Why is big freeze prevalent over big crunch? Big freeze turning to nothing would imply a beginning is impossible, contrary to physics, while big crunch makes perfect sense and blackholes expanding and growing and combining are proof. The deceleration will occur just as big freeze says, but blackholes will continue with gravity, and combine and pull in everything slowly. Can someone explain this to me? Eternal reoccurance is the only scientific explanation for existance, and seems in line with the principle an object in motion stays in motion, while big freeze makes 0 sense. Seems like a reddit nihlist fedora take... Doesn't the existence of black holes negate the theory of big freeze already?

>>16704423 (OP)
Blackholes don't pull anything in or have an effect on anything that's outside of their causal horizon meaning anything outside of it will cotinue to expand or do whatever it's doing. Not only that the cosmological constant (dark energy) is uniform throughout the universe expanding everything dissipating away their energy while a blackholes effect is only localized to its causal horizon.

>>16704423 (OP)
Every process moves towards equilibrium, and as systems move towards equilibrium the probability of spontaneously shifting out of equilibrium decreases exponentially.

>>16704457
Causal horizon expands, especially when they begin to merge no? And can't it be that this may reach the dark matter, giving it a reason to slow? Makes sense to me, turning to equilibrium makes 0 sense, for then thered just be nothing, no explanation for existence if thats the case, so literally impossible

>>16704467
Yes it expands when they begin to merge but Dark energy fills the entire universe uniformly and drives its accelerated expansion on the largest scales. Even though black holes grow by merging, their size is tiny compared to the vastness of the universe. They only affect their local region and can’t compete with the all-encompassing dark energy pushing space apart. So, black holes getting bigger won’t stop or slow the universe’s expansion or the Big Freeze. And the idea of “nothing” at equilibrium is more philosophical than physical.

>>16704483
philisophical than physical means nothing. Nothing could exist if it's determined to become nothing. The theory of it all reaching equilibrium makes no sense. You could say its what it looks like physically, sure, but physics would say that's impossible, since there's existence, and if that were they end, that'd be existence, but it's not. You see? Seems like a demoralization campaign more than an actual theory, because just cus a screen looks like an image, we know we're wrong. Big freeze isn't an answer, it's a case to solve, like einstein with space time... thats why its so stupid when you google whats the fate of the universe, it says big freeze, which is physically impossible. It should still be big crunch, with the implication that the big freeze is an issue to solve, not the answer... because bit crunch makes sense and is useful, big freeze is impossible and is useless... and will certainly be replaced. Seems like pop sci, but basic physics proves its impossible to be the answer... it should be called a dillema? But i guess i see how it could be the case if there's something out of nothing. So thats the scientific consensus? Something out of equilibrium?

>>16704423 (OP)
It only does if you understand Riemann's zeta, at least according to nerd who say physics and math are hard. I think, I never really pay attention to why they say they are wrong.

The problem is really about definitions first and foremost, too many physicists don't understand why set theory is broken and why that means Einstein was wrong.

>>16704495
>Il Autismo.
You're making shit up without accepting the base case that you're making shit up from.
Consider:
1) Matter exists.
2) Dualism is obviously wrong.
3) Hence your spergery is irrelevant, you got shat out by a woman because of biology; if your epistemology does not consider this immutable fact, then you are being intellectually dishonest.

>>16704423 (OP)
every universal end state is a big cope when the entire universe can be reprogrammed at any time

>>16704495
Observations show the universe’s expansion is accelerating. This has been measured through supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy distributions. That acceleration is currently attributed to dark energy. If dark energy behaves like a cosmological constant, which so far matches the data best, then the universe keeps expanding forever leading to the Big Freeze: galaxies drift apart, stars die, and entropy increases until energy is too spread out to do useful work. The Big Freeze is not about "nothing", it’s still a universe, just a cold, dilute, high-entropy one. Physics doesn't say existence stops. "Equilibrium" doesn’t mean nonexistence it means maximum entropy. That’s a physical concept, not a metaphysical claim. The system doesn’t vanish, it becomes thermodynamically inert. "Big Crunch" is not more valid, it only happens if gravity overcomes expansion, which observations currently rule out. It’s still a possibility, but one that seems less supported now. So no, the Big Freeze isn’t a “demoralization campaign” or "impossible" it’s a working scientific model based on current evidence. That doesn’t mean it’s final or perfect, like all science, it’s open to being challenged with better data or theory, not just strong language. If someone thinks the Big Freeze is “useless” or “wrong,” then the scientific approach is to show where the data or math fails, not to reject it because it feels unsatisfying. Einstein didn't call Newtonian gravity “useless” he refined it with evidence and math.

