The accelerating expanding universe

Yes - in a non-teleological sense Sure, if you have a handy perpetual motion engine in your garage. Otherwise, the heat/cold-death has several 10^10... billion years to wait for your energy to run out, and then it will get you and your bubble... Only in the more speculative big-rip type ideas. But it doesn't have to in order to still win over anything you care to postulate. It has time, lots and lots of time. Time for your energy to run out. Time for your matter to decay into the basicc atoms. Time for your neutrons to decay to protons. Time for your protons to decay to pions. And then the ever accelerating expansion will scatter those final particles each into their own causally isolated volumes of space...ABE: I love this stuff, but even I was getting depressed writing that paragraph Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Actually, cavediver most recently defended your statement which others had called meaningless; sure, he pointed out why he thought you were wrong, but he also indicated that your statement was meaningful and comprehensible.And please start using a double-return between your paragraphs; they're so much easier to read when separated.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

And my friend's mother thinks that NASA never landed men on the moon. I hold you and she in similar regard What is hilarious is that you even screw up presenting his claptrap. Ah, so now you are telling me what is happening amongst my own peers. How insightful of you I'm sorry, Alfred, but you are bringing nothing but idiocy to this thread. I have little time as it is, and I prefer spending my time answering the questions of those with a genuine desire to learn, not bantering with those with a desperate desire to be right.

So is my body expanding presently? Are my atoms and the particles within them slowly moving farther apart such that my immortality is not even theoretically possible as my body is slowly ripped apart by the expansion forces of the Universe? Wait! So it's possible in a bubble? I looked up heat death, and it seems to only affect energy. But what about the expansion of matter?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

So would this be a fail fail?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

No, local forces vastly dominate any expansion (except in the Big-Rip.) But with the disintegration and decay of even your atoms into more basic partciles, there will be no molecular or atomic forces left to compete against, and the expansion of space will simply carry these non-bound particles apart. Again, matter won't expand as long as there are inter-molecular and inter-atomic forces at work (except with the Big-Rip), but these forces will vanish as the atoms decay away.Edited by cavediver, : subtitle

Yes, that's right. But it was before we discovered that the Universe's expansion is accelerating. Before that, we assumed the rate of expansion was slowing as that is what we expected from theory. With the discovery of the acceleration, the Big Crunch is sadly no more. That said, if the acceleration is driven by a dynamic field (i.e. if dark energy can vary) then it is just about possible that the acceleration could switch off, and if the matter content (dark + visible) is sufficient, then we could still get a Big Crunch - lots of "ifs".Edited by cavediver, : subtitle

But...but...but...I really want the universe to be cyclical, banging, crunching, bouncing and banging again. If I want hard enough, that will happen, right? If I clap my hands and say, "I believe in the Big Bounce," can I make it happen?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

It would be a little easier to read your posts if you separated your paragraphs with a blank line. Just hit 'return' or whatever key you use to generate a line feed twice rather than just once.Or don't. Your choice. The only good prediction is a tested prediction. A theory's fit with your own philosophy isn't much of a recommendation to others.You need not be impressed or convinced. But surely you can see why you are finding lots of doubters.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Possibly... Roger Penrose has an idea that the ultimate end-state of the heat/cold-death is pure energy - ugh, can't belive I just used that term - by which I mean there are only photons left in the Universe, which travel at the speed of light. The Universe is thus left in a state in which there is no length scale (anything that travels at the speed of light has no concept of length) - and so its size is undetermined, despite the fact that it has just undergone exponential expansion for the past 10^1010... years !!! Thus the entire Universe can be considered the "singularity" of a new cycle of the Universe, and it all begins again. It's profoundly Escher in character, which is so applicable given that Escher's impossible drawings are based on Roger's impossible triangle - the Penrose Triangle Do I buy it? Probably not, but I do love it...

Thank you, Percy for recommending Viv Pope to me. He is definitely a very sensible fellow and his book "In the eye of the observers" deserves to be read. What he advocates is return to simplicity in the natural science taking his relativism straight from the horse's mouth of Ernst Mach.His idea of space, time and light being strict relative measures of one another with the triad forming the tightest knot in nature is precisely what I am saying.The relations between the sides of a triangle are strict geometry: space, time and light are to be studied as a triangle and the relations between them are be taken accordingly and can be violated only inside the head of a modern theorist and that simple consideration alone should put paid to all the expanding universe fantasies where space behaves like a magic carpet and the galaxies are accelerating like a bunch of scared pigeons.

Well, Crankdriver you call Luis Savain an idiot failing to demonstrate him as such. He might not have any real solutions but he points out to the real contradictions in relativity.
At least he thinks for himself. His crankship is in a minority so his concepts are mocked as fantastic. They may well be such.
You reckon that if your black holes, dark energy, matter and inflation the rest is a widely accepted, deeply revered and peer-reviewed lunacy that gives you a good reason to be so smug and condescending towards Luis?Think again. We are all equally mad to a hypothetical sane observer. Only all the madmen are of two types.The brave mad and the cowardly raving. The courageously mad are not scared to be mad alone and in their own way and but the cowardly insane need all their pathetic lunacy to be fed to them with a spoon first, they need all the peer approval before they dare to rave a little.

Well, Crankdriver, your sophistry is lame. What your friend's mother may be doubting is just the factualness of the NASA claim to have landed men on the moon. Both scenarios are perfectly possible. I don't hold it as very likely that NASA went to such great lengths to put up a mere show of the landing, on the other hand that cannot be ruled out completely.
Neither in the possibility that they did not deceive anybody in the present case but the events had actually taken place as claimed is anything that may violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Whereas if I say that no expansion of the universe is taking place other than deep inside of your theoretical head that is because any expansion would break the law of conservation of motion and rest and the law of the preservation of the parity between matter and void making that motion and rest possible.And your suggestion you keep on patronising me for doubting breaks that law with a vengeance.That I hold to be physically impossible unless you show me otherwise in a reasonable manner which you cannot.As I said expansion is gaining volume by definition. The universe is all that exist and is therefore surrounded by all that does not exist which is called nothing pure and simple. So it is one and only universe necessarily.Nothing is all that does not exists and what does not exist may take no place to exist and what take no place to exist may need no volume to succeed in being perfectly absent.Thus to be expanding into nothing as your fairy-tale of a theory claims in the physical and measurable terms may mean to be gaining all the volume nothing may be losing to it in the process.The volume that is possible to gain from nothing is no volume the nothing is capable of possessing. That volume may equal zero necessarily. A zero increase in volume possible for the universe translated in plain English is the retention of the same size and volume as ever.That is logic, my friend, and no seven million peer reviews you may need to ignore it can change a letter of it. That's Aristotle for you. You may choose to be smug towards the man but that won't last long unless your peer-reviewers discover a magic trick of accelerating their expanding angular momentum.Their concepts brave and porous
they all dare rave in chorusEdited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar

Reality trumps logic every time.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Reality trumps logic every time.
No. Reality may be a paradox yet even as a paradox it is consistent. Not just anything goes like you are trying to make me believe. So, no. You may get the cat that either dead or alive but no squeaking pig or flying dog may pop out of the hat if it was a cat that went first into your magic hat.
So, from nothing only nothing comes. Something comes from something only. Motion is not created by magic and the laws of motion do not break in a singularity. They all hold with good logic and it is any singularity that breaks before it when properly examined by it.