Cosmology
Cosmology
MY VERSION OF A SSU
It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it conplies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Any comments?
Mike CT
Cosmology
Pretty good thinking for a 98 year old (dob-1917)
-
chrisb84uk
- Posts: 11634
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:29 am
Cosmology
Lon wrote: Pretty good thinking for a 98 year old (dob-1917)
Indeed. Not meaning to be rude Lon, but just pointing out that a DOB of 1917 doesn't make him 98, but 88.
Indeed. Not meaning to be rude Lon, but just pointing out that a DOB of 1917 doesn't make him 98, but 88.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Cosmology
Hi Mike, wlecome to FG.............
My diet coke goes flat is it stays open too long.
If you do not believe that space is flat, then you are throwing out the General Theory of Relativity, have you come up with a better one?
My diet coke goes flat is it stays open too long.
If you do not believe that space is flat, then you are throwing out the General Theory of Relativity, have you come up with a better one?
Cosmology
chrisb84uk wrote: Indeed. Not meaning to be rude Lon, but just pointing out that a DOB of 1917 doesn't make him 98, but 88.
Not rude at all----my error-----thank you.
Not rude at all----my error-----thank you.
Cosmology
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite.
Any comments?
I read a book called God and the New Physics. In it the author stated that in the late 20's researchers actually created matter, thus disproving the theory that matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.
If this is true, then matter content would not be finite.
Any comments?
I read a book called God and the New Physics. In it the author stated that in the late 20's researchers actually created matter, thus disproving the theory that matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.
If this is true, then matter content would not be finite.
Cosmology
Lon
My age is 87. Will be 88 later this year.
Flopstock
The current universe is promoted as an 'expanding' universe that was born out of nothing. Space appeared and time was added to allow for an expansion.
Hence the name 'big bang (BB).
Consigirl
GR needs the idea of an expansion because Einstein realized that his static universe would collapse.
His idea of replacing Newton's gravity with the 'curvature of space' as the cause of making matter curve would also cause the erosion of 'linear momentum'. Thus, his universe would collapse.
With a flat space and no curvature, there would be no erosion of linear momentum. So, no need for GR.
Alobar
I do not know about the experiment you mention, but more recent work with 'lasers' was done to create an electron.
This is ludicrous because it took all that equipment to create a single electron.
This is not a creation out of nothing.
Can you give the reference to the article you stated above?
I hope I got all the names right.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Mike CT
My age is 87. Will be 88 later this year.
Flopstock
The current universe is promoted as an 'expanding' universe that was born out of nothing. Space appeared and time was added to allow for an expansion.
Hence the name 'big bang (BB).
Consigirl
GR needs the idea of an expansion because Einstein realized that his static universe would collapse.
His idea of replacing Newton's gravity with the 'curvature of space' as the cause of making matter curve would also cause the erosion of 'linear momentum'. Thus, his universe would collapse.
With a flat space and no curvature, there would be no erosion of linear momentum. So, no need for GR.
Alobar
I do not know about the experiment you mention, but more recent work with 'lasers' was done to create an electron.
This is ludicrous because it took all that equipment to create a single electron.
This is not a creation out of nothing.
Can you give the reference to the article you stated above?
I hope I got all the names right.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Alobar
I do not know about the experiment you mention, but more recent work with 'lasers' was done to create an electron.
This is ludicrous because it took all that equipment to create a single electron.
This is not a creation out of nothing.
Can you give the reference to the article you stated above?
I hope I got all the names right.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Mike CT
Your grasp of quantum physics clearly dwarfs mine.
The experiment you refer to sounds like the one I read about. I may have my dates wrong.
While it did sound like a lot of effort to create one electron, it still sounded like creation to me. Not a creation out of nothing, but still creation.
We are, after all, a young, and, as such, fairly primitive intelligence. We only became aware that there was an out there, a few minutes ago, in geologic terms. Our efforts in esoteric areas like this are going to be clumsy and require a lot of physical equipment.
peace
Rik
I do not know about the experiment you mention, but more recent work with 'lasers' was done to create an electron.
This is ludicrous because it took all that equipment to create a single electron.
This is not a creation out of nothing.
Can you give the reference to the article you stated above?
I hope I got all the names right.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Mike CT
Your grasp of quantum physics clearly dwarfs mine.
The experiment you refer to sounds like the one I read about. I may have my dates wrong.
While it did sound like a lot of effort to create one electron, it still sounded like creation to me. Not a creation out of nothing, but still creation.
We are, after all, a young, and, as such, fairly primitive intelligence. We only became aware that there was an out there, a few minutes ago, in geologic terms. Our efforts in esoteric areas like this are going to be clumsy and require a lot of physical equipment.
peace
Rik
Cosmology
ok i got a lot to say and i'm tired so this may be edited later.
the second law of thermodynamics, and infact thermodynamics, say that the entropy of a closed system will always increase and that heat is the ultimate waste product and is emited by most systems, this is where we get the idea of the heat death from as eventually the universe will fill itself with the infra-red radiation from these systems emiting the waste heat. not system can recycle heat to 100% efficiency so this will happen sooner or later.
galaxies are made of matter so if matter is not recycled then the galaxy is not either, first law of thermodynamics remains intact but the galaxy is then subject to the second law.
the universe being infinitely old does not explain the expansion of the universe.
light waves expand when objects are moving away from us causing the wavelengths to become longer, shifting to the red end of the spectrum.
the Zeroth law deals with thermo equilibrium but i don't know much about CMBR so you could be right.
if space is flat how do you explain gravity?
sorry i'm disecting the theory like this but it probably comes from being registered to a science forum.
the second law of thermodynamics, and infact thermodynamics, say that the entropy of a closed system will always increase and that heat is the ultimate waste product and is emited by most systems, this is where we get the idea of the heat death from as eventually the universe will fill itself with the infra-red radiation from these systems emiting the waste heat. not system can recycle heat to 100% efficiency so this will happen sooner or later.
galaxies are made of matter so if matter is not recycled then the galaxy is not either, first law of thermodynamics remains intact but the galaxy is then subject to the second law.
the universe being infinitely old does not explain the expansion of the universe.
light waves expand when objects are moving away from us causing the wavelengths to become longer, shifting to the red end of the spectrum.
the Zeroth law deals with thermo equilibrium but i don't know much about CMBR so you could be right.
if space is flat how do you explain gravity?
sorry i'm disecting the theory like this but it probably comes from being registered to a science forum.
Cosmology
Alfred quote
The second law of thermodynamics, and infact thermodynamics, say that the entropy of a closed system will always increase and that heat is the ultimate waste product and is emited by most systems, this is where we get the idea of the heat death from as eventually the universe will fill itself with the infra-red radiation from these systems emiting the waste heat. not system can recycle heat to 100% efficiency so this will happen sooner or later.
Reply
Your above comment refers to the 'heat engines' that state that there is no perpetual motion. Some heat is always lost. This pertains to man made engines.
Alfred quote
galaxies are made of matter so if matter is not recycled then the galaxy is not either, first law of thermodynamics remains intact but the galaxy is then subject to the second law.
reply
You mean 'oncreasing entropy? In a closed system which the SSU is, how can wntropy keep increasing? Increasing change in S=Q/T would require an increase in heat energy (Q) or a decrease in temperature to have an increase in entropy.
This violates the 'conservation of energy law, does it not?
quote
the universe being infinitely old does not explain the expansion of the universe.
reply
I said in a SSU, there is no expansion or contraction. My SS replaces the BB.
quote
light waves expand when objects are moving away from us causing the wavelengths to become longer, shifting to the red end of the spectrum.
reply
You cannot use the Doppler redshift as a space expansion RS.
quote
the Zeroth law deals with thermo equilibrium but i don't know much about CMBR so you could be right.
if space is flat how do you explain gravity?
reply
The Gravitational Costant is a product of two experiments that determined its value. It is a laboratory tested and determined value.
The second law of thermodynamics, and infact thermodynamics, say that the entropy of a closed system will always increase and that heat is the ultimate waste product and is emited by most systems, this is where we get the idea of the heat death from as eventually the universe will fill itself with the infra-red radiation from these systems emiting the waste heat. not system can recycle heat to 100% efficiency so this will happen sooner or later.
