Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe
From: Brett Aubrey (brett.aubrey_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 10/30/04
- Next message: Anon.: "Re: Is bipedalism neutral? (was Re: Claims Of Abuse)"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "They're messin with your brain! Ha, Ha! Not quite yet."
- In reply to: Maurice Barnhill: "Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe"
- Next in thread: Earle Jones: "Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:32:03 +0000 (UTC)
"Michael Ragland" <ragland666@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:clpocg$26p$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
<snip>
> Maurice Barnhill:
> If our understanding of the laws is correct, the universe recollapses if
> it has enough mass and expands forever otherwise.
> If there is a so-called cosmological constant or a type of
> matter that is functionally equivalent to a cosmological constant the
> expansion of the universe can actually accelerate. So our prediction of
> whether it is infinite in time depends on measurement of the density of
> matter in the universe and the cosmological constant. At the present
> time the density of matter appears to be small enough that the universe
> should expand forever, and the cosmological constant seems to be
> nonzero so the expansion seems to be accelerating.
>
> Michael Ragland:
> If true, how could intelligent life "mould the universe to it
> purposes" without at least supplementing and modifying
> our current physical laws or equations based on observation?
>
> Maurice Barnhill:
> If a very powerful civilization found that the universe will collapse,
> it might try to move matter around in such a way as to preserve
> at least a local region that would not collapse. That effort would
> not necessarily involve changing the laws.
>
> Michael Ragland:
> That is interesting.
And with an open universe scenario, I took this as, for example, collecting
and "storing" enough raw material to make stars without actually making them
(i.e. without allowing the material to coalese to greater than a gas
giant-sized body) until we needed a star. If we managed to do that with
enough material for say, 100 sun-sized stars, we could extend the species by
some trillion years (U.S. number). This also would not necessarily need any
modification of physical laws. Regards, Brett Aubrey.
>
>
- Next message: Anon.: "Re: Is bipedalism neutral? (was Re: Claims Of Abuse)"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "They're messin with your brain! Ha, Ha! Not quite yet."
- In reply to: Maurice Barnhill: "Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe"
- Next in thread: Earle Jones: "Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|