2012-07-30 01:25:41 AM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


www.examiner.com
 
2012-07-30 01:33:49 AM
The Universe is doomed and nothing we can do can change it. Ultimately, we have no future as a species.

Luckily, we will have wiped ourselves out (or been wiped out) long before then.
 
2012-07-30 01:54:20 AM
static.ddmcdn.com, www.xtimeline.com. static.ddmcdn.com
 
2012-07-30 01:57:19 AM
I blame France... it is responsible for every disaster humanity has had to suffer ever since it thought it was a pretty neat idea to support terrorists and create a corporate based Junta in the former British Colony of Virginia against the wishes of the majority of the population. and look what it created.
It is possible to pin two world wars and vietnam on the French not to mention some dire cooking. I am fairly sure they are behind the universe ending, probably as a punishment for Monty Python taking the piss out of their accents.
 
2012-07-30 02:15:14 AM

Omnivorous: Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.


Actually, it appears that when He created the universe 6,000 years ago, he used a 24-bit integer variable to store the year value in the Matrix's mainframe. N00b programming error.
 
2012-07-30 03:07:56 AM

the cake is a pie: common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.


Not only is Neptune much larger than Pluto, but the two are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. Neptune's orbit is directly affecting that of Pluto, so even if its orbit isn't exactly "cleared," it's still obviously the dominant mass in that orbit. This may seem like a loophole, but it's legitimate. A planet clears its orbit by gravitational deflection of any smaller objects, and a deflection (or capture) into a stable resonant orbit eliminates any chance of collision. Despite Pluto's orbit appearing to cross that of Neptune, the two objects remain billions of miles apart, and in that sense Neptune's orbit is indeed "clear."
 
2012-07-30 03:48:16 AM

Dinjiin: Omnivorous: Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.

Actually, it appears that when He created the universe 6,000 years ago, he used a 24-bit integer variable to store the year value in the Matrix's mainframe. N00b programming error.


"16 billion years is enough for anybody." -- God
 
2012-07-30 04:32:24 AM

Clowns are a Ten: ... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?


Well, time is part of this universe, so when the universe goes, so does time. There won't be any "afterwards."

OTOH... This "ripping itself apart" thing sounds a bit like a big bang. Maybe it's the beginning of a new universe? I'd prefer that to heat death, which is entirely depressing.
 
2012-07-30 05:01:56 AM

buckler: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7239209/78379948#c78379948" target="_blank">Virtuoso80</a>:</b> <i>Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.</i>

The way I think about it is to try to recall everything that happened to me before I was born, which is, unsurprisingly, nothing. Then I realize that that is the exact situation I'm going back into after I die. The first was painlessly unfathomable, and so will the second be.


It's the only way to look at it. There really is no point. Even if the some form of life was able to escape the final apocalypse it would still be pointless to exist. Just think how boring rehashed stories are now and imagine what they will be like in a few billion years.

There will be nothing left to do because everything will have been done.
 
2012-07-30 05:16:02 AM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing?


Nope.
 
2012-07-30 05:33:19 AM

Virtuoso80: Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.


It's not so much me not existing, but any traces of me, or my ancestors, my descendants, history, art. farking... EVERYTHING.

And what I meant by "What comes after the universe" was supposed to be taken literally. As in, what kind of "existence" would there be? Would particles, atoms, and the such, still be around? Anything resembling physics? Or just an endless expanse of blank? Will everything just set up again for another big bang?

/science stuff always goes over my head.
 
2012-07-30 05:42:14 AM

Clowns are a Ten: Virtuoso80: Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.

It's not so much me not existing, but any traces of me, or my ancestors, my descendants, history, art. farking... EVERYTHING.

And what I meant by "What comes after the universe" was supposed to be taken literally. As in, what kind of "existence" would there be? Would particles, atoms, and the such, still be around? Anything resembling physics? Or just an endless expanse of blank? Will everything just set up again for another big bang?

/science stuff always goes over my head.


