Killing the Universe!!

:lol: yip were cosmic murderers. I thought it was a very silly article. Its like everytime we look up at the night sky we are killing it oh so funny :lol: :lol:

it's too cloudy in ireland for us to take much of the blame. i think it is all anthony's fault. taking all those great pictures under the sunny skies of greece .

every time I look at comet holmes it gets more faint, isn't that proof.... :lol:

I wish someone would kill those damn clouds, everybody look!

Mike

If only !

Do ye remember the guy who tried to
get as many people world wide to jump at exactly the same second to
try and register the thud on the Richter scale?

How about we all take a deep breath and blow away the clouds at the
same time!?

We could test the theory by getting everyone to look at traffic wardens for a day and then just count those still standing.

Sorry, but I am a complete sceptic when it comes to cosmology. With the success in recent years using the CMB data cosmolgists have gotten into the world of speculation. Dark energy and dark mater? most of the laws of nature etc have been fairly simple. Instead of assuming that there is a force/matter that cannot be observed or measured it should be more appropriate to challange the current majority and say wise up. Fair play to MOND for taking a stand.

Look at the quote at page 2
" Prof Krauss stresses that resetting the cosmic clock was not something we have done to the universe but rather what our cosmologically observations may imply about our knowledge of the cosmic clock: "I did not mean to imply causality - namely that our measurement itself reduces the lifetime of the universe - but rather that by being able to make our measurement we may thus conclude that we may not be in the late decay stage."

The killer here is the word Causality= just because the measurement finds a specific result value this doesnt imply the measurement itself caused the system to adopt that specific value, merely that our uncertainty about the value prior to the experiment has reduced (while certainty has increased ) as a result of the knowledge gained by the result.

Having stated this the journo then continues to express his mis-understanding by continuing in his previous (we are to blame vein!)

Actually this story illustrates very well the real message of Schrodinger's cat- Prior to opening the door our knowledge about the actual state of the cat is Low ( eg it could be Alive - chance 50% or Dead - chance 50%. Opening the door neither Kills the cat nor does it make it alive,. All that happens is by opening the door the uncertainty of one state reduces to 0% while simultaeously the value of the other outcome reaches 100%.

Is it possible the Reporter here may have deliberately slanted the piece in this way to help the readers understand a bit more clearly the essential trust of the Schrodinger Cat example