Reply
Your above comment refers to the 'heat engines' that state that there is no perpetual motion. Some heat is always lost. This pertains to man made engines.
Alfred quote
galaxies are made of matter so if matter is not recycled then the galaxy is not either, first law of thermodynamics remains intact but the galaxy is then subject to the second law.
reply
You mean 'oncreasing entropy? In a closed system which the SSU is, how can wntropy keep increasing? Increasing change in S=Q/T would require an increase in heat energy (Q) or a decrease in temperature to have an increase in entropy.
This violates the 'conservation of energy law, does it not?
quote
the universe being infinitely old does not explain the expansion of the universe.
reply
I said in a SSU, there is no expansion or contraction. My SS replaces the BB.
quote
light waves expand when objects are moving away from us causing the wavelengths to become longer, shifting to the red end of the spectrum.
reply
You cannot use the Doppler redshift as a space expansion RS.
quote
the Zeroth law deals with thermo equilibrium but i don't know much about CMBR so you could be right.
if space is flat how do you explain gravity?
reply
The Gravitational Costant is a product of two experiments that determined its value. It is a laboratory tested and determined value.
Cosmology
alobar quote
Your grasp of quantum physics clearly dwarfs mine.
reply
My knowledge of QP's is mainly confined to the Planck Constant and its purpose which showed that the light we see is not a continuous wave but a pulse of energy called a 'photon'.
Later when Bohr proposed the planetary model of the hydrogen atom which explained the energy levels accurately, the Quantum physicists (Schroedinger et al) nullified his theory with their advanced mathematics.
Well, I believe the Bohr model has cedibility and by 'visualizing' the nature of the HA, have explained why it does not collapse in spite of the refutation that used Newtonian math to prove that it would collapse. No QM math needed. Thank you.
This does not mean that QM's has no credibility because it has in the more complex matter elements and even molecukes.
But the HA is the main constituent in the universe so I concentrate on its characteristics and its evolutionary transformations to stars, neutron stars and back to its original state as a gas.
Mike CT
Your grasp of quantum physics clearly dwarfs mine.
reply
My knowledge of QP's is mainly confined to the Planck Constant and its purpose which showed that the light we see is not a continuous wave but a pulse of energy called a 'photon'.
Later when Bohr proposed the planetary model of the hydrogen atom which explained the energy levels accurately, the Quantum physicists (Schroedinger et al) nullified his theory with their advanced mathematics.
Well, I believe the Bohr model has cedibility and by 'visualizing' the nature of the HA, have explained why it does not collapse in spite of the refutation that used Newtonian math to prove that it would collapse. No QM math needed. Thank you.
This does not mean that QM's has no credibility because it has in the more complex matter elements and even molecukes.
But the HA is the main constituent in the universe so I concentrate on its characteristics and its evolutionary transformations to stars, neutron stars and back to its original state as a gas.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: Reply
Your above comment refers to the 'heat engines' that state that there is no perpetual motion. Some heat is always lost. This pertains to man made engines.
the universe is a heat engine. everything, well almost i don't know about endothermic reactions, loses heat to it's environment. this heat cannot be recycled to 100% efficiency either so the entropy will always increase.
to my knowlege there is no perpetual motion going on in this universe.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You mean 'oncreasing entropy? In a closed system which the SSU is, how can wntropy keep increasing? Increasing change in S=Q/T would require an increase in heat energy (Q) or a decrease in temperature to have an increase in entropy.
This violates the 'conservation of energy law, does it not?
i mean the number of microstates in a system always increases, not taking into account quantum fluctuations, in a SSU the number of microstates would increase to a point where heat death occurs. just clarification of my previous post.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I said in a SSU, there is no expansion or contraction. My SS replaces the BB.
so how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding, at an increaseing rate too.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You cannot use the Doppler redshift as a space expansion RS.
why not?
if the expansion of space is occuring then the distances between us and a neibouring galaxy would be increaseing so we would see a redshift of light from that galaxy wouldn't we?
Mike CT wrote: reply
The Gravitational Costant is a product of two experiments that determined its value. It is a laboratory tested and determined value.
and so how does the SSU with flat spacetime explain this.
Your above comment refers to the 'heat engines' that state that there is no perpetual motion. Some heat is always lost. This pertains to man made engines.
the universe is a heat engine. everything, well almost i don't know about endothermic reactions, loses heat to it's environment. this heat cannot be recycled to 100% efficiency either so the entropy will always increase.
to my knowlege there is no perpetual motion going on in this universe.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You mean 'oncreasing entropy? In a closed system which the SSU is, how can wntropy keep increasing? Increasing change in S=Q/T would require an increase in heat energy (Q) or a decrease in temperature to have an increase in entropy.
This violates the 'conservation of energy law, does it not?
i mean the number of microstates in a system always increases, not taking into account quantum fluctuations, in a SSU the number of microstates would increase to a point where heat death occurs. just clarification of my previous post.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I said in a SSU, there is no expansion or contraction. My SS replaces the BB.
so how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding, at an increaseing rate too.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You cannot use the Doppler redshift as a space expansion RS.
why not?
if the expansion of space is occuring then the distances between us and a neibouring galaxy would be increaseing so we would see a redshift of light from that galaxy wouldn't we?
Mike CT wrote: reply
The Gravitational Costant is a product of two experiments that determined its value. It is a laboratory tested and determined value.
and so how does the SSU with flat spacetime explain this.
Cosmology
Alfred quote
the universe is a heat engine. everything, well almost i don't know about endothermic reactions, loses heat to it's environment. this heat cannot be recycled to 100% efficiency either so the entropy will always increase.
to my knowlege there is no perpetual motion going on in this universe.
reply
Heat engines only apply to man made engines. There is no heat loss from these engines from a universal point of view because the heat is captured by the air surroundind it.
Alfred
i mean the number of microstates in a system always increases, not taking into account quantum fluctuations, in a SSU the number of microstates would increase to a point where heat death occurs. just clarification of my previous post.
repoly
The microstates pertains to what? Molecules? Even here, the activity would adjust itself to one temperature and then remain constant with no more change. So entropy stops
I explained that in a SSU, new stars are created and age to neutron stars that eventually decay to the GRB's (high energy protons) that reform back to hydrogen with the free electrons. That takes care of the matter content.
The energy content remains stable because the new photons created with the star formations expand to the radio waves (longest waves) and then to oblivion
which is zero energy. They resettle to a normal tranquil electron field state that surrounds the electrons.
So, there is no overall increase in energy over the entire universe.
Alfred
so how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding, at an increaseing rate too.
reply
You interpret the Doppler observations as the BB'ers do
I interpret the Doppler observations as a 'light expansion', so there is no space expansion.
Alfred
why not?
if the expansion of space is occuring then the distances between us and a neibouring galaxy would be increaseing so we would see a redshift of light from that galaxy wouldn't we?
reply
I refuted the 'space expansion' idea of the light waves because it violates the Michelson- Morley experiment that there is 'no' ether in space for the transmission of the light waves.
Alfred
and so how does the SSU with flat spacetime explain this.
reply
I do not believe in GR in a flat space concept.
the universe is a heat engine. everything, well almost i don't know about endothermic reactions, loses heat to it's environment. this heat cannot be recycled to 100% efficiency either so the entropy will always increase.
to my knowlege there is no perpetual motion going on in this universe.
reply
Heat engines only apply to man made engines. There is no heat loss from these engines from a universal point of view because the heat is captured by the air surroundind it.
Alfred
i mean the number of microstates in a system always increases, not taking into account quantum fluctuations, in a SSU the number of microstates would increase to a point where heat death occurs. just clarification of my previous post.
repoly
The microstates pertains to what? Molecules? Even here, the activity would adjust itself to one temperature and then remain constant with no more change. So entropy stops
I explained that in a SSU, new stars are created and age to neutron stars that eventually decay to the GRB's (high energy protons) that reform back to hydrogen with the free electrons. That takes care of the matter content.
