Destoying the Universe with science?

#20 Correct, they won't even see other galaxies or other stars, as these will have been pushed forward to distances unreachable by any speed, even the speed of light. In the end, every molecule will split to its constituent atoms, and atoms will start drifting apart. This is not the end, and by reaching a singularity (if it is reached) other marvelous things may appear, but this universe as we know it with these particular physical laws will be gone forever.

To Coombes

Could it work then to covert mass/energy into energy and then let the energy disperse into space?

Uniforly distributed energy with no differences in it seems close to nothing to me?

The atom is made up of electrons moving in circle around a nucleus. Our solar system is similar structured. Therefore it could be our solar system is circling something in the centre. Then it follows that our galaxy the Milky is also circling something. Therefore everything seems to be traveling a circle. What goes round will come around. For your constructive criticisms Friends.

I would like to continue from where I left it. If ever the galaxies come around and collide into each other and be smash to pieces, it will be rebuilt again from the debris. Therefore it looks like the Universe cannot be destroyed. It will be transformed only just like splitting of the atom by Albert Einstein. It is just the same with human being. The WILL of the human being is not destroyed when it's physical body dies. It will be transformed into another entity. The WILL of that particular human is the same but the entity is different. For your entertainment only, Friends. lol

#22 Converting mass-energy to energy would be removing mass.... so basically this would turn everything into photons (pure energy, zero mass), a possible consequence (as I understand it) of the Higgs boson/field reverting to the ground state. I have no idea how much energy this would release, but I would imagine that pure energy was the state of the universe at the very beginning. Anyone have any info/hypotheses on this?

I have hypotheses that #23 - #25 are trying to troll, since it really hurts to reads things like "circling" about electrons or galaxy. Or photons which have no mass.
- Electrons are not even close to general circling objects, they are probability clouds.
- Galaxies don't rotate around anything, they just drift away from each other (in not even general 3D space we can imagine, as far as i remember)
- Light if affected by black holes, it is bended by gravity, so it has mass

Ok.... I make one small mistake by using a common generalisation, and it's trolling? Never heard of that. Might as well have a go at the OP for daring to discuss something which is (most likely) impossible. We're humans here, and not necessarily humans with a complete grasp of absolutely all of the laws of all forms of physics. This is why I asked if anyone had any info, so that they could correct me.... which you did, but why am I a troll?

I could say you're trolling by making a mistake with the English language by saying light can be bended. Should I?

I specifically said that I am not an expert on these things, and I just showed that by making a mistake, and now I'm a troll. RIP logic.

Sorry if you honest with your thoughts, this topic really looked like intentional breaking of rather common facts. It's like almost any article about particles(electrons) has a mention that they act mostly like probability clouds, same for galaxies.
You need to be an expert to make intentional errors, both in science or English langauge

What? My error wasn't intentional, it was a mistake - that was my whole point. I made a mistake by saying that photons have no mass, you made a mistake too. I'm just confused about why you called me a troll because of the *unintentional* mistake I made.

#26 hal9k I am not trolling. I had been posting nonsenses then.