Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Find Out About the Future of Science

Roblimo posted about 11 years ago | from the and-we-thought-the-answer-was-'42' dept.

Books 446

Science magazine writer Charles Seife has written a new book, Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. According to Publishers Weekly, Charles claims, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." A brave statement! Charles is happy to answer your questions about ongoing research that is busily revealing the basic nature of life, the universe, and everything in a serious (as opposed to humorous) sense, so ask away. One question per post, please. We'll post the answers as soon as we get them beck.

cancel ×

446 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

the lost future. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606620)

My mind blanks as the earth reforms. I focus on the the individual particles, it must be perfect, an action which would have taken me days and completely exausted me before, now takes only a few seconds. When the structure is completed I pick her up and levitate with her in my arms one last time. I set her down in the coffin, thinking about what could have been if I came to her help a few minutes earlier. I step outside the room and order the earth to seal it. Nobody shall ever know what lies beyond this barrier, I tell it. It obeys, knowing my pain.

I form a dagger of pure crystal out of nothing. I think about what powers will be lost to humanity, how many will die because I will not be there to help them, but it is meaningless to me. She was everything to me and I lost her to my greed. It is better this way, I tell myself.

I walk outside and see the sun setting behind the hills. It asks me if I need anything, and I tell it I need guardians. Moments later, the link is broken and out of the fire come four giant fire elementals. They request instruction. I tell them to destroy this forest and then return here, forever guarding this building, never to yield to any intruders. They turn and go.

I force my body fully into this plane. Feelings of vulnerability overwhelm me, I become mortal again. I walk back into the building and the earth understands, opening the passage for me. I sit next to her, touching her cold hand. I am sorry, I think, the thought echoing through the fabric of reality, a sign of how powerful I have become. I drive the dagger into my heart feeling not pain, but relief. I am sorry, I think again, and this time I feel she is responding. Perhaps we will be together in whatever is to come, I silently say to myself. I smile as I close my eyes and submit to the darkness.

But the powers that be will not let me rest. I have been assigned the role of the deathbringer of a strange world I have never seen before, with the promise that I will be reunited with my love at the end of time. There is nothing but death for those whom I set my gaze upon, and nobody understands why I do it. I am hated and feared by them, but I do not care.

I have become a Troll.

Re:the lost future. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606863)


"We care for you. Join the subliminal channel" -- Troll Network Accossiates.

Netcraft Confirms : "Interviews: Find Out About th (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606623)

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science community when last month IDC confirmed that Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] [sysadminmag.com] in th recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] [amdest.com] to predict Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science because Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is dying. Things are looking very bad for Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science. As many of us are already aware, Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science. How many users of Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science are there? Let's see. The number of Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science at about 80 percent of the Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science users. This is consistent with the number of Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science went out of business and was taken over by Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science who sell another troubled OS. Now Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science has steadily declined in market share. Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is dead.

Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science is dying

Publishing hype (5, Insightful)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | about 11 years ago | (#6606631)

do you get embarassed by publishing hype such as "Scientists...now know how the universe will end"?

Re:Publishing hype (2, Insightful)

capt.Hij (318203) | about 11 years ago | (#6606695)

Probaly not as long as book publishers don't mind broadcasting things like:

This is the book you need to help understand the frequent front-page headlines heralding dramatic cosmological discoveries. It makes cutting-edge science both crystal clear and wonderfully exciting.

Here in the US, I would hardly call news stories about science as "frequent front-page headlines." It usually takes some debate over creationism vs. evolution to make it into the media now-a-days.

Re:Publishing hype (4, Funny)

valkraider (611225) | about 11 years ago | (#6606771)

It's at lease as good as "Scientists now know the earth is the center of the Universe" and "Scientists now know the earth is flat, and held up by 4 huge Elephants standing on tortoises." Kind of like the Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber from Saturday Night Live:

"Why, just a few years ago we would have thought your child's condition to be caused by demonic possesion. But thanks to modern medical science we now know that it is caused by a toad or small dwarf living in the boy's stomach."

Since our Universe-destroying bomb is complete ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#6606968)

We DO know how it will end. We also know when it will end: when you punks stop buying our books!

hey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606632)

fifth? post

I'm not sure what to think (1)

lowtekneq (469145) | about 11 years ago | (#6606637)

As much as I support the search for knowledge and think this is amazing. Isn't there some fun in mystery? I don't mean in the religious way, but more in the ponder about where we come from way.

Re:I'm not sure what to think (3, Interesting)

rde (17364) | about 11 years ago | (#6607068)

There are two points to be made here, methinks:
1. Scientists may know /now/ how the universe started and will end, but in a lot of the details - and possible the final outcomes - they're almost certainly wrong. A few short years ago we know exactly how Jupiter was formed; then Galileo dropped a probe into the atmosphere, and suddenly more questions arose. Now no-one knows why its atmosphere or its winds are the way they are. Science is littered with such examples; particularly cosmology. How recently is it that we didn't even know gamma ray bursts existed? There'll always be stuff we haven't accounted for, so theories will always be based on incomplete data.

Which brings me nicely to point two: supposing our Brainiacs are right? That's hardly the mystery taken out of everything; questions abound, and always will. Maybe when we're all in our Vorlon-like encounter suits we'll have a decent understanding of the part of the universe that we can see; before then, there'll always be questions.

Errr.. (1)

kmak (692406) | about 11 years ago | (#6606644)

Do we really know how it'll end? Isn't there still a debate rather it'll end in fire or ice? (Implosion or entropy death)

Re:Errr.. (5, Funny)

gantrep (627089) | about 11 years ago | (#6606702)

Thank you for that pointless comment. You have taken usefull energy and turned it into a slashdot comment, thereby bringing the universe closer to heat death.

Re:Errr.. (1)

hak hak (640274) | about 11 years ago | (#6606829)

No, we don't know how the universe will end (as far as I know). The density in the universe is extremely close to the critical density, and it is not known whether we live in an open or a closed universe (expanding forever or finally going to recollapse).