The notion is that the universe will continue to expand and burn out. Galaxies will come apart, then stars, and eventually even atoms won't stay together. Basically just a really thin cloud of low-energy elementary particles.
 
2012-07-30 06:54:41 AM
FTFA: The discovery of a gravitationally repulsive force called dark energy, back in the 1990s, provided cosmologists with a neat and tidy explanation of why galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. A surprising implication of this theory, however, was the realization that this same force could eventually cause the Universe to rip apart into nothingness. And the more we learn about this mysterious force, the sooner it looks like this will happen.

Dark energy is a kind of cosmological placeholder that helps scientists explain why the universe behaves the way it does. They aren't exactly sure how or why it exists, nor can they come to a consensus on its exact nature.


Of course I am just an idiot but if the "Big Bang" was an explosion and the "dark energy" is the force which propels the galaxies to move away from each other and the expansion of the universe, wouldn't the best explanation for "dark energy" be the explosive outward force from the big bang? Any explosion expands outwards until it rips itself apart as it releases the energy contained in it and that seems to be the predicted behavior of the universe.
 
2012-07-30 07:30:43 AM
Wait...I thought Dark Energy was the energy keeping galaxies from flying apart. Can't have it both ways

/or maybe you can at the quantum level
 
2012-07-30 07:31:59 AM

heavymetal: FTFA: The discovery of a gravitationally repulsive force called dark energy, back in the 1990s, provided cosmologists with a neat and tidy explanation of why galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. A surprising implication of this theory, however, was the realization that this same force could eventually cause the Universe to rip apart into nothingness. And the more we learn about this mysterious force, the sooner it looks like this will happen.

Dark energy is a kind of cosmological placeholder that helps scientists explain why the universe behaves the way it does. They aren't exactly sure how or why it exists, nor can they come to a consensus on its exact nature.

Of course I am just an idiot but if the "Big Bang" was an explosion and the "dark energy" is the force which propels the galaxies to move away from each other and the expansion of the universe, wouldn't the best explanation for "dark energy" be the explosive outward force from the big bang? Any explosion expands outwards until it rips itself apart as it releases the energy contained in it and that seems to be the predicted behavior of the universe.


My understanding is that, unlike an explosion, the speed at which things are moving apart is accelerating
 
2012-07-30 07:33:56 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Mugato: But the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. Seems kind of lopsided.

Are you saying God can't destroy the universe before He creates it??

HEATHEN!!!


Without beginning and without end if I remember by Sunday school correctly
 
2012-07-30 07:51:20 AM

relaxitsjustme: heavymetal: FTFA: The discovery of a gravitationally repulsive force called dark energy, back in the 1990s, provided cosmologists with a neat and tidy explanation of why galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. A surprising implication of this theory, however, was the realization that this same force could eventually cause the Universe to rip apart into nothingness. And the more we learn about this mysterious force, the sooner it looks like this will happen.

Dark energy is a kind of cosmological placeholder that helps scientists explain why the universe behaves the way it does. They aren't exactly sure how or why it exists, nor can they come to a consensus on its exact nature.

Of course I am just an idiot but if the "Big Bang" was an explosion and the "dark energy" is the force which propels the galaxies to move away from each other and the expansion of the universe, wouldn't the best explanation for "dark energy" be the explosive outward force from the big bang? Any explosion expands outwards until it rips itself apart as it releases the energy contained in it and that seems to be the predicted behavior of the universe.

My understanding is that, unlike an explosion, the speed at which things are moving apart is accelerating


Maybe we are still at the beginning part of the explosion on its time scale? I don't know, just grasping at straws. Good point.
 
2012-07-30 08:25:06 AM
So, the Rhana Dandra happens on a 2+?
 
2012-07-30 09:11:25 AM
Theory Of Null: buckler: Clowns are a Ten: ...

There are some things in life that I would've been much happier had I never known about, like teletubbies, fursuits, scat, and purposelessness on a cosmological scale.

Surely there is more peace in self-deception than in knowledge.
 
