Will the fate of the Universe be, "Infinite Sandwiches"?

[Spin Tronic]

As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black Holes" left, where there once were galaxies.

As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a "Cosmological horizon".

This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space breaks the speed of light in a smaller volume.

Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each remaining SMBH.

And the "Event Horizon", of each "Super Massive Black Hole", will meet the "Cosmological Horizon", it is encased in.

[Glenn]

"Spin Tronic" <pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:05e74f7d-c735-4fb0...@googlegroups.com...

Is that why I keep losing matching socks?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 04:55:50 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]

>Is that why I keep losing matching socks?

You should start buying socks like these

http://direct.asda.com/george/mens/socks/5-pack-weekday-socks/G004917868,default,pd.html

[Spin Tronic]

You actually own "matching socks"?

Einstein didn't wear them.

But I see you are 1 step from acceptance. Please be kind, when you persecute.

[Erwin Moller]

That sounds boring.
Can I vote somewhere for a Big Crunch?
At least we will have some action that way!
(And maybe start a restaurant too)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

[J. J. Lodder]

Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Spin Tronic" <pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:05e74f7d-c7

35-4fb0-a019...@googlegroups.com...

> > As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black

[rest of excessively long line snipped]

> >
> > As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a

[rest of excessively long line snipped]

> >
> > This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space

[rest of excessively long line snipped]

> >
> > Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each

[rest of excessively long line snipped]

> >
> > And the "Event Horizon", of each "Super Massive Black Hole", will meet the "

[rest of excessively long line snipped]

> >
> Is that why I keep losing matching socks?

No, that's the Supreme Fascist in action.

Accept your fate, and be glad it's only socks,

Jan

[Spin Tronic]

On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 14:45:25 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Spin Tronic" <pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:05e74f7d-c7
> 35-4fb0-a019...@googlegroups.com...
> > > As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black

> [rest of exces<snip>

> > > As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a

> [res<snip>

> > > This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space

> [rest of<snip>

> > > Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each

> [r<snip>




> N<snip>


> Acc<snip>


> J<snip>


Now look what childish level you have brought me down to.

[Chris Thompson]

Is this something I need to worry about in the next week or so?

Chris

[Spin Tronic]

Probably.

It's the holographic equivalent to alzheimer's.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Spin Tronic
<pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk>:

Try to not let it prey on your mind.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Spin Tronic]

'That's funny...'

[Jimbo]

Is the expansion of space affected by gravity?

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

Space, is affected by gravity.

Which is a result of mass/energy.

Gravity is a negative quantity. The energy in a vaccum is a positive quantity.

Slightly higher than the energy of an electron per every cm^3 throughout the universe.

So theoretically, Dark energy produces it's own negative energy; A.K.A gravity, But it is very, very, very weak.

But yes, the expansion of space is affected by gravity.

It's just that space is so damn big, and concentrations of
energy/matter ->gravity are so damn small.

But none of it matters, (in the infinite amount of multiverses) so long as everything adds to 0.

And that is why we exist, and why this thread is on topic.

It is the ultimate origin, to realise that if you put an infinite amount of {Zero} in a set you are counting, do it twice you have 2. sqrt that, & you have;

(In binary, hexidecimal, or any computer language you care to create)

All the information contained in *EVERY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE*.

That is why there is something rather than nothing.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Thursday, 9 April 2015 07:25:23 UTC+1, Jimbo wrote:

I get it. You are talking about the salome between the sandwich, the place where Hawking radiation comes from both horizons, and cooks the hell out of the salome.

[Burkhard]

It salome's own fault. Had she kept her veils on, they would have
shielded her from the radiation, radiant as she was on her own by all
accounts.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

I highly doubt, you can keep up.

But the clues have led you to Tetraquark's.

Chop chop, here goes the clock.



A -> B -> C -> D.

[Burkhard]

No, the clues have let me to Oscar Wilde

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 00:30:35 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

I don't know enough to say what would happen when a black hole's event
horizon and the cosmological horizon meet, but I don't think the
cosmological horizon would produce Hawking radiation. That would
require the presence of tidal forces. How would empty space, even
space expanding faster than the speed of light, produce such forces?

It seems to me that the black hole would be affected in some manner,
unless it could produce a complete localized resistance to the
universal expansion, but I don't know what that effect would be. I
remember seeing something about a 'big rip' scenario in which
everything would eventually be torn apart and broken down into its
individual subatomic particles. I assume this would eventually be the
fate of black holes too.