Re:Errr.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606856)

Given the fact that the death of the Universe is several billion years away, and that a certain ape species on a small unimportant planet has progressed from flint tools to advanced particle accelerators in a mere 10,000 years or so, who is anyone to say that this or one of the possibly billions of other intelligent, survival-oriented species out there in spacetime will not find a means to intervene in the death of the universe?

I've been doing some thinking about this lately. (-1, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 11 years ago | (#6606648)

There is a perspective from which the universe may be viewed with greater clarity, in my opinion anyway. Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges, explains that to even reach the stage at which we exist there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life and a further sixty-six within our galaxy and Earth itself that allowed the multitude of living beings not only to come into being but to flourish (this whitepaper [reasons.org] that was in My Favorites breaks these criteria into probabilities -- great read if you prefer to see the evidence of this hypothesis); in a nutshell, this concept is summed up in Asimov's fantastic quote "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

Some perhaps are content with chaos theory, but I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for... and with all likelihood, that too was carefully strewn into the universe to keep a perpetual working model. Although I suppose we have to keep in mind that this too is only a theory, and while it's possible everything was made to work smoothly from the beginning (on the whole) I'm more comfortable with the idea that somebody's looking in from time to time. One has to start somewhere to reconcile observation with history in order to get closer to the truth.

So I'm glad that there are still some minds out there, like Copernicus and Einstein, that are not satisfied with science by rote, and I think that if we allow ourselves break out of the current dominant paradigms for just a little bit the change in perspective can open many new insights.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (1, Insightful)

Meat Blaster (578650) | about 11 years ago | (#6606709)

That's actually quite fascinating. I think people get a little too hung up on preserving current scientific thought as well (Big Bang, evolution, meteors causing death of dinosaurs, etc.) which may be correct but should be continually reexamined in the light of new evidence.

Unfortunately, too many treat these things like sacred cows, which is ironic given that science and faith are so continually at odds.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (4, Insightful)

OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069) | about 11 years ago | (#6606818)

Although OOGG caveman, OOGG not around during Big Bang, Pre-Cambrian era, dinosaurs, etc. However, OOGG old enough remember debate on Darwinian evolution.

You mention "continually reexamined in the light of new evidence" yet mention no new evidence. OOGG hear such comments many times. OOGG know Darwin think of many objections, answer with real evidence. Many observations on human breed pigeons, dogs, agriculture, etc., substantiate Darwin argument. Many more observations since Darwin's time substantiate evolutionary ideas. "Intelligent design" provide no observation other than "I don't believe in the alternative."

Perhaps try read Darwin's book?

Not really (1)

Teahouse (267087) | about 11 years ago | (#6607006)

The reason Big Bang and so many other theories are held on to is because there has been some scientific evidence to show their validity. There has yet to be one shred of evidence to prove there is some "intelligent design" behind the creation of the universe.

As for evolution vs. creationism...To this date, there has yet to be a single instance of a complex creature predating a simple one. There has yet to be a single shred of evidence to disprove evolution as a basic theory (simple creatures evolving into more complex ones). There have been some interesting changes in this all-encompassing theory, but complex before simple has never been found.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (5, Insightful)

aug24 (38229) | about 11 years ago | (#6606762)

Intelligent Design

Oh god (irony), not this crap again.

Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.

There is NO NEED for intelligent design. It's only purpose is to allow you justify your belief in God. I don't care if it's the Bombadier Beetle, the jinking Moth, whatever, it's just as sensible to think of a way it could've evolved than to allege that there is a God. And a God is a damn big hypothesis that only serves to abstract out the thing you can't explain.

Justin.
Bored of bloody desperate religionists arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (2, Funny)

gantrep (627089) | about 11 years ago | (#6606867)

God is a damn big hypothesis

No, She's a holy big hypothesis, thank you very much.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (2, Insightful)

Directrix1 (157787) | about 11 years ago | (#6606984)

Yeah, god is used to abstract out the things we can't explain. Therefore, the refinement of the model in which god exists is a theoretical science just like all the crap in this article. Sure, there is NO NEED for any science. There is no need to try to explain anything. You can go pick nuts and berrys and never have to worry about science, and or justification of anything. But if you truly want to consider yourself a man of science you cannot just turn your back on something because you don't believe in it. By the way, believe it or not, the Earth is round and we have a helio-centric model of our solar system (and before you go spouting off the controversy over that because of religion, maybe you should try to realize that there is quite a bit of seperation between man and the faith that he abides by, everything quoted as being crimes against humanity induced by religion, is actually just induced by other humans with [usually] misinterpretations). The capacity to prove or disprove god and creationism is beyond our current technical capabilities. Live with it and try to be more open minded on the issue.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (1)

mike_mgo (589966) | about 11 years ago | (#6607003)

Why should only one side in the debate be allowed to refine its position. Science continually refines and sometimes outright rejects things that it held as correct as new evidence comes up. Do we throw Newton away because Einstein showed that he is not entirely correct?

ID isn't scientific (2, Interesting)

Omkar (618823) | about 11 years ago | (#6606765)

It just twists complexity in order to show the existence of God. Think about it - if an ony of your gazillion variables were different, would we be here to comment? It's the Anthropic principle - the universe seems conducive to life since there is life around to observe it. We don't see any of the other places because there's nobody there to watch. And on earth, we evolved to fit the environment - it's no surprise that it's good for us.

You don't need a God to make the universe work. Although you may say that there's no concrete evidence against one, there's also no evidence to suggest that our whole universe isn't an elaborate 5D shadow puppet show run by unicorns. Occam's razor must be applied.

Thinly veiled "proof of God" stuff.. (1, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | about 11 years ago | (#6606770)

Parent is a thinly veiled attempt to mathematically "prove" God exists because the odds are "impossible" that live began. Don't mod parent up, it's just a fancy troll.