2012-07-30 09:40:43 AM
I blame this guy and his socialized medicine

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-30 09:48:45 AM

Kittypie070: Kitty not gonna be here. Kitty gonna pick up n go to 'nother universe next door.


That's what some of us are already looking into.
 
2012-07-30 10:09:24 AM

relaxitsjustme: Wait...I thought Dark Energy was the energy keeping galaxies from flying apart. Can't have it both ways

/or maybe you can at the quantum level


Dark matter holds galaxies together. Dark energy is making everything expand. They are two different things.
 
2012-07-30 10:21:46 AM

John Nash: That infinite dark energy is just going to rip out a few of those curled-up dimensions from m-theory and it will be the next big bang. Then we get a new universe, with maybe some different rules this time.


1. No fat chicks.
 
2012-07-30 10:32:39 AM

nmemkha: The Universe is doomed and nothing we can do can change it. Ultimately, we have no future as a species.

Luckily, we will have wiped ourselves out (or been wiped out) long before then.


I'm re-reading The Man Who Fell to Earth right now, so getting a kick, etc.

I don't say it much, mostly because it's pretty pointless to do so, but I often feel that The Great Experiment is proving itself a failure. And I mean that on pretty much any level anyone might suggest. America, the great democratic melting pot, hope for equality, liberty, and the great emancipation of the human spirit? Failure. Just look around you. Religious nutbags are writing laws against free-thinkers, replaying *exactly* the scenario the Framers were trying desperately to prevent from ever happening again. Once those nutters are back in charge, the game is lost for good. Humans, the great apes who rose up from functional idiocy, gained abstract thought, vast imagination, dexterity, and limitless capability to change the world, change themselves, dismantle the very secrets of the very universe itself, perhaps even learn to cheat death? Failure. Look around you. How many humans do you see aspiring to greatness, to betterment, to discover the extremes of their own capabilities, on every level -- mental, spiritual, philosophical, and emotional, not merely physical? As Heinlein said, most of them could, like the famous headless chicken, get by with just a brain stem. Just look at the majority of content that appears here, in the comments on YouTube, or hell, anywhere. But for a very pockets of real intelligence, and a vanishing few bright tiny diamonds in the rough, the Internet is a vast cesspool of ignorance, apathy, and idiocy. And this probably represents the apex of human intercourse -- the rest is even worse. A failure of evolution, like so many other hominids that have fallen by the wayside over the aeons? Or a failure of God's hope and maybe hubris, to see if a thinking being could achieve greatness if handed the tools, but not the map? Does it even matter?

Sagan tried very hard to get across that if we don't make it off this speck of cosmic dust, we can not and will not survive as a species. The earth as a planet is too small, too limited, too vulnerable. But we're not even trying anymore. We have everything we need do to it, but we're not even making the effort. Instead, we wallow gloriously in our ignorance and arrogance, going out of our way to hurt and insult each other, steal from each other, and generally, like remarkably stupid apes in a tiny zoo, smear our wastes over everything we need to survive -- including our most vital resource of all, knowledge -- all in the assumption that it will somehow be alright in the end. But it probably won't be, because we're not working for real solutions, only temporary advantages, like people fighting over the last bottle of champagne on the Titanic.

And I have to laugh -- albeit sadly -- at those who moon about sad TFA makes them, how they feel that having faith gives them hope, a greater hope than considering the ultimate and inevitable shredding of all reality that they know. How farking childish is that? The universe isn't interested in anyone's happiness. Why should it be? Could we escape this fate? Probably not. Will we even survive to see it? Probably not. So it hardly matters what we might think of it, how we might feel about it. We could instead express wonder at the vast majesty of the universe, of the awesome and confounding power of its natural laws. We could ponder our place in it, with all the extreme and intense humility that implies, and dedicate ourselves to making the best of it, to learn what we can, enjoy what we can, be happy, and not create problems we don't have to. But instead we think about how sad it makes us that one day there will no longer be any such thing as a Big Mac. How farking pathetic.
 
2012-07-30 10:50:37 AM

heavymetal: FTFA: The discovery of a gravitationally repulsive force called dark energy, back in the 1990s, provided cosmologists with a neat and tidy explanation of why galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. A surprising implication of this theory, however, was the realization that this same force could eventually cause the Universe to rip apart into nothingness. And the more we learn about this mysterious force, the sooner it looks like this will happen.

Dark energy is a kind of cosmological placeholder that helps scientists explain why the universe behaves the way it does. They aren't exactly sure how or why it exists, nor can they come to a consensus on its exact nature.

Of course I am just an idiot but if the "Big Bang" was an explosion and the "dark energy" is the force which propels the galaxies to move away from each other and the expansion of the universe, wouldn't the best explanation for "dark energy" be the explosive outward force from the big bang? Any explosion expands outwards until it rips itself apart as it releases the energy contained in it and that seems to be the predicted behavior of the universe.


We've known that the universe is expanding for decades now. What we only recently discovered is that the *rate* of expansion is *increasing* -- the universe isn't just getting bigger, it's getting bigger faster and faster. That is absolutely not how any explosions that we understand work. We don't know why this is happening, but the implications are staggering. In time, the rate of expansion will approach and finally exceed the speed of light itself, and that will be the real beginning of the Big Rip. The first obvious indication will be visible objects starting to disappear from the sky, as their light can no longer travel fast enough to reach us, due to the rate of expansion of the space in between. More and more of the sky will vanish, until we're only able to see other galaxies in our local neighbourhood. And here's the really astounding fact of that eventuality: We not only won't be able to see those other things, we won't even be able to know that they ever existed, because they and all evidence of their existence will be completely undetectable. A few billion more years after that, even the nearby galaxies vanish. Then, finally, our own galaxy comes apart, our solar system, our planet, and whatever's living here by then, if anything is.
 
2012-07-30 10:51:14 AM

Dinjiin: Omnivorous: Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.

Actually, it appears that when He created the universe 6,000 years ago, he used a 24-bit integer variable to store the year value in the Matrix's mainframe. N00b programming error.


I was working on a joke regarding the scripture that says "1000 years is as a day" but it didn't come together as planned. Instead, I'll simply point out that 16.7 *million* is the largest number you can store with an unsigned 24-bit integer.
 
2012-07-30 10:57:17 AM

relaxitsjustme: Wait...I thought Dark Energy was the energy keeping galaxies from flying apart. Can't have it both ways

/or maybe you can at the quantum level


No, that's dark *matter*. Dark matter is an unknown and so far undetectable substance or force that behaves like common matter, in that it provides additional gravity we can't account for when we add up all the matter we can see and watch how it behaves. Imagine if a tiny kid did a cannonball into a pool, but the resulting splash was like a truck had fallen in instead. That's essentially what 'dark matter' is: the unknown factor that must exist in order to account for the observed size of physical effects caused by apparently much smaller amounts of detectable matter.

Dark energy is a similarly unknown and so far undetected force, that fills the mathematical gap in our observations of the expansion of the universe. Whatever it is provides a kind of antigravitational effect that drives everything in the universe apart. Given long enough, if it continues to accelerate, it will eventually tear all matter apart down to the subatomic level.
 
2012-07-30 10:59:47 AM

heavymetal: relaxitsjustme: heavymetal: FTFA: The discovery of a gravitationally repulsive force called dark energy, back in the 1990s, provided cosmologists with a neat and tidy explanation of why galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. A surprising implication of this theory, however, was the realization that this same force could eventually cause the Universe to rip apart into nothingness. And the more we learn about this mysterious force, the sooner it looks like this will happen.

Dark energy is a kind of cosmological placeholder that helps scientists explain why the universe behaves the way it does. They aren't exactly sure how or why it exists, nor can they come to a consensus on its exact nature.

Of course I am just an idiot but if the "Big Bang" was an explosion and the "dark energy" is the force which propels the galaxies to move away from each other and the expansion of the universe, wouldn't the best explanation for "dark energy" be the explosive outward force from the big bang? Any explosion expands outwards until it rips itself apart as it releases the energy contained in it and that seems to be the predicted behavior of the universe.

