The fading away of all visible astronomical objects?

I heard recently about an "end of the universe" scenario, in which
since all objects are accelerating away from each other. there will
come a point in which everything will have sped away far and fast
enough so that nothing in space will be visible any longer.

Is there an "official" term for this theory that will allow me to more
easily search for info on it?

As I understand it, it will be so far in the future that our own star
will be long dead. But hypothetically, would there be any living stars
at this point? Or would it be so far in the future that all stars will
have died and there'd be no material/conditions available at some
point preventing new stars from being born?

Thanks for any feedback!
-Liam

On Jul 9, 8:13 am, Liam wrote:
I heard recently about an "end of the universe" scenario,
in which since all objects are accelerating

.... acceleration not required. Continued expansion is all that is
required. ...

away from each other. there will come a point in which
everything will have sped away far and fast enough so
that nothing in space will be visible any longer.

Is there an "official" term for this theory that will allow
me to more easily search for info on it?

"cosmology"

Start he
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.... the site was not responding this morning... so be patient.

As I understand it, it will be so far in the future that
our own star will be long dead. But hypothetically,
would there be any living stars at this point?

That should continue for a good long time.

Or would it be so far in the future that all stars will
have died and there'd be no material/conditions
available at some point preventing new stars from
being born?

That too will occur, although much much later.

David A. Smith

"Liam" wrote in message
ps.com...
:I heard recently about an "end of the universe" scenario, in which
: since all objects are accelerating away from each other. there will
: come a point in which everything will have sped away far and fast
: enough so that nothing in space will be visible any longer.
:
: Is there an "official" term for this theory that will allow me to more
: easily search for info on it?
:
: As I understand it, it will be so far in the future that our own star
: will be long dead. But hypothetically, would there be any living stars
: at this point? Or would it be so far in the future that all stars will
: have died and there'd be no material/conditions available at some
: point preventing new stars from being born?
:
: Thanks for any feedback!
: -Liam
:
The accelerating expansion of the Universe is the result of Red-Shift
measurements and in part is responsible for the Big Bang Theory.
My reasoning has that's wrong!

The theory that the universe is expanding via Red-shift measurements I
believe is wrong also, as it does not consider relativity into current
calculations correctly.

If one considers relativity and space-time into the equation, the Universe
actually remains to occupy what it occupies... Via Energy is not created nor
destroyed..

This implies changes of occupancy in one area of the universe is increasing
in quanta whilst in other areas occupancy is decreasing, obviously if we are
observing a decompression then our local area must be experiencing
compression, but my oh my this means we must be able to detect Blue-shifting
towards the compression point..

And guess what, our Galaxy IS with one mother of a compressed area that is
so Blue-shifted it implies a Black Hole and here we come across another
theory I disagree with in where its stated the Black hole is with a magical
attractive force when the reality is the inbound velocities are the result
from the rest of the Universes compression that results in the inference to
mass and its various densities via meeting velocities at "c"

And there we have also our gravities velocities explained via adhering to
relativity and or Space-Time compressions Laws.. and we can also finally
disband the magical attractive force referred to as gravity by replacing it
with the appropriate inbound velocities..

Any Questions?

Cheers all,

Pete.

--

________________________________________
May the Universe return
100 Fold of your output.

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:13:15 -0700, in alt.astronomy, Liam
: wrote:
:
: I heard recently about an "end of the universe" scenario, in which
: since all objects are accelerating away from each other. there will
:
: Not acceleration, but coasting...
:
:
: --
: Ak'toh'di
Hi Ak'toh'di,

I am sorry but the Red-Shift measurements are implying the expansion is
accelerating via the further we measure for Red-Shift the greater the
velocities.

With out considering relativity into the equation this implies an
accelerating expansion, but when one considers Relativity into the equation,
the Universe is merely experiencing changes where one area is indeed
increasing in occupancy whilst other areas are decreasing in occupancy..