Would the cosmological horizon itself have any special significance or
would the effect on the black hole increase geometrically even after
that point as the expansion continued to acellerate? How does the
concept of acelleration, as it's ordinarily applied, even correspond
to a continuing increase of the cosmic expansion rate? It's all very
mysterious to me. I have some doubt that either of us can competently
discuss such issues.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:20:14 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops>:

Current hypotheses appear to say it's most dependent on
"dark energy".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Spin Tronic
<pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk>:

>On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 19:50:23 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Spin Tronic
>> <pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk>:
>>
>> >As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black Holes" left, where there once were galaxies.
>> >
>> >As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a "Cosmological horizon".
>> >
>> >This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space breaks the speed of light in a smaller volume.
>> >
>> >Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each remaining SMBH.
>> >
>> >And the "Event Horizon", of each "Super Massive Black Hole", will meet the "Cosmological Horizon", it is encased in.
>>
>> Try to not let it prey on your mind.

>'That's funny...'

And each of your terms above, those enclosed in quotes,
would be good names for rock bands.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 00:30:35 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

John the Baptist would have appreciated that...

[jillery]

If you're interested in reading from someone who is qualified:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-53-what-is-the-big-rip-5aa777107b9d>

Short version: the best evidence is there will be no Big Rip, and
gravitationally-bound objects will remain so indefinitely, while
everything else will be pushed away beyond each other's light horizon.
As Lawrence Krauss describes, this will result in a future where
cosmologists will observe a Universe of a single galaxy and no
evidence of the Big Bang, and they will conclude from the evidence as
they did before Hubble, that the Universe had no beginning.

Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a Big Rip. If
that happened, the best guess is that all black holes
in the universe evaporate completely at Planck time before the Big Rip
due to Hawking radiation:

<http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0405241/proceedings/Astroparticle/babichev.pdf>


--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:apddiat27guadhb0h...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:20:14 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops>:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT), Spin Tronic
>><pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black Holes" left, where there once were galaxies.
>>>As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a "Cosmological horizon".
>>>This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space breaks the speed of light in a smaller volume.
>>>Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each remaining SMBH.
>>>And the "Event Horizon", of each "Super Massive Black Hole", will meet the "Cosmological Horizon", it is encased in.
>>
>>Is the expansion of space affected by gravity?
>
> Current hypotheses appear to say it's most dependent on
> "dark energy".
> --

I'd say that current hypotheses say that gravity is affected by the expansion of spacetime.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:00:42 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Good article. It seems likely that dark energy is a cosmological
constant with a pressure that's the inverse of its energy density and
that this implies there will be no big rip. I don't really understand
how this pressure relates to the known forces of nature, including
gravity, but perhaps that's known by physicists.

>Short version: the best evidence is there will be no Big Rip, and
>gravitationally-bound objects will remain so indefinitely, while
>everything else will be pushed away beyond each other's light horizon.
>As Lawrence Krauss describes, this will result in a future where
>cosmologists will observe a Universe of a single galaxy and no
>evidence of the Big Bang, and they will conclude from the evidence as
>they did before Hubble, that the Universe had no beginning.
>
>Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a Big Rip. If
>that happened, the best guess is that all black holes
>in the universe evaporate completely at Planck time before the Big Rip
>due to Hawking radiation:
>
><http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0405241/proceedings/Astroparticle/babichev.pdf>

This looks difficult. Have you read and understood this article?

[jillery]

Nobody knows what Dark Energy really is. Scientists can only observe
what they think are its effects, but they don't yet have a cause.

>>Short version: the best evidence is there will be no Big Rip, and
>>gravitationally-bound objects will remain so indefinitely, while
>>everything else will be pushed away beyond each other's light horizon.
>>As Lawrence Krauss describes, this will result in a future where
>>cosmologists will observe a Universe of a single galaxy and no
>>evidence of the Big Bang, and they will conclude from the evidence as
>>they did before Hubble, that the Universe had no beginning.
>>
>>Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a Big Rip. If
>>that happened, the best guess is that all black holes
>>in the universe evaporate completely at Planck time before the Big Rip
>>due to Hawking radiation:
>>
>><http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0405241/proceedings/Astroparticle/babichev.pdf>
>
>This looks difficult. Have you read and understood this article?