>>16704521
There is no scientific basis for a single one of these beliefs. I say God did it.

>>16704529
Incredible. You’ve singlehandedly disproven decades of cosmology from your couch.

>>16704535
No, cosmology has never proven anything beyond the science of instrumentation itself.

>>16704423 (OP)
Both are dumb and absolutely pointless to think about.
It's like trying to save your allowance for your retirement.

>>16704539

>>16704501
How are you calling me an autsitic sperg when im claiming big freeze makes no sense beacuse im an atheist? You're mad at me for being religious when my whole argument is bug freeze make no sense cus cant nothing out of something, dipshit

>>16704521
So then what's the major theory that ties our existence in with big freeze, and makes it all work as a whole? Big crunch i find nothing to give a sensible picture involving big freeze...

>>16704521
>Observations show the universe’s expansion is accelerating.
>thing far away longer time get here must mean go faster later since go fast now
Observations show that the further an object is, the more redshifted it is.
Do not bother explaining how this is proof of expansion. That is not how logic or proof works.
>light losing energy at greater distances
>intervening material that definitely isn't there because we totally can't see it, guys, ignore this potential evidence
If you're going to conclude anything from the basic mechanism, you should be saying that the expansion is slowing. Sadly, you are married to regurgitating garbage without examination.

>>16704556
not the guy you @ to but the big freeze does not lead to nothing. After the big freeze there is still space, time, particles, radiation, and energy, just in a very low-energy, high-entropy state. It’s a state of maximum thermodynamic entropy. IT'S THE END OF ACTIVITY, NOT THE END OF EXISTENCE.

>>16704558
You're confusing confidence with comprehension. You clearly don't understand redshift, cosmic expansion, or how evidence actually builds in science yet you're talking like you've just overturned cosmology from your keyboard. Redshift isn't 'light losing energy randomly' or 'intervening material magic.' It's a measurable, consistent pattern that matches general relativity's predictions, confirmed across multiple independent lines of data; supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, baryon acoustic oscillations, etc. This isn’t some one-trick explanation it’s converging evidence. You’re not exposing flaws you’re exposing the fact you haven’t done any research to understand what these are. And no, repeating 'that’s not how logic works' doesn’t make you sound deep it makes you sound like someone who thinks skepticism is a substitute for understanding. I've tried explaining it as best as i can. If you claim the expansion is slowing then better to prove that scientifically instead of arguing it here without any evidence.

>>16704567
>look at further observations confirm my beliefs
Confirmation bias. God did it.

>>16704569
which God?

>>16704571
The True God, obviously.

>>16704567
>all this evidence that is extremely easy to question is actually irrefutable
I said DON'T bother explaining it. You are wasting everyone's time and demonstrating a severe lack of cognition.
>deep
The sentence was simple to be readily understood by the maximum number of parties. Your response belies your purpose.
>thing further away faster
>time is distance, distance is time in cosmology
I literally cannot prove anything to you because you are indoctrinated.

>>16704563
But if there's an end of activity, then there never could've been a beginning. This is what I meant... but the fact that there's activity means an end of activity is impossible... unless there's activity out of inactivity. Understand? this whole thread feels like I'm talking to AI

>>16704573
Okay, Einstein.

>>16704578
>he knows
What an interesting comeback. Thank you for admitting to disingenuous discourse.

>>16704572
He's the only true God

>>16704580
lol bro if you think the big freeze is less likely to happen than the big crunch then prove it using actual scientific method and i'll be happy to accept your claim. As far as i know though all evidences lead to the big freeze so have at it.

I've done further research using Grok, and it says heat death happens, and that the big bang was caused by a quantum event, so random... and according to general relativity, time began with the big bang, so there was nothing before big bang, which sounds stupid. I guess it's either big crunch or hitchhikers guide to the galaxy...

>>16704591
the whole field seems like the cosmologists themselves don't care and so they don't think about it. I'll jist assume it's big crunch then, cus it makes sense, and the field is bullcrap anyways, and quantum event theory of big bang or beginning of time einstein god theory sound stupid, and the field is stupid. I didn't get the answer to my question, big crunch is the answer