Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- From: "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:59:14 +0200
1) the friction of initial coalescence caused it to be molten.I know, but I was interested in an other question, that is quite difficult to explain.
2) the tidal interaction of the Sun and Moon add heat.
3) there is expected to be non-negligible nuclear decay in the heavy metals there.
4) the atmospehere and crust of the Earth are insulators.
It will get _colder_ when the Earth is tidally locked to the Moon. What do you mean by cold?
I have this model about spacetime and now I'm 'knocking on every door'. I try to check all possible crossreferences and now I'm at thermodynamics.
The problem is this:
my model is about spacetime and there I can see something that you might call dark enery. My question is: how would that look like in 3d? In fact it would look like a star. Thats kind of strange. So I have a closer look at the use of thermodynamics in cosmology and find it uses a concept of a closed system, that you can't apply to an expanding universe.
What does this mean? Entropy is about statistics too. In an expanding spacetime you have a balance between chosen possibilities and the number of possiblities increasing, due to expansation. The universe cools down in an adiabatic way. So there is a good chance, that entropy stays even or increases very slowly.
So where is the connection between heat and spacetime. My model would assign the term heat to spacetime itself in a special way. I call that the temperatur of space. This is odd too, since no matter would mean no temperatur, since there is nothing to assign that to. But this is the wrong picture (in my eyes).
Yes they are, but you are shure you know all the laws? .. and the right ones?Our supposed answers to that questions are
based on believes about thermodynamics, that
are not appropriate to cosmology.
... because the laws of physics elsewhere are not the same as here?
...
Sorry, I mean that increase of entropy related to heat, that you have to add up to the adiabatic cooling. Or: a disturbed process does not make the expanded gas as cold as if not disturbed.
Real expansation increases entropie and let
the gas heat up a bit more than it could be and
prevent that process from being reverted.
Expanding gasses *cool*, not heat.
Again: if you model a process in spacetime, the question is, how does that look like to an observer. It could be the case, that the universe is in general adiabatic and that surplus heat pops out of nothing like a star.(This the strange idea I'm speculating about. But don't take that too serious, since it difficult to imagine all the processes, and trying to do so causes a memory overflow in my head)
I have a diploma in engineering. Thermodynamics wasn't my favorit class, but I know what that is.
But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is,
the ideal gas is something like spacetime itself.
Thats kind of strange, since we apply those terms of i.e. heat only to objects or maybe gases.
Spacetime has no material properties. *We* cool or heat with expansion / contraction, not spacetime.
As consequence of this believe we think about
stars as beeing build out of dust and gases.
That is the naive part. As said above, spacetime
itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite against our believes.
Do you have a real job? Because you suck at mechanical engineering. And cosmology.
... anoying some cosmologist couldn't be worse than anoying you...
Thomas Heger
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- From: dlzc
- Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- References:
- thermodynamics and the universe
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- thermodynamics and the universe
- Prev by Date: Re: Principle of equivalence
- Next by Date: Re: relativity experiments new interpretation
- Previous by thread: Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- Next by thread: Re: thermodynamics and the universe
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