The energy content remains stable because the new photons created with the star formations expand to the radio waves (longest waves) and then to oblivion
which is zero energy. They resettle to a normal tranquil electron field state that surrounds the electrons.
So, there is no overall increase in energy over the entire universe.
Alfred
so how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding, at an increaseing rate too.
reply
You interpret the Doppler observations as the BB'ers do
I interpret the Doppler observations as a 'light expansion', so there is no space expansion.
Alfred
why not?
if the expansion of space is occuring then the distances between us and a neibouring galaxy would be increaseing so we would see a redshift of light from that galaxy wouldn't we?
reply
I refuted the 'space expansion' idea of the light waves because it violates the Michelson- Morley experiment that there is 'no' ether in space for the transmission of the light waves.
Alfred
and so how does the SSU with flat spacetime explain this.
reply
I do not believe in GR in a flat space concept.
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: reply
Heat engines only apply to man made engines. There is no heat loss from these engines from a universal point of view because the heat is captured by the air surroundind it.
yes the heat is captured by the air but we are talking about a closed system when refering to the 2nd law. the air is not apart of that system so the heat engine has lost a positive amount of energy in the form of heat.
this also applies to the sun, as the reactions within the sun create heat alot of that heat is lost due to the energy leaving the sun and going into space.
it requires a positive amount of work to be done on the system to get the sun back to its origional energy state so left by itself the entropy will always increase.
Mike CT wrote: repoly
The microstates pertains to what? Molecules? Even here, the activity would adjust itself to one temperature and then remain constant with no more change. So entropy stops
I explained that in a SSU, new stars are created and age to neutron stars that eventually decay to the GRB's (high energy protons) that reform back to hydrogen with the free electrons. That takes care of the matter content.
The energy content remains stable because the new photons created with the star formations expand to the radio waves (longest waves) and then to oblivion
which is zero energy. They resettle to a normal tranquil electron field state that surrounds the electrons.
So, there is no overall increase in energy over the entire universe.
this is where my knowlege of the second law starts running out, the definition of entropy. i used microstates as the measure of entropy.
how is it that a neutron star decays into high energy Protons, how is it that a neutron decays to a Proton. what about the stars which do not become neutron stars ie. white dwarfs or black holes.
i lack the knowlege to coment on that last part.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You interpret the Doppler observations as the BB'ers do
I interpret the Doppler observations as a 'light expansion', so there is no space expansion.
why does the light expand?
the only explanation i have have ever heard is because the objects we observe are moving away from us. if there are objects that are moving away not just from us but from each other then if we retrace this proccess we find that the universe goes back to a single point where the expansion began, the big bang.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I refuted the 'space expansion' idea of the light waves because it violates the Michelson- Morley experiment that there is 'no' ether in space for the transmission of the light waves.
what does ether have do do with my previous post?
if space expands at an increaseing rate then the distances between 2 objects becomes greater and they start moving away from each other, leading to a dopler redshift.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I do not believe in GR in a flat space concept.
ok so how do we get gravity in a flat space concept.
Gravitons perhaps?
Heat engines only apply to man made engines. There is no heat loss from these engines from a universal point of view because the heat is captured by the air surroundind it.
yes the heat is captured by the air but we are talking about a closed system when refering to the 2nd law. the air is not apart of that system so the heat engine has lost a positive amount of energy in the form of heat.
this also applies to the sun, as the reactions within the sun create heat alot of that heat is lost due to the energy leaving the sun and going into space.
it requires a positive amount of work to be done on the system to get the sun back to its origional energy state so left by itself the entropy will always increase.
Mike CT wrote: repoly
The microstates pertains to what? Molecules? Even here, the activity would adjust itself to one temperature and then remain constant with no more change. So entropy stops
I explained that in a SSU, new stars are created and age to neutron stars that eventually decay to the GRB's (high energy protons) that reform back to hydrogen with the free electrons. That takes care of the matter content.
The energy content remains stable because the new photons created with the star formations expand to the radio waves (longest waves) and then to oblivion
which is zero energy. They resettle to a normal tranquil electron field state that surrounds the electrons.
So, there is no overall increase in energy over the entire universe.
this is where my knowlege of the second law starts running out, the definition of entropy. i used microstates as the measure of entropy.
how is it that a neutron star decays into high energy Protons, how is it that a neutron decays to a Proton. what about the stars which do not become neutron stars ie. white dwarfs or black holes.
i lack the knowlege to coment on that last part.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You interpret the Doppler observations as the BB'ers do
I interpret the Doppler observations as a 'light expansion', so there is no space expansion.
why does the light expand?
the only explanation i have have ever heard is because the objects we observe are moving away from us. if there are objects that are moving away not just from us but from each other then if we retrace this proccess we find that the universe goes back to a single point where the expansion began, the big bang.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I refuted the 'space expansion' idea of the light waves because it violates the Michelson- Morley experiment that there is 'no' ether in space for the transmission of the light waves.
what does ether have do do with my previous post?
if space expands at an increaseing rate then the distances between 2 objects becomes greater and they start moving away from each other, leading to a dopler redshift.
Mike CT wrote: reply
I do not believe in GR in a flat space concept.
ok so how do we get gravity in a flat space concept.
Gravitons perhaps?
Cosmology
Alfred
Are you a supporter of the BBU? If you are, then you have to realize that the BB raises more questions than answers.
My SSU is a closed system. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy apply.
There is no increase in matter or energy.
The important thing about entropy is the change in the heat energy relative to the temperature.
If you are referring to the recycling of the content in the SSU, than that would be the entropy since its content is changing continuously. But I do not see how this content would be increasing in change. The matter and energy content in not changing in the SSU because it complies to the conservation laws.
The CMBR is also stabilized in the SSU because the space content is not necassarily changing.
This is about the best way I can answer your questions .
The SSU is infinite in age. All stars will cool out to be nothing but natter.
The neutron stars will decay eventually. Neutrons decay after 15 minutes when in a free state. The nuclei in the heaviest elements have a ratio of 1 to 1-1/2 berween the protons and the neutrons. The more neutrons, the more quickly these nuclei decay. This is the nature of matter.
Other evidence that the neutron stars must be decaying is the 'gamma ray burdters' that strike our atmosphere. These are very high velocity protons.
Since our planet is a small target for these GRB's, there must be billions of these paticles in the universe. The only solution for their origin must be the NS decay.
Mike CT
Are you a supporter of the BBU? If you are, then you have to realize that the BB raises more questions than answers.
My SSU is a closed system. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy apply.
There is no increase in matter or energy.
The important thing about entropy is the change in the heat energy relative to the temperature.
If you are referring to the recycling of the content in the SSU, than that would be the entropy since its content is changing continuously. But I do not see how this content would be increasing in change. The matter and energy content in not changing in the SSU because it complies to the conservation laws.
The CMBR is also stabilized in the SSU because the space content is not necassarily changing.
This is about the best way I can answer your questions .
The SSU is infinite in age. All stars will cool out to be nothing but natter.
The neutron stars will decay eventually. Neutrons decay after 15 minutes when in a free state. The nuclei in the heaviest elements have a ratio of 1 to 1-1/2 berween the protons and the neutrons. The more neutrons, the more quickly these nuclei decay. This is the nature of matter.
Other evidence that the neutron stars must be decaying is the 'gamma ray burdters' that strike our atmosphere. These are very high velocity protons.
Since our planet is a small target for these GRB's, there must be billions of these paticles in the universe. The only solution for their origin must be the NS decay.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
Are you a supporter of the BBU? If you are, then you have to realize that the BB raises more questions than answers.
yes i am a supporter of the BBU and yes there are many unanswered questions involved, plus a few theories that attempt to solve this. the biggest problem i know of of is a philosophical one, where did it come from? indeed this is a problem also when refering to the first law, some of the theories around take M-Theory for example attempt to solve this. the SSU also falls prey to some of these questions.
Mike CT wrote: My SSU is a closed system. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy apply.
There is no increase in matter or energy.
good it passes the first hurdle and complies with the first law. also making it subject to the second, third and zeroth Law.
Mike CT wrote: The important thing about entropy is the change in the heat energy relative to the temperature.