The post is about scientists looking at physical evidence and coming to a testable conclusion... not playing with numbers and supposition in order to prove some religious belief.

Re:Thinly veiled "proof of God" stuff.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606996)

I'd hsitate to label it troll, you can't say that if those are his beliefs, even if they are shitty ones :)

Re:Thinly veiled "proof of God" stuff.. (1)

missing000 (602285) | about 11 years ago | (#6607031)

No, he is a troll. And a damn good one at that.

But don't take my word for it. Take a look at his posts. [slashdot.org]

Re:Thinly veiled "proof of God" stuff.. (1)

mike_mgo (589966) | about 11 years ago | (#6607037)

Yes but everytime an article comes up about SETI we get the "if only one in a billion stars have a planet and only one in a billion of them has life speech" in support of spending money without any physical or testable evidence. It's just faith by the sceintists that the odds are on their sides.

Beware the man who calls well proven ideas... (4, Insightful)

missing000 (602285) | about 11 years ago | (#6606779)

...only a theory.

Please, before you start arguing about science, try and understand its terminology at least a little.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 11 years ago | (#6606814)

here is a nice little mind riddle for you mr. creationist.

if our Universe exists in a larger unknowable realm and in that realm every possible universe pops in and out of existence, then, when a universe that meet the conditions that it can support life, the milky way can support life, and earth can support life then it all does, how would the intelligent beings on earth know if it was nature or god?

they would not know unless they could discover this larger realm of infinite universes that represent every possible permutation of existence.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606945)

That was one huge, run-on sentence. I couldn't really totally understand what you were babbling about.

Heres a riddle for your evolutionist mind though: Explain how rapidly flying material from the supposed big bang somehow got together to form stars and planets and the like.

There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point. Thus a big bang should have created a big pile of atomic soup that flew out into space forever. Don't forget that at the point of the big bang there were no planets or stars to create gravity. The only outside forces that would act on a particle exploding from the big bang would be the gravity of other particles (basically zero) and the gravity of the bigbang egg if it were still intact. Being that it supposedly blew up it then shouldnt have enough mass anymore to exhibit gravity (as all of it's mass blew outward). Well, you might get minor subatomic attractions as well... And some small atoms and molecules might form. However they still wouldn't exhibit enough attractive force to form planets. SO, tell me, what is the answer to this riddle?

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (2, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | about 11 years ago | (#6606853)


Intelligent Design violates the principle known as "Occam's Razor", which states that, given two plausible explanations for one phenomenon, the most simple explanation is the correct one.

"Intelligent Design" states that an intelligent creator was at the origin of the universe [some even say a purely semitic YHWH] and of all life. It can be construed as more complicated than a purely "naturalistic" vision, because it states that this all-knowing, all-powerful being is necessary for the universe to be created.

On the other hand, the "naturalistic" vision can be said to be "more simple" because it only requires parameters that are more limited and easier to prove (Singularity = Big Bang = Universe, Mutations = Evolution = Intelligent beings).

Therefore, I prefer the naturalistic version. In my experience, people who uphold the "Intelligent Design" theory are only using it to justify their own views of the world... as well as their own prejudices [nothing personal here].

At this point in time, I am not so sure that Intelligent Design or Creationism have anything going for them, except in the most fundamentalist circles.

(Just my US$ 0.02...)

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (4, Informative)

rknop (240417) | about 11 years ago | (#6606866)

Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community

Woah, stop right there.

It's proponents claim that it has respect in the scientific community. You will find scientists who like the idea. But the fact is, so far as peer review and confirming experiments and the general scientific community, it is not considered really a viable theory. It's certainly not any competition for evolution amonst the sceintific community at all.

The proponents' PR claims it is, but that's just the PR.

See, for example, http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/inteloped.html [cwru.edu] .

-Rob

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (2, Insightful)

Bytenik (313942) | about 11 years ago | (#6606872)

I suppose we have to keep in mind that this too is only a theory, and while it's possible everything was made to work smoothly from the beginning (on the whole) I'm more comfortable with the idea that somebody's looking in from time to time.
----------
I'm more comfortable with that idea too, but being more comfortable should have nothing to do with it. Wouldn't you rather just know the truth even if it's less comforting?

Not that we know what the truth is yet, but why settle for less than the truth?

Of course, even if we do find "the truth", only a small percentage of the population will bother to consider its merit, and an even smaller percentage will believe it.

Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (1)

notcreative (623238) | about 11 years ago | (#6606896)

Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges

Great. The creationists complain if evolution is taught without teaching "other opinions" (i.e. nonscientific theories), and then when we do teach these theories as a sop, suddenly we have given them "enough respect...that it is being taught alongside evolution...."

Lamarck's theory of evolution and the Greek's physical theory of phlogiston are also taught in science classes, but they are taught as examples of flawed or discredited hypotheses rather than viable alternatives to modern thinking. Does this mean that they also have "enough respect" to be worthy of consideration if only we have an enlightened "change in perspective?"

I also have to say that if Copernicus and/or Einstein were around today, they might have challenging new ideas, but they wouldn't be believers in "intelligent design." Both men were accomplished at use of the scientific method, and they had no need to repackage non-scientific ideas (deism) in scientific shrinkrap. They could come up with their own ideas.

Life _as_we_know_it_ (3, Insightful)

stomv (80392) | about 11 years ago | (#6606958)

I read the whitepaper presented, and it has some difficulties:

1. It suggests the variables necessary for life as we know it. While life on Earth is incredibly varied, it isn't the end-all-be-all. Perhaps fundamentally different life could exist in different conditions, ranging from the mass of a neutrino to the spectral-jibber-jabber constant.

2. It doesn't present ranges for the variables. It does give "if higher/lower/more/fewer" qualitative statements, but not quantative. What if a variable was increased by 1%? 10%? 100%? What is the range for those variables to preserve current life-abling conditions?