This implies our area and indeed we ourselves are all experiencing
compression.

Any questions?

cheers all,

Pete.
--
________________________________________
May the Universe return
100 Fold of your output.

Dear Laidback:

"Laidback" wrote in message
...
....
With out considering relativity into the equation this
implies an accelerating expansion, but when one
considers Relativity into the equation, the Universe
is merely experiencing changes where one area is
indeed increasing in occupancy whilst other areas
are decreasing in occupancy..

This implies our area and indeed we ourselves are
all experiencing compression.

Any questions?

Yes. How did you manage to "factor out" the necessary local blue
shift to go along with your imagined "compression"?

David A. Smith

Bob Officer wrote in
:

SNIP

Look up "Olberg's Paradox"


That's new one on me. Did you mean Olbers' paradox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

Klazmon.

On Jul 9, 8:32 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On 10 Jul 2007 12:28:08 +1200, in alt.astronomy, Llanzlan Klazmon the

15th wrote:
Bob Officer wrote in
:

SNIP

Look up "Olberg's Paradox"

That's new one on me. Did you mean Olbers' paradox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

Klazmon.

You're right, those all nighters got me again.
[snip]

Thanks for the replies, and info, and debate. =)
Much appreciated!
-Liam

In sci.astro Liam wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:32 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On 10 Jul 2007 12:28:08 +1200, in alt.astronomy, Llanzlan Klazmon the

15th wrote:
Bob Officer wrote in
:

SNIP

Look up "Olberg's Paradox"

That's new one on me. Did you mean Olbers' paradox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

Klazmon.

You're right, those all nighters got me again.
[snip]

Thanks for the replies, and info, and debate. =)
Much appreciated!
-Liam


If you are interested specifically in the cosmic acceleration, the
keyword you want is "dark energy". The scenario you mention in which
everything gets so far apart that they're invisible to each other has
sometimes been called the "big rip," but that term does not seem to be
used consistently.
As one poster mentioned, you can get something similar in a
permanently expanding universe even without acceleration. But the
acceleration will make the effect much stronger. Permanent non-accelerated
expansion can make everything so far apart as to be _practically_
invisible to each other; if you add acceleration, they will become
invisible even in principle, as they are beyond each others' cosmic
horizon distance.
As to the question of timescale, no one knows. It _might_ be the
case that some red dwarf stars will still be burning when it happens.



Kevin

"Liam" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 9, 8:32 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On 10 Jul 2007 12:28:08 +1200, in alt.astronomy, Llanzlan Klazmon the

Thanks for the replies, and info, and debate. =)
Much appreciated!

Wiki has this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

but you'll get a much more detailed analysis
from John Baez's timeline:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html

HTH
George

On Jul 10, 1:32 pm, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Liam" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 9, 8:32 pm, Bob Officer wrote:
On 10 Jul 2007 12:28:08 +1200, in alt.astronomy, Llanzlan Klazmon the
Thanks for the replies, and info, and debate. =)
Much appreciated!

Wiki has this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

but you'll get a much more detailed analysis
from John Baez's timeline:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html

HTH
George

Wow, heady stuff! Absolutely fascinating.

Question: Let's say hypothetically, there's still a habitable planet
around a star that's still releasing light/heat. Based on the "Big
Rip" theory, will all orbit decays happen before the galaxy disappears
into black holes? Or, does the disappearance of galaxies into black
holes imply that all stars by this time have become black dwarfs and
black holes?
Would the "disappearance" of celestial objects only be perceived among
the galaxies, as the galaxy would "disappear into black holes" before
stars within the galaxy get far enough away from each other to
perceive that "aloneness" in the universe?
Basically, what is the last possible event a theoretically habitable
planet would experience before it decays? It's system being alone in
the universe, its orbit around its star decaying and flying off into
space, the collapse of everything into black holes?
What is the latest point in which a star could possibly still be
alive, before it expands, novas, etc?

Thanks for any additional feedback!!
-Liam