If you are referring to the recycling of the content in the SSU, than that would be the entropy since its content is changing continuously. But I do not see how this content would be increasing in change. The matter and energy content in not changing in the SSU because it complies to the conservation laws.
The CMBR is also stabilized in the SSU because the space content is not necassarily changing.
This is about the best way I can answer your questions.
i can see where my deffinition of entropy in a closed system has hit a snagg.
i'll take another shot at it.
when i say the entropy always increases i mean that there is always a positive amount of energy used up in in the system, that way we get work from the system. since the energy can never be recycled to 100% efficiency there is always a positive amount of energy that is lost to the system, this is the change...i think.
i'm going to go get clarification on this entropy business.
Mike CT wrote: The SSU is infinite in age. All stars will cool out to be nothing but natter.
The neutron stars will decay eventually. Neutrons decay after 15 minutes when in a free state. The nuclei in the heaviest elements have a ratio of 1 to 1-1/2 berween the protons and the neutrons. The more neutrons, the more quickly these nuclei decay. This is the nature of matter.
Other evidence that the neutron stars must be decaying is the 'gamma ray burdters' that strike our atmosphere. These are very high velocity protons.
Since our planet is a small target for these GRB's, there must be billions of these paticles in the universe. The only solution for their origin must be the NS decay.
Mike CT
so what about white dwarfs and black holes surely they create an larger entropy increase. and if the definition of entropy i stated above is closer then surely neutron stars don't convert to 100% efficientcy.
Are you a supporter of the BBU? If you are, then you have to realize that the BB raises more questions than answers.
yes i am a supporter of the BBU and yes there are many unanswered questions involved, plus a few theories that attempt to solve this. the biggest problem i know of of is a philosophical one, where did it come from? indeed this is a problem also when refering to the first law, some of the theories around take M-Theory for example attempt to solve this. the SSU also falls prey to some of these questions.
Mike CT wrote: My SSU is a closed system. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy apply.
There is no increase in matter or energy.
good it passes the first hurdle and complies with the first law. also making it subject to the second, third and zeroth Law.
Mike CT wrote: The important thing about entropy is the change in the heat energy relative to the temperature.
If you are referring to the recycling of the content in the SSU, than that would be the entropy since its content is changing continuously. But I do not see how this content would be increasing in change. The matter and energy content in not changing in the SSU because it complies to the conservation laws.
The CMBR is also stabilized in the SSU because the space content is not necassarily changing.
This is about the best way I can answer your questions.
i can see where my deffinition of entropy in a closed system has hit a snagg.
i'll take another shot at it.
when i say the entropy always increases i mean that there is always a positive amount of energy used up in in the system, that way we get work from the system. since the energy can never be recycled to 100% efficiency there is always a positive amount of energy that is lost to the system, this is the change...i think.
i'm going to go get clarification on this entropy business.
Mike CT wrote: The SSU is infinite in age. All stars will cool out to be nothing but natter.
The neutron stars will decay eventually. Neutrons decay after 15 minutes when in a free state. The nuclei in the heaviest elements have a ratio of 1 to 1-1/2 berween the protons and the neutrons. The more neutrons, the more quickly these nuclei decay. This is the nature of matter.
Other evidence that the neutron stars must be decaying is the 'gamma ray burdters' that strike our atmosphere. These are very high velocity protons.
Since our planet is a small target for these GRB's, there must be billions of these paticles in the universe. The only solution for their origin must be the NS decay.
Mike CT
so what about white dwarfs and black holes surely they create an larger entropy increase. and if the definition of entropy i stated above is closer then surely neutron stars don't convert to 100% efficientcy.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
MY VERSION OF A SSU
It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it conplies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Any comments?
Mike CT
Space is NOT flat. How do you think our 3_d or maybe even many dimensional lives are in 2-D?
MY VERSION OF A SSU
It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it conplies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Any comments?
Mike CT
Space is NOT flat. How do you think our 3_d or maybe even many dimensional lives are in 2-D?
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Cosmology
nvalleyvee wrote: Space is NOT flat. How do you think our 3_d or maybe even many dimensional lives are in 2-D?
i think he refers to the absence of General Relativity, curved spacetime which is believed to cause gravity.
without General reletivity spacetime is essencially flat.
i think he refers to the absence of General Relativity, curved spacetime which is believed to cause gravity.
without General reletivity spacetime is essencially flat.
Cosmology
Alfred quote
i can see where my deffinition of entropy in a closed system has hit a snagg.
i'll take another shot at it.
when i say the entropy always increases i mean that there is always a positive amount of energy used up in in the system, that way we get work from the system. since the energy can never be recycled to 100% efficiency there is always a positive amount of energy that is lost to the system, this is the change...i think.
i'm going to go get clarification on this entropy business.
reply
As I said before, you cannot use man made applications to the universe.
The SSU is a perpetual system because it creates energy (star formations) , decays energy (expanding light photons to oblivion) and the restoration of the matter (HA's) back from the neutron state.
Alfred quote
so what about white dwarfs and black holes surely they create an larger entropy increase. and if the definition of entropy i stated above is closer then surely neutron stars don't convert to 100% efficientcy.
reply
White dwarfes rasiate energy and will eventually evaporate to a matter crust (IMHO).
Black holes do not exist. These are 'neutron star congregates' that have a positive charge to the surrounding negative charged gases. This creates a coulomb force enhancement of the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter and subsequent gravity present.
nvalleyvee quote
Space is NOT flat. How do you think our 3_d or maybe even many dimensional lives are in 2-D?
reply
You accept the idea of a modified Doppler redshift (empirical evidence) to a transition of a 'space expansion redshift' which is purely subjective in origin. This is not a legitimate transition.because the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this.
Mike CT
i can see where my deffinition of entropy in a closed system has hit a snagg.
i'll take another shot at it.
when i say the entropy always increases i mean that there is always a positive amount of energy used up in in the system, that way we get work from the system. since the energy can never be recycled to 100% efficiency there is always a positive amount of energy that is lost to the system, this is the change...i think.
i'm going to go get clarification on this entropy business.
reply
As I said before, you cannot use man made applications to the universe.
The SSU is a perpetual system because it creates energy (star formations) , decays energy (expanding light photons to oblivion) and the restoration of the matter (HA's) back from the neutron state.
Alfred quote
so what about white dwarfs and black holes surely they create an larger entropy increase. and if the definition of entropy i stated above is closer then surely neutron stars don't convert to 100% efficientcy.
reply
White dwarfes rasiate energy and will eventually evaporate to a matter crust (IMHO).
Black holes do not exist. These are 'neutron star congregates' that have a positive charge to the surrounding negative charged gases. This creates a coulomb force enhancement of the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter and subsequent gravity present.
nvalleyvee quote
Space is NOT flat. How do you think our 3_d or maybe even many dimensional lives are in 2-D?
reply
You accept the idea of a modified Doppler redshift (empirical evidence) to a transition of a 'space expansion redshift' which is purely subjective in origin. This is not a legitimate transition.because the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote: reply
As I said before, you cannot use man made applications to the universe.
The SSU is a perpetual system because it creates energy (star formations) , decays energy (expanding light photons to oblivion) and the restoration of the matter (HA's) back from the neutron state.
ok i went and got clarification on what Entropy is.
and yes you can apply man made applications to the Universe as these applications are out of the matter that is subject to the thermodynamics laws. this Universe Is a thermodynamicly closed system. it obeys the same laws our man made applications do, the fact that we made our machines and nature made a bigger better one doesn't change the fact that they obey the same laws.
so if the SSU is to be plausible:
-Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-The Entropy of the Universe may only ever increase.
-Thermodynamic proccesses may only stop under conditions of 0 K.
Mike CT wrote: reply
White dwarfes rasiate energy and will eventually evaporate to a matter crust (IMHO).
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
Mike CT wrote: Black holes do not exist. These are 'neutron star congregates' that have a positive charge to the surrounding negative charged gases. This creates a coulomb force enhancement of the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter and subsequent gravity present.
i see alot here to do with electrical charge, but that falls under the Electromagnetic Force. A Black Hole is a gravitational occurance, since your SSU is flat you need something like quantum gravity to explain things.
