-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 5013)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/grim/ - Cold, Grim & Miserable As always ideas for rules, anonymous names and better headers are always welcome, post them in the main sticky and we'll consider them.
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 497 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Eeyore 16/08/28(Sun)16:23 No. 5013 ID: e08ed7
5013

File 147239423773.jpg - (333.87KB , 2907x1486 , ngc2207_hubble_2907.jpg )

Our long term future is /grim/.


>>
Eeyore 16/08/28(Sun)16:33 No. 5014 ID: e08ed7
5014

File 147239483934.jpg - (1.14MB , 1072x708 , Ant_Nebula.jpg )

There won't always be an Earth.


>>
Eeyore 16/09/05(Mon)07:39 No. 5040 ID: fd1276
5040

File 147305394315.jpg - (378.11KB , 2225x1350 , Crabnebula-.jpg )

first, our sun will cook the earth dry.
then, the sun will explode.
after that the milky way collides with the andromeda galaxy.
we have no science for the disasters pending after that.


>>
Eeyore 16/09/27(Tue)07:54 No. 5076 ID: dcbef1

>>5040
Oh, but we do. The short of it is that everything outside the local group will recede beyond the cosmic horizon and will be forever lost. Then the local group will coalesce into a single galaxy which, after trillions of years, will eject most of its matter beyond the cosmic horizon via stellar close encounters. By this time nearly all stars in the galaxy will have burnt out, and what matter hasn't ejected will fall into the central black hole of this massive galaxy. Then, over trillions of years, all matter in the universe will eventually decay into nothingness. After that, all energy available to do work will have been used up and the universe will be dead and empty.


>>
Eeyore 16/09/30(Fri)16:50 No. 5083 ID: 75c683
5083

File 14752470264.png - (13.12KB , 500x250 , 1234567890.png )

>>5076
Hell yeah. Max entropy.


>>
Eeyore 16/09/30(Fri)19:48 No. 5085 ID: 231cf3

>>5076
I find this curious.

Considering that time should go backward as infinitely as it does forward, this should already have happened if it ever were to happen. I think this points to a different outcome, that at some point beyond maximum entropy, the unfeeling universe starts over; perhaps it has done so an infinite amout of times already. Who knows how many civilizations have risen and fallen, conquered interstellar and intergalactic space, and then utterly ceased to exist in the tide of universal mechanics.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/04(Tue)03:36 No. 5092 ID: a0c016

>>5085
That's stupid. Time extends backwards to 14 billion years ago. Everything before that is as irrelevant as it could possibly be. The sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms aren't even comprised of the same sub-sub-atomic whatevers that comprise them. It is pointless to wonder what happened before the Big Bang, anything that was is no more, any trace of what was is gone. Any trace of a trace of a trace of what was ceased to be a material concept at the heat-death of that universe, if there even was one. There is less than no way to know what happened before beyond logical models, since anything that could even be considered to resemble tangible information is gone and broken down into proto-nothingness


>>
Eeyore 16/10/08(Sat)17:42 No. 5102 ID: 528152

>>5092
>That's stupid.
To be worried about at this point in human history? Perhaps.
>Time extends backwards to 14 billion years ago.
Our theorectical model of time extends backward 14 billion years, however I cannot accept that there was a single point at which time itself originated, before which no time had ever passed as that would mean all that exists originated from non-existence, which is clearly not possible.
>Everything before that is as irrelevant as it could possibly be.
>It is pointless to wonder what happened before the Big Bang
Let's not mix up 'relativity' and 'relevance'. The implication that all that ever was of one universe ceased to be before the big bang that resulted in our existence doesn't mean it's entirely unimportant to theorize about what may have been.

It might demonstrate that the sub-sub-atomic can be deconstruted and reconstructed by a certain amount of force. The mechanics of it may help us to understand things about the fundamental building blocks of our universe, specifically how they organized into the sub-atomic particles and atoms we are aware of. Perhaps in other iterations the universe has looked much the same, or much different.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/08(Sat)19:59 No. 5105 ID: 23d3ad

>>5102
>Our theorectical model of time extends backward 14 billion years, however I cannot accept that there was a single point at which time itself originated, before which no time had ever passed as that would mean all that exists originated from non-existence, which is clearly not possible.