My understanding is that, unlike an explosion, the speed at which things are moving apart is accelerating

Maybe we are still at the beginning part of the explosion on its time scale? I don't know, just grasping at straws. Good point.


If I understand TFA correctly -- and I won't presume that I do -- if we can plot this rate of expansion, we can estimate both a zero point of no expansion -- the beginning of spacetime as we know it -- and an infinity point -- the end of everything as we know it. Based on that, we estimate that we're about halfway along about now. Again, though, I don't presume I'm making complete sense of this yet.
 
2012-07-30 11:03:01 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Sagan tried very hard to get across that if we don't make it off this speck of cosmic dust, we can not and will not survive as a species. The earth as a planet is too small, too limited, too vulnerable. But we're not even trying anymore. We have everything we need do to it, but we're not even making the effort. Instead, we wallow gloriously in our ignorance and arrogance, going out of our way to hurt and insult each other, steal from each other, and generally, like remarkably stupid apes in a tiny zoo, smear our wastes over everything we need to survive -- including our most vital resource of all, knowledge -- all in the assumption that it will somehow be alright in the end. But it probably won't be, because we're not working for real solutions, only temporary advantages, like people fighting over the last bottle of champagne on the Titanic.


Ever try explaining that to an old money politician? The one's I've talked to, the end of the world is beyond their comprehension. Hell, Hurricane Katrina was beyond their comprehension. But then again, impending doom seems to work really well for these guys.
 
2012-07-30 11:04:05 AM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.


Welcome to the universe. Your existence was never relevant.
 
2012-07-30 11:12:23 AM
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj222/bighasbeen/Funny/black_presid ent.jpg
 
2012-07-30 11:13:20 AM
Oops...

i273.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-30 11:48:00 AM
16.7 Billion Years from Now?? I better get my affairs in order and start living right.
 
2012-07-30 12:03:22 PM

babtras: I'll simply point out that 16.7 *million*


D'oh. I read it as million.
 
2012-07-30 12:05:53 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: The Universe is doomed and nothing we can do can change it. Ultimately, we have no future as a species.

Luckily, we will have wiped ourselves out (or been wiped out) long before then.

I'm re-reading The Man Who Fell to Earth right now, so getting a kick, etc.

I don't say it much, mostly because it's pretty pointless to do so, but I often feel that The Great Experiment is proving itself a failure. And I mean that on pretty much any level anyone might suggest. America, the great democratic melting pot, hope for equality, liberty, and the great emancipation of the human spirit? Failure. Just look around you. Religious nutbags are writing laws against free-thinkers, replaying *exactly* the scenario the Framers were trying desperately to prevent from ever happening again. Once those nutters are back in charge, the game is lost for good. Humans, the great apes who rose up from functional idiocy, gained abstract thought, vast imagination, dexterity, and limitless capability to change the world, change themselves, dismantle the very secrets of the very universe itself, perhaps even learn to cheat death? Failure. Look around you. How many humans do you see aspiring to greatness, to betterment, to discover the extremes of their own capabilities, on every level -- mental, spiritual, philosophical, and emotional, not merely physical? As Heinlein said, most of them could, like the famous headless chicken, get by with just a brain stem. Just look at the majority of content that appears here, in the comments on YouTube, or hell, anywhere. But for a very pockets of real intelligence, and a vanishing few bright tiny diamonds in the rough, the Internet is a vast cesspool of ignorance, apathy, and idiocy. And this probably represents the apex of human intercourse -- the rest is even worse. A failure of evolution, like so many other hominids that have fallen by the wayside over the aeons? Or a failure of God's hope and maybe hubris, to see if a thinking being could achieve ...


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
 
2012-07-30 12:52:39 PM
Subby, next time put 'SPOILER ALERT' in the headline. I wanted to be surprised when the universe tore itself apart, and now you've ruined it for me. Jerk.
 