I think most scientists would concur that the probability of life as we know it is almost certainly zero*. And yet, we have life, as we know it. If a variable was fudged in the past, we surely wouldn't have life as we know it, but that is not the same analysis as not having life at all.

* math for really, really, really freakin' close to zero. A finite number of instances of life given an infinite number of chances.

Who is Roblimo? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606654)

Is he new?

comparable ramifications? (4, Interesting)

sstory (538486) | about 11 years ago | (#6606658)

You're quoted as saying, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." Is it also your belief that the consequences of understanding the beginning of the universe will approach the transformation of living that we're just beginning to see from the deciphering of the genome?

Re:comparable ramifications? (1)

Otter (3800) | about 11 years ago | (#6606816)

Speaking as someone who worked on a couple of the genome projects, it's a real apples-and-oranges comparison. Genome sequencing and assembly was an enormous technical challenge that produced a resource that will make future biomedical research much more effective. It didn't offer anything breathtakingly new (despite the hype to the contrary).

On the other hand, a real understanding of the start of the universe addresses perhaps _the_ core question of natural philosophy. Beyond what new understanding of matter might do for cheap energy, time travel, ...

I know which one I'd rather claim credit for. But they probably need people who still remember their AP Calculus.

Speaking of science, last night's Futurama sucked! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606985)

Since this topic is more boring than a fly's phallus, I'm wondering whether last night's Futurama was an aberration, or has the show become a worthless festering pile of donkey shit?

I haven't seen it in a few years, because I've been busy banging women instead of being holed up in front of my All-In-Wonder card on my 486 Linux Box, so forgive me for not being up on all the latest television. But since I'm working off a herpes flare-up right now, I decided to take a night off from aardvarking it up with Swedish flight attendants and watch some t.v., only to find that Futurama is about as lame as a three-legged dog with bunions.

Since when do Hermes and Fry have kids? And didn't South Park already do two shows on the issue of "parents are responsible for what their kids watch on t.v." About the only redeeming quality of the show is that they got rid of Amy, so you perverts who sit around fantasizing about dating a fucking cartoon character can finally realize how pathetic your lives are.

But still, man, that show sucks volleyballs. No wonder Fox is dumping it. Good riddance.

Will the universe end in Cold Death or Collapse? (1)

ai2097 (693562) | about 11 years ago | (#6606668)

'nuff said

In the days of ancient Greece... (-1, Offtopic)

Tuxinatorium (463682) | about 11 years ago | (#6606672)

"Science" consised of homosexual men making up crackpot stories about how certain things began!

Well obviously (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | about 11 years ago | (#6606676)

the Universe will end with a cliff hanger to set things up for Universe II

Re:Well obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606790)

And if the box office for that is good, they'll push the franchise long past the point it gets tired. Trust me - no one would want to live in Universe VII: Adrian's Revenge.

as soon as we get them beck. (0, Troll)

teamhasnoi (554944) | about 11 years ago | (#6606678)

I know why I'm a loser, baby, and why you should kill me, but why do I have a devil's haircut in my mind?

I pray the powers of science and reason can answer this!

die. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606810)

Hey here's a good joke you might appreciate: Q.Why don't you ever see the number 288 on television? A. Because it's too(two) gross!!!!

Question: (5, Funny)

cybercuzco (100904) | about 11 years ago | (#6606688)

Since we now know how the universe will end, would it be possible to set up some sort of restaurant there?

Kudos... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606689)

...on not giving away the ending in the first paragraph. Towards a spoiler-free future!

[Almost] Serious question! (4, Interesting)

Noryungi (70322) | about 11 years ago | (#6606694)


So... How will the Universe end? Big Crunch, Dark & Cold, Equilibrium, Giant Black Holes, Act of God, or... what?

And, of course, how can you be so sure of that? [Add "You, Insensitive Clod!" to this last question for the humorous touch...]

Whatever theory you build today will only be validated in, what? A dozen billion years? More? So what makes you so sure you know the ned of the Universe today?

Please note: this is really a serious question. I am interested in the End of the Universe as we know it. Thanks for your answers!

Re:[Almost] Serious question! (1)

prgrmr (568806) | about 11 years ago | (#6606777)

So what makes you so sure you know the ned of the Universe today?

Who knows? Maybe he really has met Mr Gates in person....

Re:[Almost] Serious question! (1)

rknop (240417) | about 11 years ago | (#6606940)

So... How will the Universe end? Big Crunch, Dark & Cold, Equilibrium, Giant Black Holes, Act of God, or... what?

The default, most natural extrapolation is that it will end in a "heat death", ever expanding, with the expansion ever accelerating. Clusters of galaxies will stay clumped together and will die their little isolated heat deaths, but the clusters will be moving away from each other so fast that they'll move out of causal contact with each other, and eventually we won't be able to see any galaxy that we aren't gravitationally bound to now.

Read "The Five Ages of the Universe" by Adams and Laughlin to find out what happens to the matter in the Universe. They don't take into account the ever-accelerating expansion of the Universe, but within one cluster of galaxies what they outline is pretty well-informed and likely speculation.

Of course, that's just the default assumption. Exactly what will happen depends at least on the nature of the dark energy that makes up 70% of the energy density of the Universe, and just what dark energy is is something that we really do not know; we know much less about it than dark matter. Given what we know today, it would be extremenly surprising if the dynamics were such that the Universe would be able to halt and revesre it's expansion-- I'd personally bet against it-- but then again, many were extremely surprised that we measured the existence of dark energy in the first place.

-Rob

Dated (0)

danormsby (529805) | about 11 years ago | (#6606704)

Science with a build in use before date.

I like it.

bold statement for small knowledge (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606706)

If we know so much, why is it that we can not even solve energy problem for human needs? Much talked about Nuclear Fusion to hydrogen based economy is no where to be found. Can you tell us when energy supply problem will be solved?

