NationStates Jolt Archive

Steady-state theory? Please. :rolleyes:

The idea that the universe has always existed in its present form is dumb enough, but now that we're here screwing everything up, to suggest that the whole sorry mess will exist forever, that does not fill me enthusiasm.

And although energy is never created or destroyed, having it pass through a heat engine and do work without a degradation in quality, that's just a bit too much. I mean, you'd lose that blood-pumping roar from a sports car's engine for a start. I doubt Monsier Carnot was an F1 fan, but he'd be spinning in his grave at the thought.

And for a wind turbine technician, the number 0.593 would lose all significance.

That's not a world I want to inhabit.

Nope, give us our heat death in 10^99 years, thank you very much. :mad:

Pessimistic (sp?) today, aren't we?

Steady-state theory? Please. :rolleyes:
The idea that the universe has always existed in its present form is dumb enough, but now that we're here screwing everything up, to suggest that the whole sorry mess will exist forever, that does not fill me enthusiasm.
{snip}
Nope, give us our heat death in 10^99 years, thank you very much. :mad:
As a proper representative is not presently available, I hear-by lend my voice,
I object to your stated view in its' entirety, in the name of the Negentropy Alliance.

Who? What?

"Negentropism: Ethical philosophy of the Negentropy Alliance. Based on the view is that entropy is the fundamental flaw of the universe, and ethical actions are those that serve to slow or stop the increase of entropy."

Here's a detailed link. Consume in Peace. ;)

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg/n/Ne-Nh.html#Negentropism

Edit: & if this does not throw you for a loop, maybe we can dig up an official spokesperson for I.D.

Steady-state theory? Please. :rolleyes:

The idea that the universe has always existed in its present form is dumb enough, but now that we're here screwing everything up, to suggest that the whole sorry mess will exist forever, that does not fill me enthusiasm.


Nope, give us our heat death in 10^99 years, thank you very much. :mad:
As I'm always saying, now, and I mean NOW, is the golden age of space travel. In the limit of eternity, we're all going to be isolated particles petrified at absolute zero.

Cool huh?

Nope, give us our heat death in 10^99 years, thank you very much. :mad:

Unproven hidden assumption: The universe is a closed system.

Unproven hidden assumption: The universe is a closed system.

Perhaps two points situated far enough from each other in the universe could not see each other. Perhaps the space between them is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. The velocities of the two points themselves would not be exceeding c but the space between them could be expanding at a rate that light could not traverse. The universe could very well be infinite in size.

The universe, originally, was totally uniformed. An equilibrium. It had both an infinite amount of points and also no definable points at all.

Consider that if you take a 6 inch length, you can in theory insert an infinite amount of points onto (or 'into') that length.
Now consider that if take a 12 inch length, you can once again insert an infinite amount of points onto (or 'into') that length.

If you add all the possible amount of points from both lengths you still get an infinite amount of points.

So once you actually start to define actual points in a closed system you can only define spacial distance from one point to another and how many points have been defined in between.

As space expands more and more points are defined and we get closer to this completely unifomred state with all possible points being defined again (ie. an infinite amount of points actually existing again but each being undefinable from one to the next).

This cycle will carry on ad infinitum.

"The begining' and "the end" points paradoxically being one and the same uniformed state. Having both no definable and an infinite amount points.

It's a bottomless pit.

Steady-state theory? Please. :rolleyes:

The idea that the universe has always existed in its present form is dumb enough, but now that we're here screwing everything up, to suggest that the whole sorry mess will exist forever, that does not fill me enthusiasm.

And although energy is never created or destroyed, having it pass through a heat engine and do work without a degradation in quality, that's just a bit too much. I mean, you'd lose that blood-pumping roar from a sports car's engine for a start. I doubt Monsier Carnot was an F1 fan, but he'd be spinning in his grave at the thought.

And for a wind turbine technician, the number 0.593 would lose all significance.

That's not a world I want to inhabit.

Nope, give us our heat death in 10^99 years, thank you very much. :mad:

BAN KOYOTE!!!


Only kidding :)

Lets all just agree that, in the grand scheme of things, the universe is a very dismal place.

Lets all just agree that, in the grand scheme of things, the universe is a very dismal place.
Its average colour is beige.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:cnJNA-_qT78J:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0207

Enough said.