EM force and Gravity are 2 different things.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You accept the idea of a modified Doppler redshift (empirical evidence) to a transition of a 'space expansion redshift' which is purely subjective in origin. This is not a legitimate transition.because the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this.
Mike CT
i'll have to look at this experiment, i never heard it before.
As I said before, you cannot use man made applications to the universe.
The SSU is a perpetual system because it creates energy (star formations) , decays energy (expanding light photons to oblivion) and the restoration of the matter (HA's) back from the neutron state.
ok i went and got clarification on what Entropy is.
and yes you can apply man made applications to the Universe as these applications are out of the matter that is subject to the thermodynamics laws. this Universe Is a thermodynamicly closed system. it obeys the same laws our man made applications do, the fact that we made our machines and nature made a bigger better one doesn't change the fact that they obey the same laws.
so if the SSU is to be plausible:
-Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-The Entropy of the Universe may only ever increase.
-Thermodynamic proccesses may only stop under conditions of 0 K.
Mike CT wrote: reply
White dwarfes rasiate energy and will eventually evaporate to a matter crust (IMHO).
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
Mike CT wrote: Black holes do not exist. These are 'neutron star congregates' that have a positive charge to the surrounding negative charged gases. This creates a coulomb force enhancement of the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter and subsequent gravity present.
i see alot here to do with electrical charge, but that falls under the Electromagnetic Force. A Black Hole is a gravitational occurance, since your SSU is flat you need something like quantum gravity to explain things.
EM force and Gravity are 2 different things.
Mike CT wrote: reply
You accept the idea of a modified Doppler redshift (empirical evidence) to a transition of a 'space expansion redshift' which is purely subjective in origin. This is not a legitimate transition.because the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes this.
Mike CT
i'll have to look at this experiment, i never heard it before.
Cosmology
[QUOTE=Mike CT]
MY VERSION OF A SSU
It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it conplies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.
Photons have no mass they are not matter they are energy quanta, so they are not the same as the particles that make up the stars planets etc, I'm not sure on what basis you are saying they are recycled. Neither matter or energy can be destroyed only converted from one to the other as in Einsteins famous equation. All the observations to date would imply that the universe is not infinetly old, though they could be all wrong it doesn't seem that way. Both general relativity and Quantum field equations predict this though they are completly different theorys and in the case of quantum mechanics the observations in accordance with theory are normally on a error bar rating of one in a billion.
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
Well then how do you explain the relativistic effects that are found when particles are accelerated close to light speed or when sesium clocks run slow on planes in the upper atmosphere?
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.
When you say the light waves are expanding what do you mean? An increase in frequency? If its not a doppler effect then what causes the apparent frequency shift, is there something about electromagetic waves that would cause them to do this spontaneously, Maxwells famous equations definetively rule this possibility out.
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Hold on, if there was thermodynamic equilibrium within the universe then there would be no temperature difference across the entire region, so how can the center of the sun be at a temperature of millions of degrees, while normal space is 3K above absolute zero? That idea is not plausible.
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Erm? How can space be infinite but matter finite? If the universe is infinitely old and infinitley large, why would matter be finite, I don't understand how your making these assumptions and I have to tell you they are counter to the opionion of about 99.999 percent of astrophysicists.
MY VERSION OF A SSU
It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it conplies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.
Photons have no mass they are not matter they are energy quanta, so they are not the same as the particles that make up the stars planets etc, I'm not sure on what basis you are saying they are recycled. Neither matter or energy can be destroyed only converted from one to the other as in Einsteins famous equation. All the observations to date would imply that the universe is not infinetly old, though they could be all wrong it doesn't seem that way. Both general relativity and Quantum field equations predict this though they are completly different theorys and in the case of quantum mechanics the observations in accordance with theory are normally on a error bar rating of one in a billion.
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
Well then how do you explain the relativistic effects that are found when particles are accelerated close to light speed or when sesium clocks run slow on planes in the upper atmosphere?
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.
When you say the light waves are expanding what do you mean? An increase in frequency? If its not a doppler effect then what causes the apparent frequency shift, is there something about electromagetic waves that would cause them to do this spontaneously, Maxwells famous equations definetively rule this possibility out.
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Hold on, if there was thermodynamic equilibrium within the universe then there would be no temperature difference across the entire region, so how can the center of the sun be at a temperature of millions of degrees, while normal space is 3K above absolute zero? That idea is not plausible.
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Erm? How can space be infinite but matter finite? If the universe is infinitely old and infinitley large, why would matter be finite, I don't understand how your making these assumptions and I have to tell you they are counter to the opionion of about 99.999 percent of astrophysicists.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Alfred quotes
Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-The Entropy of the Universe may only ever increase.
-Thermodynamic proccesses may only stop under conditions of 0 K.
reply....#1 - Agreed....#2 - No. Entropy is a measure of the relation between 'heat energy' and temperature. If the HE goes up, the temperature goes up. If the HE goes down, the temperature goes down. They either 'both' go up or down, so where is the change?
#3 - 0K means 'no matter'.or empty space. This term has no meaning to entropy.
Alfred
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
reply....You are talking about a universe. WD's are only components of the universe and are a very small part. There are a lot of component parts. When you add them all to a universe, it does not affect the total since it complies to the conservation laws.
Alfred
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
reply....I said all components reduce to hydrogen and back to stars in compliance to the conservation of matter.
Alfred
i see alot here to do with electrical charge, but that falls under the Electromagnetic Force. A Black Hole is a gravitational occurance, since your SSU is flat you need something like quantum gravity to explain things.
EM force and Gravity are 2 different things.
reply....I wrote a paper on another site that gravity is a manifestation of the EM force where a slight imbalance constitutes the gravity effect.
In BH's, the coulomb force enhances the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter is present.
Mike CT
Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-The Entropy of the Universe may only ever increase.
-Thermodynamic proccesses may only stop under conditions of 0 K.
reply....#1 - Agreed....#2 - No. Entropy is a measure of the relation between 'heat energy' and temperature. If the HE goes up, the temperature goes up. If the HE goes down, the temperature goes down. They either 'both' go up or down, so where is the change?
#3 - 0K means 'no matter'.or empty space. This term has no meaning to entropy.
Alfred
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
reply....You are talking about a universe. WD's are only components of the universe and are a very small part. There are a lot of component parts. When you add them all to a universe, it does not affect the total since it complies to the conservation laws.
Alfred
but the Entropy has increased, this matter can be recycled but not to 100% efficiency so entropy is climbing.
reply....I said all components reduce to hydrogen and back to stars in compliance to the conservation of matter.
Alfred
i see alot here to do with electrical charge, but that falls under the Electromagnetic Force. A Black Hole is a gravitational occurance, since your SSU is flat you need something like quantum gravity to explain things.
EM force and Gravity are 2 different things.
reply....I wrote a paper on another site that gravity is a manifestation of the EM force where a slight imbalance constitutes the gravity effect.
In BH's, the coulomb force enhances the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter is present.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
reply....#1 - Agreed....#2 - No. Entropy is a measure of the relation between 'heat energy' and temperature. If the HE goes up, the temperature goes up. If the HE goes down, the temperature goes down. They either 'both' go up or down, so where is the change?
#3 - 0K means 'no matter'.or empty space. This term has no meaning to entropy.
Entropy is not the relation between heat energy and temperature. its a probability of the state of the system, it says that the probability of the number of states we can find a system will only increase.
hence for neutron stars to convert perfectly back to the origional state only has a certain probablity, which will decrease over time as the number of possible states becomes more.
the example givin to me which i find helpful:
Consider taking a bucket of a hundred dice and rolling them all at once. There is only one way they could all add up to 600, but there are many many ways that you could get a total of 350. There are a total of 501 different sums that could result - all the numbers from 100 to 600. When you add up the different ways you could get each of these numbers together you get a total of 6^100 = 6.5x10^77 for all the numbers from 100 to 600. Most of these 6.5x10^77 ways thing could happen are for the numbers close to 350. So we say that a result close to 350 is a high entropy state and a result close to 600 or to 100 is a low entropy state. In fact there is formula for the entropy of each sum which is something like the logarithm of the number of ways the dice can add up to that sum.