That's not Science - it's Engineering (2, Insightful)

DG (989) | about 11 years ago | (#6607017)

There is a difference between Science and Engineering (although Engineering depends on Science, and sometimes the attempt to solve an Engineering problem advances Science)

The Science behind fusion is well understood and proven out

The Engineering behind creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction from which more power can be extracted than consumed is a little more challenging - especially given that the only natural model we have requires collecting enough Hydrogen such that it starts to fuse under the pressures of its own gravity - a little tough to package in a useful manner.

But progress - or lack thereof - on an Engineering project does not necessarily discredit the Science.

DG

At the very least... (1)

Jeffna (600646) | about 11 years ago | (#6606733)

...it'll end with a typo.

"beck"?

Why does the rate of expansion change? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606745)

Can we explain the expansion of the universe and why the rate is changing? Can we claim to know how the universe will end if we can't answer that?

Re:Why does the rate of expansion change? (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 11 years ago | (#6606848)

gravity.

Re:Why does the rate of expansion change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606895)

If the rate was slowing, yes. As it appears the rate is accelerating, we need something else.

Universe's container (5, Interesting)

bios10h (323061) | about 11 years ago | (#6606748)

It's a question I've had for a long time and I sometimes think about it and it freaks me out :) no really. Ok, we "know" (until someone else proves it's wrong) how the universe is going to end. We are about to "know" how it really started. Great! However, when we are talking about the universe... we are assuming that it is infinite. I just have a hard time with this Infinite Universe concept... the universe NEEDS to be contained within something... however, even if we discover the container... it will end up being a part of our definition of universe and then we'll need to search for the container's container. Anyway, any thoughts on that?

Re:Universe's container (1)

Omkar (618823) | about 11 years ago | (#6606792)

I'm not a physicist, but I think it's finite - multiply the age by the speed of light. However, it's also unbounded. Think of a 4D analog to the surface of a sphere.

Re:Universe's container (2, Interesting)

rknop (240417) | about 11 years ago | (#6606973)

I'm not a physicist, but I think it's finite - multiply the age by the speed of light.

That's just the observable Universe, which is indeed bounded by a "horizon" as you say.

The best current indication of the geometry of the Universe, though, is that it's flat, not a 4d analog to the surface of a sphere, which means that it is in fact infinite, or at the least a whole heck of a lot larger than the size of the observable Universe. We can't observe all of that, because light from anything beyond our "horizon" hasn't had time to reach us.

-Rob

Re:Universe's container (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6607058)

make it clickable then yes i'll do it...your sig i mean. and have fun playing /. RPG

Re:Universe's container (1, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 11 years ago | (#6606797)

Just because we can't currently wrap our minds around a concept (I have a hard time with it too!) doesn't mean that the universe can't grasp it. We're limited in what we can perceive if we rely on direct observation only, but that doesn't mean that something larger and more meaningful doesn't exist than what lies immediately in front of us.

The best we can do at this point is make broad assumptions based on what we are given, but the concept of intelligent design I think gives us a larger intellectual playing field to work from -- the concept that we can accept what we do not yet know.

Re:Universe's container (1)

Omkar (618823) | about 11 years ago | (#6606839)

You mean, "God just made it like this, okay?" I'm sorry, that doesn't constitute anything akin to knowing or understanding. Furthermore, we have no choice but to accept an experimental fact - God serves no purpose here.

Re:Universe's container (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 11 years ago | (#6607079)

You mean, "God just made it like this, okay?" I'm sorry, that doesn't constitute anything akin to knowing or understanding. Furthermore, we have no choice but to accept an experimental fact - God serves no purpose here.

That's an atheist assumption.

If there is a God, then that has implications on the macro issues of the universe. If there isn't a God, there are other implications.

Understanding the implications of either is both knowing and understanding--but assuming that one is true and the other false isn't knowledge, understanding, or science--it's a religious assumpion. Nothing more, and nothing less.

We all know the real answer (1, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 11 years ago | (#6606760)

God made the universe and will end it of course. Didn't you know all science is wrong unless it agrees with the Bible!

Re:We all know the real answer (1)

ThePlantOfFire (668428) | about 11 years ago | (#6606903)

Yeah, that sounds about right...

How ultimate is the end of the universe? (4, Interesting)

Lane.exe (672783) | about 11 years ago | (#6606766)

Supposing a collapse-type end of the universe, is there any possibility that this could result in another big-bang type event, which would really make this not an "end" of the universe, but something more akin to a "reboot" of the universe?

Re:How ultimate is the end of the universe? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 11 years ago | (#6606935)

I think the current belief is that it's going to tear itself apart, eventually even tearing the atoms apart. And the last I heard the time scale was uncertain, but a lot closer than the big crunch prediction, even closer than the prior "time to maximal expansion" predictions. (OTOH, this is just in the last couple of years, so who know what tomorrow's predictions will bring.)

Search for "dark energy" for references.

Dark Matter (5, Interesting)

notcreative (623238) | about 11 years ago | (#6606772)

I remember from college courses that the composition of dark matter is one of the most important issues in cosmology today. One example of this importance is that there are some estimates that 90% [utk.edu] of the mass of galaxies is not visible. There was some work [nasa.gov] that was presented to the public a while ago from WMAP at NASA. I read that it had implications for the sources of dark matter, but I don't understand what they are.

Since it is something of an open issue, what is the current understanding of the nature of dark matter in our universe? What kinds of questions are still being investigated? What kinds of hypotheses do we have now, and what do they imply?

Re:Dark Matter (2, Interesting)

prgrmr (568806) | about 11 years ago | (#6606897)

Actually, the outstanding question is whether or not neutrinos have mass. If they do, then the need for Dark Matter[tm] goes away. If they don't, we still have brown dwarf stars, undiscovered planets, and the effects of elector-magnetic currents on stars still not quite 100% accounted for within the current cosmological model.

Dark Matter, as an esoteric, non-euclidian form of matter, is still, IMO, nothing more than the late 20th century equivalent of the luminiferous aether of the 19th century, and merely a convenient algorythmic placeholder, until proven otherwise. Furthermore, without answering either the question on neutrino mass or dark matter, saying we know how the universe is going to end is just so much posturing for marketing's sake, and really poor science.