2012-07-30 01:40:14 PM
Don't panic. Vishnu will keep creating Brahmas, and they will keep creating universes.
 
2012-07-30 02:16:59 PM
Seeing as how I plan to live forever encased in an unaging, robot body, this is VERY relevant to my interests!
 
2012-07-30 04:24:26 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: The Universe is doomed and nothing we can do can change it. Ultimately, we have no future as a species.

Luckily, we will have wiped ourselves out (or been wiped out) long before then.

I'm re-reading The Man Who Fell to Earth right now, so getting a kick, etc.

I don't say it much, mostly because it's pretty pointless to do so, but I often feel that The Great Experiment is proving itself a failure. And I mean that on pretty much any level anyone might suggest. America, the great democratic melting pot, hope for equality, liberty, and the great emancipation of the human spirit? Failure. Just look around you. Religious nutbags are writing laws against free-thinkers, replaying *exactly* the scenario the Framers were trying desperately to prevent from ever happening again. Once those nutters are back in charge, the game is lost for good. Humans, the great apes who rose up from functional idiocy, gained abstract thought, vast imagination, dexterity, and limitless capability to change the world, change themselves, dismantle the very secrets of the very universe itself, perhaps even learn to cheat death? Failure. Look around you. How many humans do you see aspiring to greatness, to betterment, to discover the extremes of their own capabilities, on every level -- mental, spiritual, philosophical, and emotional, not merely physical? As Heinlein said, most of them could, like the famous headless chicken, get by with just a brain stem. Just look at the majority of content that appears here, in the comments on YouTube, or hell, anywhere. But for a very pockets of real intelligence, and a vanishing few bright tiny diamonds in the rough, the Internet is a vast cesspool of ignorance, apathy, and idiocy. And this probably represents the apex of human intercourse -- the rest is even worse. A failure of evolution, like so many other hominids that have fallen by the wayside over the aeons? Or a failure of God's hope and maybe hubris, to see if a thinking being could achieve ...


Take a look at history and has been the cycle of human development since the beginning. Maybe we humans are like the Moties in a Mote In God's Eye: its just our nature to build it all up, corrupt it, and then burn it all down.
 
2012-07-30 05:43:29 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...

A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune)--


By the same logic, doesn't Part 3 also exclude Neptune?
 
2012-07-30 06:03:00 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out?


Don't worry about it. When and if the universe is "wiped out," there's no sense in which it ever happened at all.

Focus on the depressing in-universe stuff. Chances are good that a few of the atoms in your body used to belong to members of one or more intelligent species who lived on planets that orbited around suns that went nova billions of years ago. I like to imagine that they met their fate bravely, never troubled by the horrifying thought that their atoms might once again "live" in the form of a bunch of smelly dickbag monkeys like us.
 
2012-07-30 06:29:01 PM

Rueened: common sense is an oxymoron: Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...

A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune)--

By the same logic, doesn't Part 3 also exclude Neptune?


From upthread: Not only is Neptune much larger than Pluto, but the two are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. Neptune's orbit is directly affecting that of Pluto, so even if its orbit isn't exactly "cleared," it's still obviously the dominant mass in that orbit. This may seem like a loophole, but it's legitimate. A planet clears its orbit by gravitational deflection of any smaller objects, and a deflection (or capture) into a stable resonant orbit eliminates any chance of collision. Despite Pluto's orbit appearing to cross that of Neptune, the two objects remain billions of miles apart, and in that sense Neptune's orbit is indeed "clear."
 
2012-07-30 06:33:24 PM

nmemkha: Take a look at history and has been the cycle of human development since the beginning. Maybe we humans are like the Moties in a Mote In God's Eye: its just our nature to build it all up, corrupt it, and then burn it all down.


Now there's a depressing thought. We certainly have enough Crazy Eddies helping things along.
 
2012-07-30 06:39:23 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Rueened: common sense is an oxymoron: Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...

A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune)--

By the same logic, doesn't Part 3 also exclude Neptune?

