At 12:15 PM 29/07/2001 -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>Miriam English wrote:
> >
> > At 11:13 PM 27/07/2001 +1000, Damien Broderick wrote:
> >
> > >I don't see how either of these gets rid of an infinite quantity of light
> > >pouring into every part of the infinitely extended cosmos for eternity.
> > >Unless the `local, known universe' gets pinched off as a baby bubble, but
> > >then we're back to the Big Bang again.
> >
> > Heheheh :-)
> > If light loses energy along the journey then there is no paradox here.
>
>Yes, there is. 'Lost' energy must go someplace. Under the steady state
>theory, the entire universe should be hotter than an EZ-Bake oven.
>Thanks anyways.
Not necessarily. Two possibilities:
- If the universe is expanding (and there is no reason why some of the
red shift might not be due to movement) then the universe cools to offset that.
- If old matter is crushed out of existence in black holes then there is
no net gain and the universe can be the temperature it is. Conservation of
energy/mass becomes just a handy guide if you have stuff popping into
existence in the great voids, or everything all at once at the beginning.
Cheers,
- Miriam
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
Q. What is the similarity between an elephant and a grape?
A. They are both purple... except for the elephant.
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
http://werple.net.au/~miriam
http://members.optushome.com.au/miriame
Virtual Reality Association http://www.vr.org.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:59 MDT