Re:Dark Matter (1)

Cally (10873) | about 11 years ago | (#6607074)

dark _energy_ is IMHPO rather more interesting; current thinking is that this is what drives inflation, and is responsible for the fact that the rate of expansion of space/time is actually INCREASING rather than decreasing as one would intuitively imagine. So this force has fluctuated several times since the big bang. First from 0 to a high value (inflationary era.) Then the value drops back to a low value (near 0? I don't know) in the aftermath of inflation, as the universe as we know it starts to form - matter condensing out, stars and galaxies forming and evolving metals. Then around now the value starts to increase again, causing expansion to start accelerating once more.

Smells fishy to me.

Can't R-E-S-I.. ack!... S-T (1)

ItWasThem (458689) | about 11 years ago | (#6606773)

"Hey, Have you guys ever been to Uranus?"
-- Ashton Kutcher, Dude Where's My Car

Down Beck Down (4, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | about 11 years ago | (#6606791)

We'll post the answers as soon as we...Get them Beck.

Whoa there, no need to get nasty. We'll post them questions as soon as we thinks them up. What kind of name is Beck for a dog anyway.

qUESTIONS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606795)

Do you think that science is dead without funds?
Science always existed before the capitalistic rise. Do you think science will die forever when the american economy dies?

Do you think that the economic rise brought the scientific rise or the opposite. Was the invention of electrism as sign for the scientific rise to come?

Are you funded or sponsored?

How much ?
$$$$$$$

I think the answer is obvious. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606983)

When all those Islamic towel-heads destroy the "great Satan" that is Western culture, the fruits of prosperity will cease and the world will fall into civil decay and revert back to barbarianism.

You see, that colored race which roams the desert looking for ways to destroy us does not realize that we are the only source of progress in philosophy, science, and art. Without America and its good, wholesome Christian values, this world would have nothing. There will be no one left to drive the human race towards perfection.

Once we've been destroyed by these short-sighted individuals, humanity will slowly fall into its doom. Afterall, the arabic peoples won't stop until everyone else is destroyed, then, like animals (I don't even think they're people), they will destroy themselves.

How can a violent race like that ever spawn social progress? They're quite literally like monkeys, running around like crazy, flinging feces at each other. Without Truth (the Word of God), they've gone quite insane with the devil whispering in their ears. Unlike monkeys flinging feces at each other, they fling bombs at each other (and us).

Personally, I'm glad that a good Christian man (women really can't be Good, because they cannot be like God as they lack the proper equipment), like George Walker Bush, has the guts to stand up and say "we won't let these inferior people destroy America". Now we're taking steps to exterminate them and take their resources for the advancement of America. Good show, Bush!

Know how the universe will end? (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 11 years ago | (#6606819)

Theoretical physicists and astronomers don't "know" anything by definition. They guess using the best mathematical and scientific models they have at their disposal.

Science used to "know" the world was flat. They used to "know" that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the human heart worked just like a furnace.

Then, one day, some guy sailed over the horizon and didnt fall off. A pump was invented, and the notion of a heart as a pump came to being.

Each time people had thought they'd reached the pinnacle of understanding, and had all the answers. Then paradigms shifted, and completely changed our ways of thinking, and all our previous answers and theories were null and void.

What makes you so sure that this isnt simply happening again?

Re:Know how the universe will end? (2, Insightful)

nebby (11637) | about 11 years ago | (#6607010)

So perhaps the world isn't round or the heart isn't a pump?

Lee Smolin et al (4, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | about 11 years ago | (#6606845)

(I realise this work is more than jsut Lee Smolin's, but he wrote the book I read about it a few years ago.)

As I understand it, there is a serious strand of thought in cosmology that suggests that our universe may be only one of (an infinite number of) alternatives. A small finite area in a parent universe undergoes inflation and blows up like a very fast balloon; for observers within this bubble, theirs is the only universe. Smolin also talks about how this hypothesis might tie in with the six magic physical constants which, if their values were even slightly different, would cause totally different physical conditions within our universe. If the inflationary bubbles occur within singularities, they would also be unknowable to their parent universe. A universe with lots of black holes would tend to give rise to offspring that would also have lots of black holes, and vice versa. I'm badly mangling his explanation of this ! but he provides an IMHO elegant explanation for the phenomena of these numbers' values appearing to have been tuned very precisely to the values neccessary for "our" sort of universe, and hence, life, and ultimately us and any other observers out there.

What's your opinion of this? It seems to me that this hypothesis makes no testable predictions and so falls beyond the remit of the scientific method. Is it just a smart way of talking around the anthropic principle, or might this be one of the key concepts to help tie up the loose ends in the standard model?

Sign of Impending Doom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6606858)

Will the end of the universe be caused by Cmdr. Taco posting a Slashdot article with perfect grammar, good sentence structure and no spelling errors?

Re:Sign of Impending Doom? (2, Funny)

Liquorman (691815) | about 11 years ago | (#6607066)

Perhaps. However, scientists have proven that this thread will end like all others, with off-topic rants against M$, SCO and the RIAA.

Willing to bet this is wrong! (4, Funny)

Mothra the III (631161) | about 11 years ago | (#6606859)

I will pay out 10 to 1 odds upon end of the universe that it ends in a different fashion they they propose. Please send me any amount of money and if I am wrong I will immediately pay out all winners upon destruction of everything.

From philosophy to physics (1)

looseBits (556537) | about 11 years ago | (#6606888)

Science has always been trimming away at the domains of philosophy and religon (Zeus isn't throwing lightning bolts anymore). It seems likely that we will have a Theory of Everything within the next few hundred years and the bulk of questions religon and philosophy try to asnwer will be hammered down to a single equation. Much of our perception of our place in the world comes from our personal understanding of the mysical universe. If the NY Times printed the TOE tomorrow, how do you feel this will effect the common man's view of [Gg]od, the universe and his place within it?