>before which no time had ever passed as that would mean all that exists originated from non-existence,

>which is clearly not possible.

I am not suggesting that something came from nothing, but to believe that there always was something makes no sense either... Clearly there must be an explanation as to why things "are", but not one that we have yet to be able to comprehend... Simply put "not possible" has little meaning when we aren't able to properly comprehend what came before the Universe or what came before that, etc, etc...


>>
Eeyore 16/10/09(Sun)04:16 No. 5106 ID: 66b3c2

>>5105
>when we aren't able to properly comprehend what came before
You have a point. If the possibilities are infinite--and they are--then impossibilities are included in possibilities. If, for example, all that we know exists within a closed timelike curve, there may be no distinction between the origin and the termination of the universe, which would allow us to (theoretically, and in no one's lifetime) observe the universe as an existence not originating from anything else.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/25(Tue)18:09 No. 5124 ID: 75c683

>>5102
Yeah you can accept that time originated from a single point.

The whole idea of god hinges on god being the un cased cause.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/26(Wed)21:46 No. 5127 ID: 59bce9

>>5124
I find your tone accuasatory, and unpalletable. However, as Stephen Hawking put it:
"Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?"

If only for sheer lack of proof one way or another, I wouldn't completely discount the possibility that humanity, or the planet Earth, or this particular universe, were designed by a progenitor of some sort--but I could not accept that such a progenitor could exist without its own history. It too must have come from somewhere and was not simply "there" for incalculable time before abruptly deciding to make the universe as we know it exist.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/27(Thu)00:07 No. 5128 ID: 75c683
5128

File 147751967599.jpg - (48.30KB , 480x480 , 14433014_1068266653288293_6451735458161161420_n.jpg )

>>5127
It's simple.

If you are going to say that god was the cause of existence then it is only logical to posit "What created god?"

In which case you have two choices: You can A: Say that god is an un caused cause or you can B: Say that god had a cause.

In the case of A why cannot it not logically follow that the universe is the un caused cause? Why must we assume that the universe needs a cause if the cause of the universe does not need a cause.

If you are going to opt for B then that only further begs the question "What created gods god?" So on and so forth. It's an infinite regression.

Logically the idea of God right out of the gate is doomed as god can be neither an uncaused cause or a caused cause.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/30(Sun)19:54 No. 5137 ID: 5222e3

>>5128
Well, what we know about the universe would suggest that infinite recursion is a likely path. Everything we know seems to be a small part of a larger system. Subatomic particles form into atoms, atoms form into molecules. All the phyisical things we are aware of are made of particles, waves, atoms and molecules--including life. A single-celled organsim floating in the ocean is part of a larger ecosystem that inclues algae and fish, which is part of a larger ecosystem that includes sharkes and whales, which is part of a gloal ecosystem that includes all the other ecosystems around the planet. The ecosystem, together with oceans, mountains, and sunlight create the weather patterns of the planet and the weather influences the ecosystem. The planet itself orbits a star, one of many stars in the galaxy, each in their own place orbiting the galactic core. Galaxies are distributed in a lattice structure throuought the known universe, tied one to another by strings of gravity and perhaps forces not yet fully understood.

We can't observe the superstructure of reality beyond that quite yet, but I'm sure we'll find there is one. There's always something bigger and greater than a thing, of which it is a part. If there were a progenitor from which any of this were derived, I don't think it would be any use to describe it anthropomorphologically. More likely it would be the body of a thing, itself alive, in which we are an extremely minute piece--much like the symbiotic bacteria that live in our bodies, but even smaller.


>>
Eeyore 16/10/30(Sun)20:13 No. 5140 ID: 75c683

>>5137
No actually our data tells us that it probably stops with us and or we are just part of a larger multiverse that exists infinitely. Lawrence crause did a talk on it at UCLA you can find it on yt.

At some point there has to have been a beginning and to posit god just begs more questions.

Only the biggest retards could not understand that.


>>
Eeyore 16/11/02(Wed)22:58 No. 5146 ID: 6c8392

>>5140
>and or we are
infinite recursion


>>
Eeyore 17/03/31(Fri)23:44 No. 5370 ID: d461c1

Rather be rational, high as hell, and happy._



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason