From effectively no entropy to effectively infinite dissipation.

Hi T_Wake, Speaking of WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Heat_death, I said:

Net, there's a virtual energy deficit,
negative pressure, negative Mass_Energy.

And you replied:

You appear to be labouring under the assumption that all the matter in the
universe can add up to a number less than zero. Interesting concept.
Do you understand the ramifications of the energy conservation principle ?

Ok, I finally got bored enough to do your homework for you.

WikiPedia.ORG is an excellent source, perhaps the best,
....but, as you're too retarded to understand that, here's another source.
Take a look at this link from UCSD, University of California, San Diego,
UCSD.EDU/Astronomy/evidence.htm [ My comments are in brackets like this ]

The 1998 data sets [ from Adam Riess and others ] were detailed studies of
distant explosions of massive stars, the Type 1a supernovae.

These bright explosions can be seen halfway out into the observable Universe
and thus halfway back into its history
[ they go back 12 billion years of the 13.7, actually ].

And they seem to always have the same inherent brightness,
so they can be used as the long-desired "standard candles"
or uniform beacons in deducing distances,
always a tricky business in astronomy.

When the data were examined, it was found that
the supernovae in distant galaxies were about
20 percent dimmer then they should be in
a Universe that has been expanding at a constant rate.

This mean that they are further away than they should be
– something has caused the Universe to expand faster,
something has been added to the Hubble expansion.

This something is acting like a _Negative_Gravity_ [ Negative Mass_Energy ],
counteracting the mutual gravity,
which should [ but doesn't ] act to slow down the expansion of the Universe.

This is just what the Cosmological Constant represents
[ Einstein wins yet again, of course ]. In quantum mechanics,
the vacuum of empty space contains a flood of
virtual particles and anti-particles and thus a "vacuum energy".

As more space is created in the Universe,
there is more of this _Virtual_ or _Negative_Vacuum_Energy produced,
with an associated -- E = mc² -- _Negative_Mass and _Negative_Gravity_.
[ Net Negative Mass_Energy, Net Negative pressure ]

This is strange and exotic stuff, even for theoretical physics,
but remember that the Universe seems to have arisen from
a quantum vacuum fluctuation; swallow hard and read on.

Can the data be wrong ? The supernovae do seem to be
remarkably constant over the reaches of time,
and there is no reason to suspect that the laws of physics have changed.
...
In looking at distant supernovae with the Hubble Space Telescope
and giant ground-based telescoped such as the Keck instruments,
it appears that the nearer -- younger -- ones are
flying apart faster than the distant ones
- it appears that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating;
...
After a long while, we would end up with only our local group of galaxies.
Not only is the end of the Universe cold, it is also very lonely.

I asked you:

Do you know what a hyperbola looks like ? Like this:
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/hyper0.gif

And you replied:

Can you explain to me how that looks like a cone ?
Do you know what a cone looks like ?

My point was simply that the expansion of space-time is most probably
expanding at an accelerated rate.
A hyperbola is simply a two dimensional way to view the negative curvature.

In 5 spatial dimensions, Space_Time_Entropy -- if you can take that leap --
the universe is shaped like a horn with no edges,
going from effectively no entropy to effectively infinite dissipation.

You told me:

When you say "Space-time is likely hyperbolic, cone
shaped, negatively curved" you must define likely. Do you mean 1%, 5%, 50%,
95% or what ? How do you come up with that percentage ?

Here's WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology :

_ 1998 - Adam Riess, Saul Perlmutter and others discover
the cosmic acceleration in observations of Type Ia supernovae
providing the first evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant.

_ 2003 - NASA's WMAP takes more detailed pictures of the universe
by means of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The image can be interpreted to indicate that the universe is
13.7 billion years old -- within one percent error --
and that the Lambda-CDM model and the inflationary theory is correct.

I've talked about the Lambda-CDM model before,
Einstein's Lamda -- a.k.a. Net_Negative Mass_Energy -- is today's best theory,
....matching best observations.

Like many a moron here in Sci.Physics, you fail to understand
that time is _Intrinsically_ spatial, local and static.
And that it's only unknowns -- so called randmoness --
that ever makes it seem otherwise.

In GR, time is a spatial dimension, I don't care what you imagine.

I quoted Hawking saying:

In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
Just_As there is no difference between two space coordinates.

And you replied:

This is not evidence in support of your claim.
Hawking has his own opinions and often creates soundbites
that help "laypeople" get interested.

Right... and you are deeply and profoundly retarded, in my opinion.

I wrote:

There is a notional end of all mass_energy and, subsequently, space-time,
just as there's a notional beginning... and data to back it up.
See heat death: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Heat_death

And you replied:

Heat death is one of three main theories about the end of the universe.
There is no evidence to say it is the most accurate.

You say here, there is a notional beginning yet earlier
your rubbish the Big Bang theory. You really should be more consistent.

Heat death is the leading theory, by all accounts.
You can read about it in the New York Times, I have.

I never trashed the big bang theory,
I merely said it was hubris to assume the we're at the perfect
_Middle_Density_, between infinite density and a perfect vacuum,
....little different from thinking that the sun revolves around the earth.

Entropy is simply an intrinsic property of mass_energy, I posit,
the universe has just always been expanding at an accelerated rate.

There is no _Actual_ start to the big bang,
just like there is no infinitely dense black hole.

The anthropic principle is pure hubris.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: From effectively no entropy to effectively infinite dissipation.
    ... Do you understand the ramifications of the energy conservation principle ... distant explosions of massive stars, ... a Universe that has been expanding at a constant rate. ... something has been added to the Hubble expansion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 13 things that do not make sense
    ... The horizon problem ... Dark matter ... Maybe output from parallel brane universe?; ... thing called conscious energy that regular biochemistry ...
    (sci.physics)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Schr=F6dinger=27s_Universe?=
    ... Wolff's brand new book: Schrödinger's Universe. ... all electrons give and receive tiny bits ... But both the positron's scalar and spin frequencies are 180 degrees ... quanta bits, the same as energy. ...
    (sci.edu)
  • Re: More on the "Big Bang"...
    ... If your model were true, when we looked at distant supernovae, we would see ... John, hate to tell you this, but the observed redshift has very little ... move along with the galaxies as the universe expands. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Universes Next Door
    ... >also a dark energy exotic vacuum blob that is more stable than ... >Vilenken's thin vacuum domain wall. ... The topology is generally mutiply connected with Betti numbers ... This is familiar in GR where the universe recedes ...
    (sci.math)