What is the next paradigm shift? (4, Interesting)

geeber (520231) | about 11 years ago | (#6606890)

It's well known that our view of the world around us was radically changed by Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists of their day. Einstein gave us relativity, and Heisenberg ushered in quantum mechanics (of course Einstein and his explanation of the photo-electric effect). Both of these thoeries led to radical departures from well established theories. However, there were, at the time, known physical effects that could not be explained by then current theories, i.e. the above mentioned photo-electric effect, blackbody radiation, Michelson's measurement of the speed of light, etc. etc. that make it clear in hindsight that the a profound shift in understanding was required.

My question is what, if any then, are the areas where we need similar paradigm shifts to answer current outstanding questions? It seems to me, at least, that maybe there aren't any, and today's scientists are left working harder and harder simply to add a few significant digits to existing theories. What are your thoughts?

give me a break.... (0, Flamebait)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 11 years ago | (#6606911)

We havn't even discovered if there is/was life on the nearest planet to us... how in the world to these pompous asshats think they can know how the world began?

SIGH

Re:give me a break.... (1)

rknop (240417) | about 11 years ago | (#6607004)

We havn't even discovered if there is/was life on the nearest planet to us... how in the world to these pompous asshats think they can know how the world began?

Can you explain to me how your brain works to form consciousness?

If not, where the hell do you get off being such a pompous asshat as to participate in a philosophical discussion, huh? After all, you seem to think that one must be able to explain a piece of the microcosm to have a chance of saying something meaningful about the macrocosm.

-Rob

We need a futures market for futures. (4, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 11 years ago | (#6606922)

As we all know, market forces are omniscient and omnivident. The market suffereth long, and is kind; the market envieth not; the market vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.

So, what we need is an online futures market in which cosmologists could put their money where their mouth is.

You say the universe will collapse in a big splat in 20 billion years? Fine, bet on it. 20 billion years if the universe hasn't collapsed, you'd better pay off. 20 billion years' worth of interest should make you think carefully before mouthing off!

You say there's a parallel universe nearby? OK, plunk down your money. If there is one, you win. (And your counterpart in the parallel universe, of course, loses. What point is there in parallel universes unless we can transfer money between them?)

An asteroid might slam into the Earth a year from now, destroying all human life, but if you manage to pick the exact day it happens, you could be rich!

Sounds like... (0, Flamebait)

BurKaZoiD (611246) | about 11 years ago | (#6606951)

...pure arrogance to me. Seems like a typical scientist.

Safe to say anyway (1)

Ra5pu7in (603513) | about 11 years ago | (#6606957)

It is the kind of scientific prediction that is very safe to say. Who's going to be alive when this theory proves out (or doesn't)? What are the odds that this theory will even be remembered?

More importantly, how is this theory really going to change anything? Because some scientists "knows" the universe will end in X manner, does that make a near-earth asteroid any less threatening? Ah well, fun stuff to read at the least.

Which end do we know will happen now? (5, Informative)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | about 11 years ago | (#6606964)

So, which end are we certain will happen now - or rather, which end is the author hyping, since most scientists would still be reluctant to call this an open and shut case?

Possible scenarios include:
  • The Big Crunch

    This fell out of favour a while back, when the need for a flat universe became apparent. In this scenario, the universe's espansion halts and it re-collapses. Once it was thought that this would involve time running backwards/entropy reversal during the crunch phase, but it was later shown that scenarios with increasing entropy also existed. There was much speculation about whether the universe would "bounce" after it crunched, forming a new expanding universe.

  • The Whimper, Version 1

    This scenario was popular when we'd made a detailed enough survey to know that that amount of bright matter in the universe was far too low to counteract the expansion. It fell out of favour when our estimates of the amount of dark matter got better.

    In this scenario, the universe keeps expanding quickly, and all matter that isn't gravitationally bound into clusters is separated by vast empty regions of space. As the universe's expansion represents the expansion of space itself, sufficiently large gravitationally bound clusters might still be disrupted, due to distances changing internally. Galaxies burn out as stars exhaust their fuel, stellar corpses eventually merge with each other and with the central black hole, which finally decays after a mind-bogglingly huge length of time.

  • The Flat Whimper (Version 2)

    This scenario assumes that the amount of matter - light and dark - is perfectly balanced with the expansion of the universe. There was strong circumstantial evidence for a scenario like this, due to the fact that deviations from flatness amplify over time and that our universe was still _roughly_ flat - but the linchpin was a variety of models for the early universe - and the big bang - that required the universe to be flat. More detailed measurements of the amount of dark matter in the universe seemed to be consistent with this model.

    In this scenario, the rate of expansion slows, approaching zero as time goes to infinity. Distance still goes to infinity as time goes to infinity, but not as rapidly. From a local point of view this looks a lot like Whimper Version 1.

  • Whimper Version 3 - We're Expanding Again

    This model arose when evidence for dark energy was discovered by observations of distant parts of the universe. In this model, the universe started out as flat, but a weak repulsive effect comes into play that causes expansion to accelerate. The effect is small enough that we haven't diverged that greatly from flatness yet, but in the end, it'll be Whimper Version 1 all over again. This is one of the two currently plausible scenarios.

  • The Never-Ending Fractal Universe (Steady-State Reborn)

    This model was the result of closer examination of the scalar field models used to drive inflation in the early universe. In the inflationary model - which itself was proposed to solve the problem of the universe's matter distribution being so smooth - a "scalar field" existed in the early universe that permeated space and caused vast amounts of new space to be created. In the original version of the inflationary model, this scalar field's effects died out shortly after the big bang. A later model, however, proposed that the field was not cancelled everywhere - in some regions of the universe, constructive interference would cause it to be strong enough for inflation to continue.

