# Time Likely To End Within Earth's Lifespan, Say Physicists



## Wolverine (Sep 30, 2010)

> [SIZE=14pt]Time Likely To End Within Earth's Lifespan, Say Physicists [/SIZE]
> There is a 50 per cent chance that time will end within the next 3.7 billion years, according to a new model of the universe
> 
> Look out into space and the signs are plain to see. The universe began in a Big Bang event some 13 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. And the best evidence from the distance reaches of the cosmos is that this expansion is accelerating.
> ...


So, if the universe is infinite and eternal, then everything is infinitely possible, and the laws of physics do not exist. Ow, ow, ow, brain-ache!


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 30, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> So, if the universe is infinite and eternal, then everything is infinitely possible, and the laws of physics do not exist. Ow, ow, ow, brain-ache!


then we wouldn't need physicists...the world would be a better place.

j/k


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Sep 30, 2010)

snickerd3 said:


> Wolverine said:
> 
> 
> > So, if the universe is infinite and eternal, then everything is infinitely possible, and the laws of physics do not exist. Ow, ow, ow, brain-ache!
> ...


So, if we got rid of physicists, I wouldn't have a sister in law...

GREAT SUCCESS!!!


----------



## frazil (Sep 30, 2010)

I am literally scratching my head right now.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 1, 2010)

Wolverine said:


> > [SIZE=14pt]Time Likely To End Within Earth's Lifespan, Say Physicists [/SIZE]The only way out of this conundrum is to hypothesise some kind of catastrophe that brings an end to the universe. Then all the probabilities make sense again and the laws of physics regain their power.


Or maybe, _just maybe_, we don't have the laws of physics right? Which makes more sense?

This reminds me of my brilliant, 2.7 GPA friend in engineering school, who came up with the theory (over a 12 pack of The Beast) that, as long as we could become nothing, then we could travel faster than the speed of light, because nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

There is a danger in thinking _too_ much....


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 1, 2010)

Heisenburg gets pulled over by a cop. The cops says, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" heisenburg says, "No, but I know where I am."


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 1, 2010)

So that means one small molecule in my fingernail might be an entire universe? Can I buy some pot from you?


----------



## Paul S (Oct 1, 2010)

According to their reasoning, at least we will know the PE exam cut score sometime within that 3.7 billion years!


----------



## Santiagj (Oct 1, 2010)

Tomorrow is never yesterday.


----------



## Sschell (Oct 1, 2010)

The argument seems invalid. Time can be infinite, but a data set cannot, as that would require prior knowledge of future events.

More precisely, if we are evaluating a data set, it must be bound by something, otherwise its just a shitload of random numbers.

edit: not to mention that they totally leave out the 3rd law of thermodynamics.... Just because an event is possible (however improbable) today, there is no reason to believe that it will remain possible after a few billion years of entropy working on the universe.


----------



## NCcarguy (Oct 5, 2010)

IF they actually KNOW what will happen that far in advance, why don't you see them lining up with winning lottery tickets every single time they have a drawing?


----------



## Dleg (Oct 5, 2010)

In their conception of the universe, as long as time is infinite, then every possible number will eventually be the lotto winner. The issue is more of a financial issue - time value of money. Do you invest your money in something that is guaranteed to pay out in the infinite future? Or is the present time value of your money worth more than an investment with a return date set at infinity?

Maybe the Wall Street Journal can write a similar article debunking the notion of an infinite universe, based on the financial unlikelihood.


----------