I think I understand the English part, the math part not so much. But
there are other posters here who are more capable than I am with
equations, which is why I included it.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:47:57 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I don't even understand its effects, much less its cause. Supposedly
there are four fundemental forces of nature - and then there's this
mysterious energy that causes space to expand yet is an inherent
property of space. Apparently it retains its same density even as the
volume of space expands. Energy from nothing? Doesn't this contradict
the first law of thermodynamics?

>>>Short version: the best evidence is there will be no Big Rip, and
>>>gravitationally-bound objects will remain so indefinitely, while
>>>everything else will be pushed away beyond each other's light horizon.
>>>As Lawrence Krauss describes, this will result in a future where
>>>cosmologists will observe a Universe of a single galaxy and no
>>>evidence of the Big Bang, and they will conclude from the evidence as
>>>they did before Hubble, that the Universe had no beginning.
>>>
>>>Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a Big Rip. If
>>>that happened, the best guess is that all black holes
>>>in the universe evaporate completely at Planck time before the Big Rip
>>>due to Hawking radiation:
>>>
>>><http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0405241/proceedings/Astroparticle/babichev.pdf>
>>
>>This looks difficult. Have you read and understood this article?
>
>
>I think I understand the English part, the math part not so much. But
>there are other posters here who are more capable than I am with
>equations, which is why I included it.

I'll make an attempt to slog my way through it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:24:00 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>I'd say that current hypotheses say that gravity is affected by the expansion of spacetime.

Could be; I'm no cosmologist. Cite, so I can read about (and
probably misunderstand) it?

[Erik Simpson]

On 4/10/15 10:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:24:00 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:apddiat27guadhb0h...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:20:14 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops>:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT), Spin Tronic
>>>> <pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As the universe evolves, eventually there will only be "Super Massive Black Holes" left, where there once were galaxies.
>>>>> As space expands, it's velocity exceeds the speed of light. Encasing us in a "Cosmological horizon".
>>>>> This horizon is shrinking for every observer, as the accelleration of space breaks the speed of light in a smaller volume.
>>>>> Eventually, each "Cosmological Horizon", will shrink down to the siz of each remaining SMBH.
>>>>> And the "Event Horizon", of each "Super Massive Black Hole", will meet the "Cosmological Horizon", it is encased in.
>>>>
>>>> Is the expansion of space affected by gravity?
>>>
>>> Current hypotheses appear to say it's most dependent on
>>> "dark energy".
>
>> I'd say that current hypotheses say that gravity is affected by the expansion of spacetime.
>
> Could be; I'm no cosmologist. Cite, so I can read about (and
> probably misunderstand) it?
>

The (local) curvature of spacetime IS gravity. As the current expansion
continues, spacetime gets globally flatter.

[Mark Isaak]

Now I am curious if there have been any attempts to discover whether G
has changed over time. (I know other constants have been checked, based
on how they would affect cosmological phenomena, and found constant
within limits of measurement.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/unify.html#c1

[Erik Simpson]

I know there's been speculation, but I'm not current on whether anyone
is seriously considering that. There is a paper that just appeared in
the Astrophysical Journal

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/803/1/20/article (just the abstract)

that bears on the acceleration of the universal expansion. It seems
that type Ia supernovae are not the uniform 'standard candles' they have
been thought to be, but are systematically redder if they are nearer to
us. The effect of this is that the acceleration (caused by 'dark
energy'?) is less than previously thought, though by how much is still
unclear. It would be funny if it turned out that there isn't any
acceleration, since the discovery of that resulted in Nobel prizes.
This possibility ISN'T suggested in the paper.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:19:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Erik Simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

But not locally, right? OK, that's what I thought I
understood, so I probably misinterpreted Glenn's statement.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:51:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

Well, after the Flood killed the dinosaurs G obviously
increased... ;-)

[Erik Simpson]

For reasonable definitions of 'local',that's right. To get esoteric, if
'dark energy' has some proposed properties to its equation of state,
eventually everything gets pulled apart as the universe approaches
complete flatness. So even the meaning of 'local' would shrink towards
zero. Depending on your outlook, this is serious theoretical cosmology
or unsupported arm-waving. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the two.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:01:54 -0700, the following appeared

OK; thanks.

> Depending on your outlook, this is serious theoretical cosmology
>or unsupported arm-waving. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the two.

Tell me about it... :-(

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

The universe is flat.

But in observations published in the last few months, you can see one universe collide with another.