    Thus, we have a model where the universe looks mostly like our own, except for regions where it "buds" to form new universes. This process continues forever. This is the second scenario currently considered plausible (with the scalar field taking on the role of "dark energy").

  • Colliding Membranes

    This is the model proposed by the book being reviewed, if I understand the summaries correctly. The idea is that our universe exists on the surface of a higher-dimensional membrane, and some of the stranger large-scale effects in it can be explained as interactions with other universes on other membranes. The author appears to be proposing a scenario where two membranes collide/intersect, which would have very noticeable effects, to say the least.

    I find many things about this model of the universe suspicious, but don't know enough of the details to dismiss it out of hand. YMMV.


In summary, this book is hyping a somewhat radical theory and proposing it as the Certain End of the Universe, when the actual nature of the universe and its end is still far from certain.

Practical Value (1)

chrystoph (89878) | about 11 years ago | (#6606992)

What is the practical value of science that determines "...how the universe will end..."? I understand that this is those particular scientists' passion, but what "use" is it?

The human genome project(s) move toward a goal of improving the standard of living, etc.

Please note, I am not against it; in fact, it is a casual enjoyment of mine.

variable constants (5, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | about 11 years ago | (#6607000)

As a layperson with an interest in cosmology and physics, I seem to hear about an increasing number of hacks to the Standard Model. By hacks I mean things like dark energy, whose value apparently fluctuates over (cosmological) timescales; there's another idea that the speed of light(I think?) ha varied over time, and that this is the only way to explain the cepheid data (supernovae of known brightness) as we get to see supernovae from further and further away (which occured further and further back in time of course.)

Isn't the use of ugly hacks to prop up an established theory in the face of contradictory observations an indicator of a theory which needs to be chucked out en masse and reformulated in the light of a more fundamental description of physics?

Notice (1)

Bilyeuad (694955) | about 11 years ago | (#6607008)

isn't is a shame we will never know when it ends? No notice in the mail "You have 2 days 34 minutes, before you no longer exist. Enjoy"

Is the force of gravity a function of a constant? (1)

hard2spell (692598) | about 11 years ago | (#6607015)

I only know about this from an article I read a while back, but the gist was that a guy named Dirac proved that the force of gravity decreases over time. I didn't understand the proof, but apparently it is compelling even though the exact numbers have not been found. My question is this: with fundamental questions like that floating around unanswered, just how confident are you in your predictions?

Re:Is the force of gravity a function of a constan (1)

Bilyeuad (694955) | about 11 years ago | (#6607028)

Gravity is directly related to mass, can you post a link to the article?

Witness the end of science... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6607018)

When all those Islamic towel-heads destroy the "great Satan" that is Western culture, the fruits of prosperity will cease and the world will fall into civil decay and revert back to barbarianism.

You see, that colored race which roams the desert looking for ways to destroy us does not realize that we are the only source of progress in philosophy, science, and art. Without America and its good, wholesome Christian values, this world would have nothing. There will be no one left to drive the human race towards perfection.

Once we've been destroyed by these short-sighted individuals, humanity will slowly fall into its doom. Afterall, the arabic peoples won't stop until everyone else is destroyed, then, like animals (I don't even think they're people), they will destroy themselves.

How can a violent race like that ever spawn social progress? They're quite literally like monkeys, running around like crazy, flinging feces at each other. Without Truth (the Word of God), they've gone quite insane with the devil whispering in their ears. Unlike monkeys flinging feces at each other, they fling bombs at each other (and us).

Personally, I'm glad that a good Christian man (women really can't be Good, because they cannot be like God as they lack the proper equipment), like George Walker Bush, has the guts to stand up and say "we won't let these inferior people destroy America". Now we're taking steps to exterminate them and take their resources for the advancement of America. Good show, Bush!

Re:Witness the end of science... (1)

oakad (686232) | about 11 years ago | (#6607075)

Let it be war! Let the war to fire the flames of the world Revolution! Let the heretics to sink in their own blood.

Universe Expansion (3, Interesting)

Stranger4U (153613) | about 11 years ago | (#6607029)

Do you think the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is concrete? And, what effect do you think this conclusion should/will have on humans?

Some old futurism (-1, Offtopic)

oakad (686232) | about 11 years ago | (#6607041)

Does anyone wants to read a book "Sum of Technologies" by Stanislaw Lem? It was written in 1967 and still remains one of the best weighted science prognosis books in existance. It's even worth to learn Polish (or Ukrainian or Russian) language and to read this book in a "close to original" version.

True Random (3, Interesting)

jeremie (257) | about 11 years ago | (#6607072)

Is this universe actually capable of creating true near-infinite randomness, or are all the sources fundamentally affected by characteristics relating to the beginning (and/or end) and basic properties underlying them?

The end of science as we know it? (-1)

Christianity Troll (664653) | about 11 years ago | (#6607080)

When all those Islamic towel-heads destroy the "great Satan" that is Western culture, the fruits of prosperity will cease and the world will fall into civil decay and revert back to barbarianism.

You see, that colored race which roams the desert looking for ways to destroy us does not realize that we are the only source of progress in philosophy, science, and art. Without America and its good, wholesome Christian values, this world would have nothing. There will be no one left to drive the human race towards perfection.

Once we've been destroyed by these short-sighted individuals, humanity will slowly fall into its doom. Afterall, the arabic peoples won't stop until everyone else is destroyed, then, like animals (I don't even think they're people), they will destroy themselves.

How can a violent race like that ever spawn social progress? They're quite literally like monkeys, running around like crazy, flinging feces at each other. Without Truth (the Word of God), they've gone quite insane with the devil whispering in their ears. Unlike monkeys flinging feces at each other, they fling bombs at each other (and us).

Personally, I'm glad that a good Christian man (women really can't be Good, because they cannot be like God as they lack the proper equipment), like George Walker Bush, has the guts to stand up and say "we won't let these inferior people destroy America". Now we're taking steps to exterminate them and take their resources for the advancement of America. Good show, Bush!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>