From upthread: Not only is Neptune much larger than Pluto, but the two are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. Neptune's orbit is directly affecting that of Pluto, so even if its orbit isn't exactly "cleared," it's still obviously the dominant mass in that orbit. This may seem like a loophole, but it's ...


Ah...

That is very interesting.

Thanks for the info, appreciated.
 
2012-07-30 06:40:13 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Rueened: common sense is an oxymoron: Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...

A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune)--

By the same logic, doesn't Part 3 also exclude Neptune?

From upthread: Not only is Neptune much larger than Pluto, but the two are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. Neptune's orbit is directly affecting that of Pluto, so even if its orbit isn't exactly "cleared," it's still obviously the dominant mass in that orbit. This may seem like a loophole, but it's ...


Also, I should have mentioned that it's still Obama's fault.
 
2012-07-30 07:10:27 PM

semiotix: Focus on the depressing in-universe stuff. Chances are good that a few of the atoms in your body used to belong to members of one or more intelligent species who lived on planets that orbited around suns that went nova billions of years ago. I like to imagine that they met their fate bravely, never troubled by the horrifying thought that their atoms might once again "live" in the form of a bunch of smelly dickbag monkeys like us.


Hey now...speak for yourself. I prefer the term smelly yambag monkey, thank you very much.
 
2012-07-30 07:23:37 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I don't say it much, mostly because it's pretty pointless to do so, but I often feel that The Great Experiment is proving itself a failure. And I mean that on pretty much any level anyone might suggest. America, the great democratic melting pot, hope for equality, liberty, and the great emancipation of the human spirit? Failure. Just look around you. Religious nutbags are writing laws against free-thinkers, replaying *exactly* the scenario the Framers were trying desperately to prevent from ever happening again. Once those nutters are back in charge, the game is lost for good. Humans, the great apes who rose up from functional idiocy, gained abstract thought, vast imagination, dexterity, and limitless capability to change the world, change themselves, dismantle the very secrets of the very universe itself, perhaps even learn to cheat death? Failure. Look around you. How many humans do you see aspiring to greatness, to betterment, to discover the extremes of their own capabilities, on every level -- mental, spiritual, philosophical, and emotional, not merely physical? As Heinlein said, most of them could, like the famous headless chicken, get by with just a brain stem. Just look at the majority of content that appears here, in the comments on YouTube, or hell, anywhere. But for a very pockets of real intelligence, and a vanishing few bright tiny diamonds in the rough, the Internet is a vast cesspool of ignorance, apathy, and idiocy. And this probably represents the apex of human intercourse -- the rest is even worse. A failure of evolution, like so many other hominids that have fallen by the wayside over the aeons? Or a failure of God's hope and maybe hubris, to see if a thinking being could achieve greatness if handed the tools, but not the map? Does it even matter?

Sagan tried very hard to get across that if we don't make it off this speck of cosmic dust, we can not and will not survive as a species. The earth as a planet is too small, too limited, too vulnerable. But we're not even trying anymore. We have everything we need do to it, but we're not even making the effort. Instead, we wallow gloriously in our ignorance and arrogance, going out of our way to hurt and insult each other, steal from each other, and generally, like remarkably stupid apes in a tiny zoo, smear our wastes over everything we need to survive -- including our most vital resource of all, knowledge -- all in the assumption that it will somehow be alright in the end. But it probably won't be, because we're not working for real solutions, only temporary advantages, like people fighting over the last bottle of champagne on the Titanic.

And I have to laugh -- albeit sadly -- at those who moon about sad TFA makes them, how they feel that having faith gives them hope, a greater hope than considering the ultimate and inevitable shredding of all reality that they know. How farking childish is that? The universe isn't interested in anyone's happiness. Why should it be? Could we escape this fate? Probably not. Will we even survive to see it? Probably not. So it hardly matters what we might think of it, how we might feel about it. We could instead express wonder at the vast majesty of the universe, of the awesome and confounding power of its natural laws. We could ponder our place in it, with all the extreme and intense humility that implies, and dedicate ourselves to making the best of it, to learn what we can, enjoy what we can, be happy, and not create problems we don't have to. But instead we think about how sad it makes us that one day there will no longer be any such thing as a Big Mac. How farking pathetic.


