61
New Theories / Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« on: 07/02/2014 18:08:12 »How could we understand the conservation of energy in a universe that contains an infinite amount of energy in it?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.
I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.
If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.
If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.
If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?
It's expansion means that there is simply more of it being created as time progresses.You mean to say that space is something that it is being created?
Keep in mind that a bohr diagram is a poor representation of the actual form of atoms. The electrons do not lie in a plane as planets do. Perhaps with the partial exception of Hydrogen.In what way is hydrogen an exception? I thought the probability function for the location of the electron was a spherical cloud around the proton. Am I mistaken? (I am likely using probability function very loosely here, but I hope my meaning is clear.)
I'm sorry but I don't know what "follow the space curvature" means.I meant so say that photons and free fall particles follows a geodesic.
I think it's important to make the distinction between the curvature of a particles trajectory and the intrinsic curvature of a manifold,to in this case space and spacetime.
The bias in the 3k background radiation as well as the overall matter density in space will. At least it will until you obtain the same speed as that frame wherein you will retain constant speed.
That is incorrect. The key idea is tidal acceleration, not the equivalence principleI am not sure how the tidal acceleration has anything to do with the equivalence principle.
Curvature refers to entirely different phenomena. Its unfortunate that the term “curvature” has two meanings in this context since it confuses a lot of people.These two different phenomena are equivalent because no physical measurement can distinguish between them.
This is also incorrect. An observer in such a field can tell that he’s not merely in an accelerating frame in flat spacetime by the presence of tidal acclerationsWhat tidal acceleration? In the first case the observer is assumed to be in empty space sufficiently far from any source of gravitational field and moving with an acceleration a=9.8m/s^2. In the second case the observer is at the surface of a planet under an uniform gravitational field g=9.8m/s^2. The gravitational field is assumed uniform (any tidal effect is ignored and it has nothing to do here).
Sorry. But that’s all wrong. Fortunately there is a new text online which can explain all of this to you. See http://exploringblackholes.comIt may also be useful to show here within the context of the discussion why is a certain aspect incorrect.
For this reason it is doubtful whether the human mind will ever be subject to being reduced to an algorithm based on axiomatic rules.