Miriam English wrote:
>
> 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 the universe is already infinite, how could it be expanding? If it is
expanding, how could it be called a 'steady state'?
>
> - 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.
Which mandates a much larger number of black holes present in the
universe than have been detected, especially if it is infinitely old,
the universe should be chock full of them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:59 MDT