Ha! What a moran, you said 'moon' where you clearly meant 'moan'

Just kidding :) I get what you are saying but I wouldn't be too hard on the common man for not aspiring to greatness. For the most part they are pretty average human beings. Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them ~ Henry David Thoreau. What Thoreau failed to mention is that circumstance dictates. By that I mean it would be wonderful to throw off the bonds of the day to day but unfortunately for the average man the day to day is not so easily cast aside. That and there are no great unknowns anymore. Little more than a couple hundred years ago a person could ride or sail off into the sunset to see what lies beyond. Or with nothing more than maybe a few tools and an inquisitive mind make a small or great discovery. Now all those frontiers have been pushed to the point that we need to build multimillion (or billion) dollar machines run by people who have studied in their particular field for years to make the next discovery.

The willful ignorance, pettiness and fighting is less easy to justify but is as much a part of our as the beautiful side. The world would be a better place if we could get beyond that. I don't see it happening but I'm not going to sweep all of mankind into the useless bin on account of it.
 
2012-07-30 07:46:24 PM
People people, Futurama already covered this. Everything repeats
 
2012-07-30 08:03:59 PM
DAMN ! I guess I better start painting the garage like tomorrow.
 
2012-07-30 08:11:03 PM

Rueened: Also, I should have mentioned that it's still Obama's fault.


He does give that time machine a workout, doesn't he?
 
2012-07-30 09:09:26 PM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


and yet, Romney still retroactively will blame Obama for the future collapse of the universe...
 
2012-07-30 09:40:41 PM
SILENCE WILL FALL

eventually.
 
2012-07-30 09:58:48 PM
On the other hand...

Does anyone know where to find a Gunslinger named Roland, who is supposed to be chasing a Man in Black across a desert?

He needs to start recruiting a ka tet to save the Beam.
 
2012-07-30 10:58:57 PM
Before the big rip occurs we will have mastered time travel and went back to near the start and try again.
 
2012-07-31 02:56:31 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Sagan tried very hard to get across that if we don't make it off this speck of cosmic dust, we can not and will not survive as a species. The earth as a planet is too small, too limited, too vulnerable. But we're not even trying anymore. We have everything we need do to it, but we're not even making the effort. Instead, we wallow gloriously in our ignorance and arrogance, going out of our way to hurt and insult each other, steal from each other, and generally, like remarkably stupid apes in a tiny zoo, smear our wastes over everything we need to survive -- including our most vital resource of all, knowledge -- all in the assumption that it will somehow be alright in the end. But it probably won't be, because we're not working for real solutions, only temporary advantages, like people fighting over the last bottle of champagne on the Titanic.


Even knowing our time is limited doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense to invest heavily in manned exploration or moon bases right now. Any money and resources you spend on that is being taken away from something else, which might stifle economic growth and ultimately make us less capable of doing something in the future.

Imagine if Great Britain, in the year 1900, stopped producing and spent it's entire GDP trying to make a space canon a la Jules Verne. Would that have really put us in a better place today? Would we even have learned all that much, based on trying something with antiquated technology and understanding? Is it worth the economic and production costs? And this is only a century ago. Imagine where we'll be in the year 2300, and how silly our puny attempts at a moon base now will look to people then!

Bottom line is you can't assume the best strategy is to try to get off the planet right away. It might not make sense to even try yet.
 
2012-07-31 03:46:08 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Rueened: Also, I should have mentioned that it's still Obama's fault.

He does give that time machine a workout, doesn't he?


Just getting his (our) money's worth.
 
2012-07-31 10:46:57 AM

Handsome B. Wonderful: Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

Welcome to the universe. Your existence was never relevant.


Ha! Mortals. I'll be escaping to the closest available plane, thank you very much.
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report