Will our galaxy turn into a radioactive wasteland?

[Omnifarious]

I just saw a documentary that mentioned the Andromeda galaxy colliding with ours. It said that it would lead to the creation of a lot of new stars. But when they all go supernova it will lead to a massive increase cosmic radiation in our galaxy. Implying this would be a threat to any life.

I also read an article that said, assuming our species survives, we would have to find a way to leave the Milky Way before that happens. Though it didn't quite mention why. 

And yes I know that this won't happen for billions of years but I still want to know if our galaxy will become some kind of galactic radioactive wasteland. 

[sluggo]

Same answer to your previous questions.

'They' are speculating based on what little knowledge they have. 

 They are making it up as they go, revising their thinking as knowledge increases.

 

[Omnifarious]

On 5/19/2021 at 4:43 PM, sluggo said:

Same answer to your previous questions.

'They' are speculating based on what little knowledge they have. 

 They are making it up as they go, revising their thinking as knowledge increases.

 

Well why don't they say that when they write articles and make documentaries? If someone sates something without saying it's speculation, it implies that it's a known and proven fact.

[HallsofIvy]

Because then no one would be impressed!

 

[sluggo]

22 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

Well why don't they say that when they write articles and make documentaries? If someone sates something without saying it's speculation, it implies that it's a known and proven fact.

Most people who spend time and money in the pursuit of education want to believe they have acquired knowledge that helps them understand the world they inhabit. They trust in the scientific method to find answers to their questions. Their confidence is enough to publish information to others, and the public is expecting 'expert' opinions. Now imagine an aircraft crash scene. Investigators arrive to reconstruct the event.That is similar to the state of human knowledge. The world was already here when humans arrived. They must hypothesize or speculate with whatever evidence they can find as to how the universe came to be in its current state.

No knowledge is certain, and subject to revision.

 

[Omnifarious]

3 hours ago, sluggo said:

Most people who spend time and money in the pursuit of education want to believe they have acquired knowledge that helps them understand the world they inhabit. They trust in the scientific method to find answers to their questions. Their confidence is enough to publish information to others, and the public is expecting 'expert' opinions. Now imagine an aircraft crash scene. Investigators arrive to reconstruct the event.That is similar to the state of human knowledge. The world was already here when humans arrived. They must hypothesize or speculate with whatever evidence they can find as to how the universe came to be in its current state.

No knowledge is certain, and subject to revision.

 

I have no objection to speculation, what I object to is people presenting theories to the general public without telling them that they are theories. Otherwise the air they have when they convey them is the same as a school teacher reading from a textbook. And weather you realize it or not, you trust them implicitly. Trust they know what they are talking about and assume they are telling you about a perfectly true thing, that they are speaking from a position of proof. 

There is so much that is fact, so much is theory. Yet the people who take it upon themselves to tell us don't tell us which is which. How are people without scientific backgrounds supposed to figure it out for themselves?

You don't make dvds without putting an age rating on every box. Why should you talk about theories without telling people that's just what they are?

It's like when the media makes biased stories or imply a natural death was a covered up murder. Legally, they can do it but they have an obligation to tell the people the full story because people assume they do. Indeed they have to assume because they won't get any news if they diddn't.

[sluggo]

On 5/21/2021 at 4:07 PM, Omnifarious said:

I have no objection to speculation, what I object to is people presenting theories to the general public without telling them that they are theories. Otherwise the air they have when they convey them is the same as a school teacher reading from a textbook. And weather you realize it or not, you trust them implicitly. Trust they know what they are talking about and assume they are telling you about a perfectly true thing, that they are speaking from a position of proof. 

There is so much that is fact, so much is theory. Yet the people who take it upon themselves to tell us don't tell us which is which. How are people without scientific backgrounds supposed to figure it out for themselves?

You don't make dvds without putting an age rating on every box. Why should you talk about theories without telling people that's just what they are?

It's like when the media makes biased stories or imply a natural death was a covered up murder. Legally, they can do it but they have an obligation to tell the people the full story because people assume they do. Indeed they have to assume because they won't get any news if they diddn't.

You used the important term 'trust'.

The 'experts' in their field, trust the educational system that taught them, and believe they are passing on truth, as best they know it, at the present.A patient seeks a diagnosis from a doctor who is more knowledgeable and experienced than the patient. A person takes a flight to a distant place, trusting in the experience of the pilot, traffic controllers, maintenance people, etc. No one can do all things necessary in life, so they must depend on others.Unless a person is deceitful or dishonest, they will provide the best service they can.The one critical thing in evaluating trustworthiness is perspective.A plane crash with 100 lives lost, is a dramatic attention getting headline. That is the nature of news media. If they published every successful flight, after a few days, people would ignore those because it is common and boring. The important point is the crashes are a small portion of all flights. If you question information on a subject of interest, I suggest a little research on the subject will help you decide theory or fact (verified by experimental evidence).

Some things like the weather are so complex, you won't get a definite forecast, but probabilities of this, that, and the other.

 

[sluggo]

If we imagine the 14 billion yr history since the 'big bang' as a movie, then we are expected to believe that walking in near the end and watching the last 4 milliseconds, will enable us to reconstruct the story! Who would have thunk it.

That's why I ignore any long term predictions!