Theme of the universe = waste resources?

T

TabbyStar

Registered Member
I have lost track of current star estimates. I think the Milky Way galaxy was updated recently to 400 billion. Then I read galaxy estimates were up to 2 trillion recently. That is a lot of stars!

All those stars...burning their precious fuel away (via fusion)...advancing closer to the day they will deplete their fuel entirely. For what purpose? To cast their energy and light (photons) into the vast emptiness of space? Rarely contacting anything. Nothing benefiting from that wasted star energy?

Indeed, when I examine our own local solar system (to scale, on paper), I am convinced that 99.999% (or more) of our sun's light does not contact Earth or any other celestial body in our neighborhood! Just wasted energy over billions of years!

I ponder things many days...today included. Is the underlying "theme" or purpose of our universe to simply waste matter/energy? If we conclude yes...should mankind comply with this theme? Use whatever resources we can...as fast as we can! Then move on to the next resource and use it up also. When gone? Expand out to other planets and tap them resources good too! After that? Get out to the other solar systems asap and start using those resources? With little regard to preservation or conservation?

I understand this is a bold topic I present. Especially in a world which has daily headlines of "conserve this" and "conserve that". Still, looking at the cosmos... that type of practice(conserving) is opposite, or non compliant to what we observe and understand!

In closing. I believe waste is 99.99999999% of what the universe does. Every second, of every day. Senseless and absolute waste of resources. Who is mankind to question this theme or be arrogant and not follow it?
 
Last edited:
TabbyStar said:
Who is mankind to question this theme or be arrogant and not follow it?
Click to expand...
TS: it would not be so much arrogance, but self interest. While some aspects of existence seem as extravagant. A tree producing thousand of seeds a year, (that is nuts) but only requiring one such in hundrets of years to replicate itself.
may be humankind is not only the universe's only way (so far) to know itself, but also to teach it to use it's resources efficiently, by example. eventually. hopefully.
On energy: no matter what, it can never get lost. It was before our universe, is still out there, please see the "ALMA" thread.
 
I got a bit confused reading your reply. Who is teaching who? The universe surely is not teaching humans or even setting a good example on conserving. We observe a sun wasting all its resources by casting only minuscule amounts of light on anything near it. Very wasteful indeed.

If you meant humans teach the universe? Then, sadly, I still do not understand. How can be teach inanimate objects like super large plasma balls? Lol. (Not at you, just general lol).

Please help me understand your reply better.
Ty!
 
TabbyStar said:
The universe surely is not teaching humans or even setting a good example on conserving.
Click to expand...
Well, a vacuum that surrounds the earth is a very good insulator, if only we could keep exiting radiation at bay, we would need no sunlight. to maintain temperature stable infinitely.
Having a vacuum between us and our local nuclear reactor , the Sun allows the transport of energy without loss over vast distances.
Past stars that died and radiated some energy away (photons of which we still receive out of the past)* were not wasted, but actually forget the heavy elements we need to exist in the now, that late in our voyage through time. * "Alma"
On knowing and teaching the universe:
I am using hyperbole. Existence turned out to be exuberant , bolstered by redundancy, even if it never was planned that way. Obviously that is how it turned out,
May be we should accept the fact that there is nothing wrong to just have a display, art, as a by-product of creativity? ?
 
Last edited:
TabbyStar said:
Who is mankind to question this theme or be arrogant and not follow it?
Click to expand...
The Universe is not a entity and has not a single neuron to understand anything. It operates via physics (again not a single neuron)

Concepts such as waste, conservation are just that, CONCEPTS. Useful for human purposes but not applicable to Universe or physics

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
The Universe is not a entity and has not a single neuron to understand anything. It operates via physics (again not a single neuron)
Click to expand...

Michael,
Hyperbole aside, I always thought we are part of that unique entity called the universe and we have many neurons, synapses, with amazing capacities.
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said: ↑
The Universe is not a entity and has not a single neuron to understand anything. It operates via physics (again not a single neuron)
Click to expand...

True

By the periodic table . The stability of form .

Life is an entity which exists in the Universe .
 
I agree with you folks. Maybe, "theme" is the incorrect word to use. Is, "order" better? Perhaps, "existence"? My thought exercise is simply trying to convey that the universe, from our understanding" is wasteful. Enormously large, hot balls of plasma litter our night sky. Waste in a sense that it boggles my mind just thinking about it.

So I agree that said universe is not sentient. However, it either was designed or resulted randomly. In either event it wastes....it wastes...it wastes without, to me, purpose or benefit in any substantial way (on large efficiency scales, I know our small presence benefits).

Sad actually when I think about it!
 
Last edited:
TabbyStar said:
I agree with you folks. Maybe, "theme" is the incorrect word to use. Is, "order" better? Perhaps, "existence"? My thought exercise is simply trying to convey that the universe, from our understanding" is wasteful. Enormously large, hot balls of plasma litter our night sky. Waste in a sense that it boggles my mind just thinking about it.