Mike CT wrote: reply....You are talking about a universe. WD's are only components of the universe and are a very small part. There are a lot of component parts. When you add them all to a universe, it does not affect the total since it complies to the conservation laws.
everything in the universe is ultimately made up of small components, right down to energy. and every last Joule must be accounted for, we have already aggreed that it is in both a SSU and BBU. however the entropy of the entire system must increase so the entire sate of the universe changes over time, the number of states it can be in increases and as this does the universe could quite possibly expand. the universe is neither eternal or unchanging as a SSU explains it.
Mike CT wrote: reply....I wrote a paper on another site that gravity is a manifestation of the EM force where a slight imbalance constitutes the gravity effect.
In BH's, the coulomb force enhances the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter is present.
Mike CT
care to post a link to this other site, is this paper recognized by any authority on physics to be considered error free.
reply....#1 - Agreed....#2 - No. Entropy is a measure of the relation between 'heat energy' and temperature. If the HE goes up, the temperature goes up. If the HE goes down, the temperature goes down. They either 'both' go up or down, so where is the change?
#3 - 0K means 'no matter'.or empty space. This term has no meaning to entropy.
Entropy is not the relation between heat energy and temperature. its a probability of the state of the system, it says that the probability of the number of states we can find a system will only increase.
hence for neutron stars to convert perfectly back to the origional state only has a certain probablity, which will decrease over time as the number of possible states becomes more.
the example givin to me which i find helpful:
Consider taking a bucket of a hundred dice and rolling them all at once. There is only one way they could all add up to 600, but there are many many ways that you could get a total of 350. There are a total of 501 different sums that could result - all the numbers from 100 to 600. When you add up the different ways you could get each of these numbers together you get a total of 6^100 = 6.5x10^77 for all the numbers from 100 to 600. Most of these 6.5x10^77 ways thing could happen are for the numbers close to 350. So we say that a result close to 350 is a high entropy state and a result close to 600 or to 100 is a low entropy state. In fact there is formula for the entropy of each sum which is something like the logarithm of the number of ways the dice can add up to that sum.
Mike CT wrote: reply....You are talking about a universe. WD's are only components of the universe and are a very small part. There are a lot of component parts. When you add them all to a universe, it does not affect the total since it complies to the conservation laws.
everything in the universe is ultimately made up of small components, right down to energy. and every last Joule must be accounted for, we have already aggreed that it is in both a SSU and BBU. however the entropy of the entire system must increase so the entire sate of the universe changes over time, the number of states it can be in increases and as this does the universe could quite possibly expand. the universe is neither eternal or unchanging as a SSU explains it.
Mike CT wrote: reply....I wrote a paper on another site that gravity is a manifestation of the EM force where a slight imbalance constitutes the gravity effect.
In BH's, the coulomb force enhances the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter is present.
Mike CT
care to post a link to this other site, is this paper recognized by any authority on physics to be considered error free.
Cosmology
Galbally quotess
Photons have no mass they are not matter they are energy quanta, so they are not the same as the particles that make up the stars planets etc, I'm not sure on what basis you are saying they are recycled.
reply
New photons are generated whenever a new star is created. This continuous process of star creation would cause a heat death if the photons did not expand to extinction. My 'intrinsic light expansion' expands the photons to radio wave lengths and beyond to extinction (IMHO).
CT wrote
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
Galbally
Well then how do you explain the relativistic effects that are found when particles are accelerated close to light speed or when sesium clocks run slow on planes in the upper atmosphere?
Reply
These changes are so miniscule that they could be errors or mind influenced changes.
CT wrote
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves (pulses)expanding.
Galbally
When you say the light waves are expanding what do you mean? An increase in frequency? If its not a doppler effect then what causes the apparent frequency shift, is there something about electromagetic waves that would cause them to do this spontaneously, Maxwells famous equations definetively rule this possibility out.
reply
The common reference to the redshift uses wavelength rather than frequency.
I have developed a theory that resulted from the nature of the electric and magnetic field patterns between the electric charges and the magnetic poles that have these force fields that surround them to create the repulsion between similar charges and poles.
Maxwell incorporated these characteristics into his equations.
These fields (electric) surround the electrons and extend to infinity. They are composed of 'VIRTUAL' negative charged particles that disperse themselves through mutual repulsion when in a tranquil state and their concentration spreads out at the greater distances.
When an electron goes through an 'absorption and emission cycle', the electrons magnetic field changes to cause these VP's to condense to form a photon. Since these VP's are not normally condensed, they then slowly push against each other to cause an expansion. These expansions continue to an infinite wavelength and extinction.
This way, the SSU does not go through a 'heat death'. This is the way photons are recycled to maintain an energy conservation uniformity.
CT wrote
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium' temperature of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Galbally
Hold on, if there was thermodynamic equilibrium within the universe then there would be no temperature difference across the entire region, so how can the center of the sun be at a temperature of millions of degrees, while normal space is 3K above absolute zero? That idea is not plausible.
reply
Are you aware of the gravitational and coulomb forces? This distribution of the matter content does not exist in interstellar and intergalactic space. This space has small amounts of various particles and rafiations to contribute to this CMBR.
CT wrote
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Galbally
Erm? How can space be infinite but matter finite? If the universe is infinitely old and infinitley large, why would matter be finite, I don't understand how your making these assumptions and I have to tell you they are counter to the opionion of about 99.999 percent of astrophysicists.
reply
I said infinately old (time) and infinate space.
I estimated the matter content to be in the 125 to 135 billion light year radius. This would be sufficient to contain the photons from escaping into space.
Mike CT
Photons have no mass they are not matter they are energy quanta, so they are not the same as the particles that make up the stars planets etc, I'm not sure on what basis you are saying they are recycled.
reply
New photons are generated whenever a new star is created. This continuous process of star creation would cause a heat death if the photons did not expand to extinction. My 'intrinsic light expansion' expands the photons to radio wave lengths and beyond to extinction (IMHO).
CT wrote
Space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
Galbally
Well then how do you explain the relativistic effects that are found when particles are accelerated close to light speed or when sesium clocks run slow on planes in the upper atmosphere?
Reply
These changes are so miniscule that they could be errors or mind influenced changes.
CT wrote
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves (pulses)expanding.
Galbally
When you say the light waves are expanding what do you mean? An increase in frequency? If its not a doppler effect then what causes the apparent frequency shift, is there something about electromagetic waves that would cause them to do this spontaneously, Maxwells famous equations definetively rule this possibility out.
reply
The common reference to the redshift uses wavelength rather than frequency.
I have developed a theory that resulted from the nature of the electric and magnetic field patterns between the electric charges and the magnetic poles that have these force fields that surround them to create the repulsion between similar charges and poles.
Maxwell incorporated these characteristics into his equations.
These fields (electric) surround the electrons and extend to infinity. They are composed of 'VIRTUAL' negative charged particles that disperse themselves through mutual repulsion when in a tranquil state and their concentration spreads out at the greater distances.
When an electron goes through an 'absorption and emission cycle', the electrons magnetic field changes to cause these VP's to condense to form a photon. Since these VP's are not normally condensed, they then slowly push against each other to cause an expansion. These expansions continue to an infinite wavelength and extinction.
This way, the SSU does not go through a 'heat death'. This is the way photons are recycled to maintain an energy conservation uniformity.
CT wrote
The CMBR is the product of a 'thermolized equalibrium' temperature of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.
Galbally
Hold on, if there was thermodynamic equilibrium within the universe then there would be no temperature difference across the entire region, so how can the center of the sun be at a temperature of millions of degrees, while normal space is 3K above absolute zero? That idea is not plausible.
reply
Are you aware of the gravitational and coulomb forces? This distribution of the matter content does not exist in interstellar and intergalactic space. This space has small amounts of various particles and rafiations to contribute to this CMBR.
CT wrote
Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.
Galbally
Erm? How can space be infinite but matter finite? If the universe is infinitely old and infinitley large, why would matter be finite, I don't understand how your making these assumptions and I have to tell you they are counter to the opionion of about 99.999 percent of astrophysicists.
reply
I said infinately old (time) and infinate space.
