First the universe was collapsing on itself, then it's expanding, now it's dying?
The Earth is a sphere. Then it's oblate! Now it's...pear shaped?
Yup, we humans know NOTHING! We base all science on math nowadays instead of experiments and observation.
Stupid, stupid reply.
The collapsing universe theory (one of many potential theories for how the universe as it currently exists might end) is still valid. It's immensely unlikely, given our understanding, because for it to occur there would have to exist particles and matter with some very improbable physical characteristics.
The expanding universe theory is our observed truth. Perhaps a bit more research into the topic is warranted, given you are equating ending scenarios with observable truth. The simple truth of the matter is that we can "see back" into time by looking at different parts of the universe. These different parts of the universe actually have a spectral emissions shift based upon traveling at some speed relative to us (red shift and violet shift respectively). We know there is a spectral shift because we know what frequencies matter emits once excited. If everything is moving relative to us, we can trace back a rough common starting point. If all observable bodies have roughly the same starting point (accounting for imprecise observation and immense stretches of time and distance), then we must all be expanding outward. Our observations match this conjecture, so the expanding universe theory is an observable and demonstrably valid hypothesis.
The universe dying is, quite possibly, the least interesting part of this whole discussion. It being a revelation to you is...wow. Perhaps you can ask your parents; and yes I know how condescending that sounds. Everything which requires energy dies. If that were not the case you'd only have to buy one hand warmer pack for your entire life. Those hand warmers use two chemicals in an exothermic reaction to produce heat. The result is a new chemical with much less potential energy, and waste heat which is dissipated into the environment. As that waste heat can go anywhere, it's functionally lost. The chemicals, assuming a reverse reaction can even be stimulated, actually require more input energy than released to warm your hands. Nuclear reactions, the sun in case you missed it, are the same. Hydrogen fuses to Helium, fuses to Lithium, to Beryllium, to Boron, etc... When the Hydrogen is gone, you can't make more Helium. When the Helium is gone you can't make more Lithium. Eventually, the mass of elements (a rough analog to electro-magnetic forces) will exceed gravity's ability to generate forces capable of nuclear fusion. When that happens the universe dies. No new energy, so no life. The only way that isn't the case is if the universe is somehow receiving energy from something that we don't yet understand. Unless and until that can be proven, assuming that everything dies eventually is one of the least stupid things that you can do.
Your lack of geophysical knowledge is astounding.
Just in case you missed it, different materials have different densities. If you were to place a cannonball (iron) in water it sinks, while the same cannonball in mercury floats. Why do I begin here; the Earth is composed of nearly 100 elements. These elements have different relative solubility, and substantially differing density. Gravitational forces, likewise, demonstrate this difference. The Earth has a thin outer shell of low density gasses. As you move down, you first encounter low density minerals (silicates and the like), along with water. Moving further down, heavier elements become more common. Finally, you get to the core of the planet. Nickel, Iridium, and Iron are densely packed there. The Iridium is immensely dense, the Iron is easily soluble in it, and the Nickel came along for the ride with Iron.
The reason that these elements are at the core is simple, as any school child can demonstrate on the play ground. A child standing in the center of a merry-go-round doesn't have to hold onto the bars very tightly. A significantly lighter child could hold stand half way between the center and outside and apply the same holding force to remain on the device. Finally, a child significantly lighter than either of the two aforementioned children could stand on the outside edge with the same holding force. If the inside child was to move to the edge they'd be thrown from the merry-go-round immediately. As gravitational potential energy is a relative constant, as with the applied holding force, you wind up with the densest materials at the center of the earth, and the lightest ones on the outside.
The oblate spheroid section of this discussion is down to simple physics, and it's the same reason we launch rockets near the equator rather than at the poles. The distance from the rotational pole (not the geomagnetic one) relates directly to your rotational velocity. Earth spins, so you have to be spinning too if you're standing on it. As the spin generates centripetal energy, the farther from the pole the more force is acting upon you. Thus, the earth must be slightly oblate. Even if the Earth had no relative rotation (and thus no rotational axis), plate tectonics and the fact that elements aren't homogeneously distributed throughout it would prevent it from being a sphere.
As far as basing science on math, get the heck out of here. Stupid doesn't even cover that kind of idiocy.
Chemists and metallurgists develop new alloys all the time. Those people are both scientist and engineers, utilizing observation and testing to prove out their theory.
Aerospace and automotive engineers develop plenty of things on the computer (using fluid dynamic equations), but when it comes time to choose a final design they proceed to the wind tunnel for actual testing. A computer model is worth a thousand words, but physical testing makes the text books which those words are derived from.
NASA just got information back from a Pluto fly-by. Theories about Pluto died, were confirmed, and a thousand more conjectures were born that day. Once the scientist comb through that data we may have more theories to test whenever next we get to observe that celestial dwarf.
To admit ignorance is expected, and does not influence your credibility. To bandy about ignorance as fact is cause to loose any respect you've ever developed. Which do you choose? More importantly, trolling or ignorance?
for me and it's a shame that more people outside of the science community don't understand science.
The universe theory is out, apparently now the cool kids are saying"multiverse" (still theory ofc) but if to be believed this universe we live in is one of many started by infinitely?? recurring bigbangs each creating it's own universe with it's own random laws of physics. They can't see past 14 billion years atm with Hubble because at that time space was still very hot and therefore opaque, so there is a big opaque wall around 14B years away. NASA are sending up (or may have already) infrared telescopes which will see past the Hubble's UDF.