What exactly are we discussing here. Personally, I think entropy is a rather boring topic, but steady state is considerably more interesting.

Its average colour is beige.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:cnJNA-_qT78J:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0207

Enough said.

:D

Perhaps two points situated far enough from each other in the universe could not see each other. Perhaps the space between them is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. The velocities of the two points themselves would not be exceeding c but the space between them could be expanding at a rate that light could not traverse. The universe could very well be infinite in size.
But since gravity never drops to zero, there'd be infinite gravity.

What exactly are we discussing here. Personally, I think entropy is a rather boring topic, but steady state is considerably more interesting.

The subjective opinion of how interesting a topic actually is does not support the validity of a theory.

If a theory contradicts physical laws then it can not be true. It suggests a boundless and infinite universe where the creation of matter and energy is on going and never ending. But it declects that energy and matter is constantly being destroyed aswell.

In essence there is no creation or destruction of any matter or energy but things are merely in a constant state of transformation in a bounded but still infinite system........ such as the circle.

What you are suggesting is a flat line that does not join onto any end at either of it's own ends.
This kind of thinking is comparable to the thinking that made people think the world was flat.

But since gravity never drops to zero, there'd be infinite gravity.

Gravity is a phenomena that is only allowed to manifest within objects as they move in relation to each other. If those objects don't exist then gravity can not manifest in any other way and therefore does not exist either.

But when you take both concepts of zero and infinity to their ultimate eventual extreme; they are very similar if not the same.
What you suggest is not a balanced supposition and in gravity can ever be infinite it must be equalised by gravity also having the potential to reach zero aswell.

Remember zero is not 'total none existence' but merely an totally uniformed state without definable points (much like infinity) because 'total none existence' is an impossibility.

The subjective opinion of how interesting a topic actually is does not support the validity of a theory.

If a theory contradicts physical laws then it can not be true. It suggests a boundless and infinite universe where the creation of matter and energy is on going and never ending. But it declects that energy and matter is constantly being destroyed aswell.

In essence there is no creation or destruction of any matter or energy but things are merely in a constant state of transformation in a bounded but still infinite system........ such as the circle.

What you are suggesting is a flat line that does not join onto any end at either of it's own ends.
This kind of thinking is comparable to the thinking that made people think the world was flat.

Are you serious?

Are you serious?

Yes. What Steady State Theory implies is impossible and the discovery of background radiation from the big bang pretty much implies that conclusion aswell.

Yes. What Steady State Theory implies is impossible and background radiation from the big bang pretty much implies that conclusion aswell.

Woah! All I said was that steady state is interesting and entropy is boring! I didn't even tell you what I thought of steady state. Yeesh!

Personally, I reckon steady state was the single biggest f*** up in the past century of physics.

Woah! All I said was that steady state is interesting and entropy is boring! I didn't even tell you what I thought of steady state. Yeesh!

Personally, I reckon steady state was the single biggest f*** up in the past century of physics.

Ahhh, you have my apologies.

I find bull-shit that someone people actually think is scientifically sound interesting aswell. How they support their falacies with falacies i find sadistically amusing.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/bigcrunch.htm

Until I actually sit down and read up on theories of the end of the Universe and entropy and such, I'm just going to ignore science and pretend that the Universe will 'end' when all matter is sucked into a mega-black hole, which would then consume itself.

Until I actually sit down and read up on theories of the end of the Universe and entropy and such, I'm just going to ignore science and pretend that the Universe will 'end' when all matter is sucked into a mega-black hole, which with then consume itself.
Well, heat death is basically black hole evaporation. Only with lots of black holes and lumped ordinary matter decaying too. That is in the case of the Open Universe.

The Closed Universe is the event that all matter collapses back into a singularity (Big Crunch), before heat death can occur. Can the fabric of space-time collapse unto itself later anyway? I would have to read up on that point.

Some say the Universe could be recycled into an nth Big Bang after the Big Crunch. That's a bit far-fetched. But potentially it would not have to resemble ours in its laws of physics.

The universe's expansion ceasing and a steady-state (with entropy) emerging is a really unlikely scenario, as the balance of forces would have to be perfect.

Yeah, it's all a bit of a headache. But for me, heat death is an elegant and satisfying scenario, in a non-scientific way. :)