I estimated the matter content to be in the 125 to 135 billion light year radius. This would be sufficient to contain the photons from escaping into space.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
reply
I said infinately old (time) and infinate space.
I estimated the matter content to be in the 125 to 135 billion light year radius. This would be sufficient to contain the photons from escaping into space.
Mike CT
thats silly, what about the matter at the edges? the light will keep travelling beyond and so your universe would be growing.
if the waves expand into non-existence at this boundry the the energy content of your universe while remaining the same is slowly evaporating or expanding into nothingness. do you see the wide variety of problems here?
reply
I said infinately old (time) and infinate space.
I estimated the matter content to be in the 125 to 135 billion light year radius. This would be sufficient to contain the photons from escaping into space.
Mike CT
thats silly, what about the matter at the edges? the light will keep travelling beyond and so your universe would be growing.
if the waves expand into non-existence at this boundry the the energy content of your universe while remaining the same is slowly evaporating or expanding into nothingness. do you see the wide variety of problems here?
Cosmology
my friends say that all the time.
but if i don't find the secrets of the Universe i might get grumpy.
but if i don't find the secrets of the Universe i might get grumpy.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Cosmology
Here, this will help Alfred....................lots of space in it..................
Cosmology
Alfred wrote: if space is flat how do you explain gravity?
;)
I enjoy the "Space is flat" theory. It is flat but its thickness can be likened to a pencil line. Consider how many graphite particles can be contained in a pencil line.
Add to that the old question, how long is a pencil line?
;)
I enjoy the "Space is flat" theory. It is flat but its thickness can be likened to a pencil line. Consider how many graphite particles can be contained in a pencil line.
Add to that the old question, how long is a pencil line?
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: I enjoy the "Space is flat" theory. It is flat but its thickness can be likened to a pencil line. Consider how many graphite particles can be contained in a pencil line.
Add to that the old question, how long is a pencil line?
that depends on the energy content of the graphite, the pencil and the pencils downwards preasure and momentum. we might even include the insanity of the Illistrator to be drawing lines as a factor.
of course i don't belive space is flat so for me lines would be curves, which means its length depends on curvature of space as well.
Add to that the old question, how long is a pencil line?
that depends on the energy content of the graphite, the pencil and the pencils downwards preasure and momentum. we might even include the insanity of the Illistrator to be drawing lines as a factor.
of course i don't belive space is flat so for me lines would be curves, which means its length depends on curvature of space as well.
Cosmology
Alfred wrote: that depends on the energy content of the graphite, the pencil and the pencils downwards preasure and momentum. we might even include the insanity of the Illistrator to be drawing lines as a factor.
of course i don't belive space is flat so for me lines would be curves, which means its length depends on curvature of space as well.
Thanks for that comment. Does that mean that God could be insane??:D
I tend to believe that space is curved because of the effect of gravity. I don't think that gravity would work if space did not bend.
of course i don't belive space is flat so for me lines would be curves, which means its length depends on curvature of space as well.
Thanks for that comment. Does that mean that God could be insane??:D
I tend to believe that space is curved because of the effect of gravity. I don't think that gravity would work if space did not bend.
Cosmology
an interesting question, "What is Gods state of mind?"
what was he thinking creating universes with all these wierd and wacky rules?
it will be interesting to see whether or not a force carrier particle for gravity can be found by the LHC in around 2007.
what was he thinking creating universes with all these wierd and wacky rules?
it will be interesting to see whether or not a force carrier particle for gravity can be found by the LHC in around 2007.
Cosmology
Alfred quote
thats silly, what about the matter at the edges? the light will keep travelling beyond and so your universe would be growing.
reply
The light beyond the matter would be expanded to oblivion, as I said before.
New photons are replacing the spent photons.
Alfred
if the waves expand into non-existence at this boundry the the energy content of your universe while remaining the same is slowly evaporating or expanding into nothingness. do you see the wide variety of problems here?
reply
Well, I have to admit that the fields surroinding the 'charged particles' do extend to infinite lengths. But there is no data on these fields except that they 'create action at a distance' which is the only known physical attribute to these fields.
This is all I can say about this.
Anyway, my theory has more credibility than the BBU.
Mike CT
thats silly, what about the matter at the edges? the light will keep travelling beyond and so your universe would be growing.
reply
The light beyond the matter would be expanded to oblivion, as I said before.
New photons are replacing the spent photons.
Alfred
if the waves expand into non-existence at this boundry the the energy content of your universe while remaining the same is slowly evaporating or expanding into nothingness. do you see the wide variety of problems here?
reply
Well, I have to admit that the fields surroinding the 'charged particles' do extend to infinite lengths. But there is no data on these fields except that they 'create action at a distance' which is the only known physical attribute to these fields.
This is all I can say about this.
Anyway, my theory has more credibility than the BBU.
Mike CT
Cosmology
To the non science people I will say that this stuff can seem completely esoteric and nerdy, buts its really very important, honest. To mike I will say just to discusss one thing out of the whole can of worms that you are opening up: Photons. Photons are massless particle/waveforms thay are quantized and discrete. In that they are assigned a specific level of energy and that retain that energy level unless they are involved in matter/energy transition, where the strict laws of mass/energy conservation are observed. All EM radiation is comprised of these photons, just as the the strong nuclear force is caused by gluons and gravity by the as yet undetected gravitons. Being massless they travel at light speed. These characteristics of photons do not change, i.e. once a photon has been emitted it retains its specific energy level and velocity (LS) indefinatly they cannot as you earlier stated "expand". There is no knowm phenomena that would cause the redhift observed in the light reaching us from oher galaxies, there is a slight shifting caused by scattering but that ik know and quantified. I would appreciate an explanation (detailed if possible) about how yu think these redchifts are occurring.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Cosmology
Galbally quote
To the non science people I will say that this stuff can seem completely esoteric and nerdy, buts its really very important, honest. To mike I will say just to discusss one thing out of the whole can of worms that you are opening up: Photons. Photons are massless particle/waveforms thay are quantized and discrete. In that they are assigned a specific level of energy and that retain that energy level unless they are involved in matter/energy transition, where the strict laws of mass/energy conservation are observed. All EM radiation is comprised of these photons, just as the the strong nuclear force is caused by gluons and gravity by the as yet undetected gravitons. Being massless they travel at light speed. These characteristics of photons do not change, i.e. once a photon has been emitted it retains its specific energy level and velocity (LS) indefinatly they cannot as you earlier stated "expand". There is no knowm phenomena that would cause the redhift observed in the light reaching us from oher galaxies, there is a slight shifting caused by scattering but that ik know and quantified. I would appreciate an explanation (detailed if possible) about how yu think these redchifts are occurring.
reply
I have discussed this problem on another website with an ardent supporter of the BBU.
I will post an article on the expansion of the light waves tomorrow.
I will also post another article on a 'Grand Unified Theory' that may interest you.
Currently, I will post an article on 'dark matter' that should be of interest to you and Alfred.
To the non science people I will say that this stuff can seem completely esoteric and nerdy, buts its really very important, honest. To mike I will say just to discusss one thing out of the whole can of worms that you are opening up: Photons. Photons are massless particle/waveforms thay are quantized and discrete. In that they are assigned a specific level of energy and that retain that energy level unless they are involved in matter/energy transition, where the strict laws of mass/energy conservation are observed. All EM radiation is comprised of these photons, just as the the strong nuclear force is caused by gluons and gravity by the as yet undetected gravitons. Being massless they travel at light speed. These characteristics of photons do not change, i.e. once a photon has been emitted it retains its specific energy level and velocity (LS) indefinatly they cannot as you earlier stated "expand". There is no knowm phenomena that would cause the redhift observed in the light reaching us from oher galaxies, there is a slight shifting caused by scattering but that ik know and quantified. I would appreciate an explanation (detailed if possible) about how yu think these redchifts are occurring.
reply
I have discussed this problem on another website with an ardent supporter of the BBU.
I will post an article on the expansion of the light waves tomorrow.
