There is no middle density, the universe has just always been dissipating.
- From: Jeff_℞elf <Me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Feb 2006 23:50:50 GMT
Hi T_Wake,
Gisse is a complete moron who knows almost nothing about physics.
That you should believe anything he says speaks volumes.
You doubted I understood Einstein's cosmological constant,
....forget it T_Wake, it's way beyond you and I don't have the time.
I wrote:
The net mass_energy of the universe is _Observed_ to be slightly negative,
entropy is always going up, heading towards the death of all mass_energy.
....and you asked me: Why have you underscored observed like this ?
Because you were asking about actual observations
to back up my very simple postulates,
....which you imagined to be merely metaphysical.
I wrote:
Humans think they're in the middle of all this,
between the near infinite density at the start of the big bang
to the near perfect vacuum at the end
...but are they... or is it just hubris ?
And you replied:
Only uneducated ones.
Can you cite me one scientific journal in the last 30
years which implies Humanity is in the centre of the universe ?
How funny... you try so desperately to sound authoritative, yet fail.
NASA's WMAP produced ulta high precision data about the CMBR,
by all accounts, the universe is perfectly homogenous at large scales,
i.e. it has no center of gravity.
But space-time is likely hyperbolic, cone shaped, negatively curved,
Entropy, a measure of dissipation, is one way to describe cosmic time,
and it is that which I was referring to,
....a _Notionally_ middle density, if you will.
But, like the sun does not revolve around the earth,
neither does the density of the universe revolve around our particular
density in cosmic time... where entropy is the fifth spatial dimension.
You told me:
You are assuming the "heat-death" scenario accurately describes the end of
the universe. Do you have evidence to support this ?
Fairly recent supernovae data suggests that
there's a constant acceleration in the expansion of space_time,
and that Einstein's Comological_Constant is the best fit for that.
WikiPedia.ORG has this to say about it:
Adding a cosmological constant to the standard theory of cosmology
...has led to a model for cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model.
This model is in very good agreement with
established cosmological observations.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
and:
In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects
the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration.
One number successfully explains a multitude of observations.
Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model,
includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
I modified your statement to say:
The generally accepted understanding of the universe is that
[ space-time has been expanding at an accelerated rate
for about the last 12 billion years... and maybe indefinitely ]
this is not normally considered the same as
saying space-time is dissipating.
and you asked:
Why did you feel the need to rephrase my post in your reply ?
Why did you add things to it that I had never said.
Fine, let's review at what you originally wrote in
W9Wdnc48EeW9VWneRVny2A@xxxxxxxxx:
The generally accepted understanding of the universe is that
_Space_ is increasing, this is not normally considered the same as
saying space-time is dissipating.
Space is increasing ? ! Do you have any idea how wrong that statement is ?
_Space_Time_ has been expanding at an accelerated rate
for about the last 12 billion years,
....probably indefinitely... more data is needed from NASA.
You told me:
You are claiming "space time" is dissipating
and I have asked you to explain how you reconcile that with
the cosmological expansion.
Best thoery, the result of best data,
says the universe is going from a notionally infinite density
at the start of the big bang to a notionally perfect vacuun
at the end of all mass_energy.
In other words, from notionally zero entropy to notionally infinite entropy.
The net mass_energy of the unverse is slightly negative,
....hence so-called dark energy dominates our universe.
That's dissipation, the second law of thermodynamics,
entropy never regresses... entropy is the fifth spatial dimension.
Why can't you understand that ? !
I asked you: Do you know what cosmic time is ?
Well, it appears to be something that has come about after my time in
university. I did a wiki search on it (no hits).
I gave you the WikiPedia link that mentions cosmic time:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/End_of_the_universe#Observational_constraints_on_theories
Can you not Google correctly ? ! This is the search:
Google.COM/search?q=%22cosmic+time%22+site%3AWikiPedia.ORG
Note: FireFox correctly adds the www. prefix, IE6 does not.
IE6 also can't download or display UTF-16 encoded .CPP or .TXT files,
nor does it allow extensive .CSS overrides like FireFox does.
I wrote:
I posit that entropy is cosmic time, a spatial dimension,
as it's observed... it never regresses.
And you asked: How can we experimentally test this ?
All observations point to the conclusion, the postulate is sound.
You wrote:
We don't know what happened at [ the start of ] the big bang for instance.
Do you imply that is a random event ?
It's likely that dissipations has just simply always been there, indefinately,
the universe has just always been getting less dense.
Humans are _Mot_ actually in the middle density... there is no middle.
You told me:
You want an example of something that wins in the long run.
You have defined neither "win" or "long run" leaving it entirely to me.
I define "win" as genetic code surviving and propagating.
I define "long run" as 2x10^3 years.
How will that code fair after all mass_energy in the universe is gone ?
Best _Observations_, best science, tells us that will happen.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Time is actually parochial and static.
- From: Jeff_℞elf
- Re: Time is actually parochial and static.
- From: T Wake
- T_Wake, madly deluded.
- From: Jeff_℞elf
- Re: T_Wake, madly deluded.
- From: T Wake
- T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
- From: Jeff_℞elf
- Re: T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
- From: T Wake
- Time is actually parochial and static.
- Prev by Date: Re: Physical wavelength vs relative wavelength
- Next by Date: Re: What really is Time, seriously?
- Previous by thread: Re: T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
- Next by thread: Re: There is no middle density, the universe has just always been dissipating.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