So I agree that said universe is not sentient. However, it either was designed or resulted randomly. In either event it wastes....it wastes...it wastes without, to me, purpose or benefit in any substantial way.

Sad actually when I think about it!
Click to expand...

Life gives sentience to the Universe .
 
The sun radiates huge amounts of energy, but while only a small percentage reaches the earth, it's still enough to warm the planet and bring us sunlight. Don't be greedy. ;)

You know what's weird? When the sun decreases in size, the amount of energy goes up. I assumed more mass = more energy, but not so.
 
TabbyStar said:
I got a bit confused reading your reply. Who is teaching who? The universe surely is not teaching humans or even setting a good example on conserving. We observe a sun wasting all its resources by casting only minuscule amounts of light on anything near it. Very wasteful indeed.

If you meant humans teach the universe? Then, sadly, I still do not understand. How can be teach inanimate objects like super large plasma balls? Lol. (Not at you, just general lol).

Please help me understand your reply better.
Ty!
Click to expand...
The universe is there because it is...nothing more, nothing less.It doesn't nor can it give a stuff about us or any other life. It like us are just accidents and random chances that are only partly explained via the BB, the laws of physics and GR that just happened to be a part of what the BB brought into existence, [evolution of space and time] Abiogenesis and evolution.

The waste you speak of and emphasis, from our perspective on Earth, is just a result of the limited advances and technology that we are able to implement and control at this time.
There is a interesting category of civilisations that is called the "Kardashev scale"
Briefly it is simply defined as the amount of energy any civilisation can control and put to good use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
  • "A Type I civilization—also called a planetary civilization—can use and store all of the energy available on its planet.
  • A Type II civilization—also called a stellar civilization—can harness the total energy of its planet's parent star (the most popular hypothetical concept being the Dyson sphere—a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy to the planet(s)).
  • A Type III civilization—also called a galactic civilization—can control energy at the scale of its entire host galaxy.[2]
The scale is hypothetical, and regards energy consumption on a cosmic scale."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So interestingly that means we humans are somewhere between a scale 0 and 1....quite a way to go yet before we can even reach the 1 scale.

To reach a stage 2 on the scale, and as you suggest, controlling all or nearly all of the output of energy from our host star, we would need to have the technological know how to build a "Dyson sphere"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
 
Yes. Kardashev scale is one of my stronger areas. Due to that scale (especially expanded to 4 & 5) I often have thought exercises of what could be achieved at such scales. I get into all kinds of non mainstream ideas/concepts. Like star harvesting (possibly explaining space voids, like bootes) and even alternative time travel scenarios that have no paradoxes (to me anyway).

Thanks for referencing it!
 
paddoboy said:
The universe is there because it is...nothing more, nothing less.It doesn't nor can it give a stuff about us or any other life. It like us are just accidents and random chances that are only partly explained via the BB, the laws of physics and GR that just happened to be a part of what the BB brought into existence, [evolution of space and time] Abiogenesis and evolution.
Click to expand...

Disagree

The Universe exists because of the infinity of physical objects .

BB , is incomplete in understanding the full spectrum of energy forms .
 
TabbyStar said:
I ponder things many days...today included. Is the underlying "theme" or purpose of our universe to simply waste matter/energy?
Click to expand...
To accurately use the term "waste" you have to have values i.e. what is a "good" use and what is a "bad" use. The universe does not have such values.
 
billvon said:
To accurately use the term "waste" you have to have values i.e. what is a "good" use and what is a "bad" use. The universe does not have such values.
Click to expand...

Of course we do not even know if the arrangement of the universe is intentional or not. Still, it's current arrangement is that such enormous energy distribution, in some mankind's opinion, is not utilized effectively or as efficiently as it could (relative to some mankind's rating system...like mine).
 
TabbyStar said:
Yes. Kardashev scale is one of my stronger areas. Due to that scale (especially expanded to 4 & 5) I often have thought exercises of what could be achieved at such scales. I get into all kinds of non mainstream ideas/concepts. Like star harvesting (possibly explaining space voids, like bootes) and even alternative time travel scenarios that have no paradoxes (to me anyway).

Thanks for referencing it!
Click to expand...
Remember it is a hypothetical scale, just like the hypothetical musings and imaginations of those that like to add mystique and silly sounding scientific words with regards to energy and such and numerous aspects of magical beings etc etc etc.
We evolved after Abiogenesis, we eat, we shit, we live, we die, and that's it. And that applies also to the universe.
 
TabbyStar said:
Of course we do not even know if the arrangement of the universe is intentional or not. Still, it's current arrangement is that such enormous energy distribution, in some mankind's opinion, is not utilized effectively or as efficiently as it could (relative to some mankind's rating system...like mine).
Click to expand...
 
river is known for his posts being so short as to not even be sentences.
Looks like he's leveled-up.
Now he posts without saying anything at all.
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top