I will also post another article on a 'Grand Unified Theory' that may interest you.
Currently, I will post an article on 'dark matter' that should be of interest to you and Alfred.
Cosmology
I have trouble with the idea of boundaries to the universe. If the whole universe was created by a big bang from a singularity by what means can we describe what existed outside of this singularity. Nothing doesn't do it for me. How can anything expand into nothing. For expansion to take place, there has to be somewhere where it can expand to. How can a universe's boundaries be discussed without contemplating what exists outside of those boundaries.
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: I have trouble with the idea of boundaries to the universe. If the whole universe was created by a big bang from a singularity by what means can we describe what existed outside of this singularity. Nothing doesn't do it for me. How can anything expand into nothing. For expansion to take place, there has to be somewhere where it can expand to. How can a universe's boundaries be discussed without contemplating what exists outside of those boundaries.
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
i remember having a 5+ page disscusion on this very idea in the forum link i posted above.
the arguement i presented was What is stopping the universe from expanding? the answer, not a damm thing.
the universe is all that is so taking a point of view from the outside is meaningless because there is no outside. it's a philosophical point, which like any other is open to interpretation. but i feel it is the most logical answer, you of course may be inclined to disagree.
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
i remember having a 5+ page disscusion on this very idea in the forum link i posted above.
the arguement i presented was What is stopping the universe from expanding? the answer, not a damm thing.
the universe is all that is so taking a point of view from the outside is meaningless because there is no outside. it's a philosophical point, which like any other is open to interpretation. but i feel it is the most logical answer, you of course may be inclined to disagree.
Cosmology
Alfred wrote: i remember having a 5+ page disscusion on this very idea in the forum link i posted above.
the arguement i presented was What is stopping the universe from expanding? the answer, not a damm thing.
the universe is all that is so taking a point of view from the outside is meaningless because there is no outside. it's a philosophical point, which like any other is open to interpretation. but i feel it is the most logical answer, you of course may be inclined to disagree.
I tend to agree with the idea you present above. But I am not certain of the proof for it.
I will explore the site you mentioned above.
the arguement i presented was What is stopping the universe from expanding? the answer, not a damm thing.
the universe is all that is so taking a point of view from the outside is meaningless because there is no outside. it's a philosophical point, which like any other is open to interpretation. but i feel it is the most logical answer, you of course may be inclined to disagree.
I tend to agree with the idea you present above. But I am not certain of the proof for it.
I will explore the site you mentioned above.
Cosmology
OpenMind wrote: I tend to agree with the idea you present above. But I am not certain of the proof for it.
I will explore the site you mentioned above.
no proof...just philosophy.
have fun on your exploration.
I will explore the site you mentioned above.
no proof...just philosophy.
have fun on your exploration.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Cosmology
*off topic*
Sometimes a good formula can explain phenomena like the Big Bang...........
Attached files
Sometimes a good formula can explain phenomena like the Big Bang...........
Attached files
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16935
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
Cosmology
chonsigirl wrote: *off topic*
Sometimes a good formula can explain phenomena like the Big Bang...........
...:yh_rotfl
Sometimes a good formula can explain phenomena like the Big Bang...........
...:yh_rotfl
Cosmology
Chonsigirl
Yiy know, I have been thinking about that.
Einsteins curvature of (female body) plus space (her womb) equals 'big bang' universe?
Mike CT
Yiy know, I have been thinking about that.
Einsteins curvature of (female body) plus space (her womb) equals 'big bang' universe?
Mike CT
Cosmology
OpenMind quote
I have trouble with the idea of boundaries to the universe. If the whole universe was created by a big bang from a singularity by what means can we describe what existed outside of this singularity. Nothing doesn't do it for me. How can anything expand into nothing. For expansion to take place, there has to be somewhere where it can expand to. How can a universe's boundaries be discussed without contemplating what exists outside of those boundaries.
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
reply
I agree with you about the idea of an infinite space.
But my idea of a universe is a matter space since empty space does not have anything to see but total darkness.
The idea of nothing outside of space including space itself seems ludicrous.
I have wondered what happens to the light waves that reach the sides of the BB. Do they bounce off the 'nothing walls' of the BB or are stopped cold and terminated there since light needs space to travel through.
Maybe Alfred can answer that one. He wll ignore it as philosophocal nonsense and not applicable just as any questions arise about the 'creation out of nothing' idea.
Mike CT
I have trouble with the idea of boundaries to the universe. If the whole universe was created by a big bang from a singularity by what means can we describe what existed outside of this singularity. Nothing doesn't do it for me. How can anything expand into nothing. For expansion to take place, there has to be somewhere where it can expand to. How can a universe's boundaries be discussed without contemplating what exists outside of those boundaries.
Infinity I can cope with. To this extent, I can deal with a steady state theory. I can also concieve a big bang within an existing universe whereby energy and matter are compressed by sundry forces into a singularity to be released at some point in time. But I cannot perceive boundaries to the universe without considering the other side of those boundaries.
If the expansion of matter and energy (which are quintessentially the one and the same thing) defines the boundaries, what is it expanding into? It cannot expand into nothing. If it expands into space, then the boundaries must be redefined. If space exists for energy and matter to expand into, this (empty) space must also be a part of the universe. Just because space is empty does not imply that it is nothing otherwise it would not exist and expansion would be impossible.
Again, if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary. If it has a boundary, by what is that boundary defined and what exists on the other side of that boundary?
reply
I agree with you about the idea of an infinite space.
But my idea of a universe is a matter space since empty space does not have anything to see but total darkness.
The idea of nothing outside of space including space itself seems ludicrous.
I have wondered what happens to the light waves that reach the sides of the BB. Do they bounce off the 'nothing walls' of the BB or are stopped cold and terminated there since light needs space to travel through.
Maybe Alfred can answer that one. He wll ignore it as philosophocal nonsense and not applicable just as any questions arise about the 'creation out of nothing' idea.
Mike CT
Cosmology
Brane theory tends to put a different light on an infinite universe. With branes, we are now definiteley looking at finite boundaries to space. But at least there is the beginnings of an answer to what is on the other side of the boundary. I'm not sure how these would appear to us if we could get within viewing distance of them.
Cosmology
Mike CT wrote:
reply
I agree with you about the idea of an infinite space.
But my idea of a universe is a matter space since empty space does not have anything to see but total darkness.
The idea of nothing outside of space including space itself seems ludicrous.
I have wondered what happens to the light waves that reach the sides of the BB. Do they bounce off the 'nothing walls' of the BB or are stopped cold and terminated there since light needs space to travel through.
Maybe Alfred can answer that one. He wll ignore it as philosophocal nonsense and not applicable just as any questions arise about the 'creation out of nothing' idea.
Mike CT
you sir underestamate me.
it all depends on the shape of the universe i guess, but one can say that regardless a curvature of spacetime which results in a boundry alows light to keep travelling around it.
so the boundry is the very spacetime that holds this universe together.
reply
I agree with you about the idea of an infinite space.
But my idea of a universe is a matter space since empty space does not have anything to see but total darkness.
The idea of nothing outside of space including space itself seems ludicrous.
I have wondered what happens to the light waves that reach the sides of the BB. Do they bounce off the 'nothing walls' of the BB or are stopped cold and terminated there since light needs space to travel through.
Maybe Alfred can answer that one. He wll ignore it as philosophocal nonsense and not applicable just as any questions arise about the 'creation out of nothing' idea.
Mike CT
you sir underestamate me.
it all depends on the shape of the universe i guess, but one can say that regardless a curvature of spacetime which results in a boundry alows light to keep travelling around it.
so the boundry is the very spacetime that holds this universe together.
Cosmology
Alfred wrote: you sir underestamate me.
it all depends on the shape of the universe i guess, but one can say that regardless a curvature of spacetime which results in a boundry alows light to keep travelling around it.
so the boundry is the very spacetime that holds this universe together.
How does a boundary occur if space is infinite?
it all depends on the shape of the universe i guess, but one can say that regardless a curvature of spacetime which results in a boundry alows light to keep travelling around it.
so the boundry is the very spacetime that holds this universe together.
How does a boundary occur if space is infinite?