The end of human history

[BADecker]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

[cecelady]

With the Greed for wealth and power. I would say war will be the reason for our extinction. If America will be persistent enough on manipulating the minds of the Arab Nations, I would say there will be no enough valid reason than this. Iraq , Afghanistan has been bombarded as they claim as revenge for the 9/11. Which resulted to non, but rather hatred. The ISIS is a group organized and backed by ISrael and America. Have you seen America and ISrael attacked by ISIS on their own land. If you could see most of the European countries and Arab Nations has been attacked. But US and Israel. I guess no, If you are the one behind all of these terrorism why would they attack their selves for the first place....... The ISIS thing is a whole Inside Job to promote hatred and violence against the Muslims around the world.

[apollofire]

Lets hope its not true. We should not let Human Civilizations end

[BADecker]

With the Greed for wealth and power. I would say war will be the reason for our extinction. If America will be persistent enough on manipulating the minds of the Arab Nations, I would say there will be no enough valid reason than this. Iraq , Afghanistan has been bombarded as they claim as revenge for the 9/11. Which resulted to non, but rather hatred. The ISIS is a group organized and backed by ISrael and America. Have you seen America and ISrael attacked by ISIS on their own land. If you could see most of the European countries and Arab Nations has been attacked. But US and Israel. I guess no, If you are the one behind all of these terrorism why would they attack their selves for the first place....... The ISIS thing is a whole Inside Job to promote hatred and violence against the Muslims around the world.

This 13-minute video explains what is going on - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xcGL3zqNm0.

[escrowboy]

Lets hope its not true. We should not let Human Civilizations end

Human is just a tiny dot on the Universe and it is our nature to be selfish that's why we don't want human race to end. There's are so many things that can make the human race wiped out and we're the one who's causing making them. So don't be surprise if one day we kill our own race.

[jupiterdianysa]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

As mentioned before its a theory like many other theories,  physics is so likely to promote this theory among all because it seems much more possible than others.

[JohnXJ]

"Kiamat"/" judgement day" all robots pay in $BTC 

[BADecker]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

As mentioned before its a theory like many other theories,  physics is so likely to promote this theory among all because it seems much more possible than others.

This is true. Many scientists say that they don't know if theories are true. But the media and other scientists say that some theories are true and factual. Then, people start to believe when nobody really knows for sure. Look what happens right in this forum. You have people willing to argue that some theories are true and factual when they don't know it. It is very similar to some religions. It fits the definition of the word "religion."

[Jmild1]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

As mentioned before its a theory like many other theories,  physics is so likely to promote this theory among all because it seems much more possible than others.

Physics is the most concrete way of making theory because it has way of verifying things that has the aspect of reality we have in this world. So there's no other thing can be a good source except for physics.

[jupiterdianysa]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

As mentioned before its a theory like many other theories,  physics is so likely to promote this theory among all because it seems much more possible than others.

Physics is the most concrete way of making theory because it has way of verifying things that has the aspect of reality we have in this world. So there's no other thing can be a good source except for physics.

Physics is sometimes so hard to believe the conclusion even you are into it. Most exciting branch of science for me

[BADecker]

I guess it will end like it started, bang bang..

What? I don't know what you're trying to say. Big bang is a rapid expansion of the universe, how can it be an end if the universe will keep on expanding?

The most prominent theory for how the universe began is the Big Bang, where all matter first existed as a singularity, an infinitely dense point in the abyss of nothing. Then something caused it to explode. The matter expanded outward at an incredible rate and eventually formed the universe we see today.The Big Crunch, as you might have guessed, is the Big Bang’s opposite. All that matter expanding outward at the edges of the universe is being affected by our universe’s gravity. According to this theory, gravity will eventually cause this expansion to slow to the point where it halts and begins to contract instead. The contraction will bring all of that material (planets, stars, galaxies, black holes—everything) back to the center until it becomes that infinitely dense singularity again, wiping out everything. And then we’d be left with the same conditions that the universe had before the Big Bang—all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point.

Well, when you look into it, you will find that Big Bang is at least 3 theories that are not compatible. If you really want to consider Big Bang as a viable theory for the beginning of the universe, you need to knock all the Big Bang theories off their pedestal except for one. Then you need to make the one BB theory acceptable for Black Hole theory, which doesn't fit any of the Big Bang theories.

This is, however, unlikely to happen based on current knowledge, since we’ve recently discovered that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. But it doesnt mean impossible either.

Right, except for one thing. We have known for 2 or 3 decades that the universe seems to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. It isn't all that recent that we found this out.

But... the point is, why are so many people, especially people in NASA and the media, suggesting that Big Bang is fact, when the scientists who put the Big Bang model together in the first place, can't even agree on how it might work?

After all, just because several Big Bang models exist, doesn't mean that in the last 13 or 15 billion years that are suggested by BB, that something else didn't happen that the scientists simply haven't though up yet.

Let me say it this way. Before anybody thought up Big Bang, it wasn't there. So, sooner or later somebody will think up something else that will show us that BB is a stupid idea. Since this is bound to happen (if it hasn't happened already), why do people go around saying BB is fact when nobody was there to record it, and there are countless other things that could have happened that make BB look somewhat real when it isn't necessarily real?

As mentioned before its a theory like many other theories,  physics is so likely to promote this theory among all because it seems much more possible than others.

Physics is the most concrete way of making theory because it has way of verifying things that has the aspect of reality we have in this world. So there's no other thing can be a good source except for physics.

Physics is sometimes so hard to believe the conclusion even you are into it. Most exciting branch of science for me

It isn't physics that is or can be wrong. It is people. Here's what I mean.

Physics is NOT in its infancy. Rather, it has just barely been conceived. How do we know this? Consider the dimensions - like point, line, plane and space. Space is considered the 3rd dimension. We thoroughly understand the first 6 or 8 dimensions. We know some things about 6 or 8 more dimensions. We recognize the existence of about 32 dimensions. But there could be an infinite number of them, each one greatly more complex than the last.

The problem is NOT that we are discovering things using physics. The problem has to do with our believing aspects of physics to be truth when we don't know it.

The facts that go into a science theory are facts. But the theory itself isn't known to be fact. If it were a fact, it would not be a theory. But when we call the unknown as though it were fact, especially when we know that it may not be fact, then we are moving into the area of religion.

This is exactly the thing that many scientists, the media, and companies like NASA are doing. They are religion, even though they have much factual science associated with them, because they treat things that are not known to be fact as though they were fact.

[barbara44]

I was thinking about different options humanity has for the future. Will there be the end of human history and if there will, then what would it be like?

It is not possible for extinct of human beings because dispite of all the problems humans are able to survive for such long  era and will continue to adopt all kinds of natural calamities that may occur like global warming and all as it is the gift given by the creator to human beings to survive anywhere.