On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:53:28 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 11/6/2014 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > LizR wrote: > >> On 7 November 2014 12:32, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au > <javascript:> > >> <mailto:bhke...@optusnet.com.au <javascript:>>> wrote: > >> > >> I have not seen your arguments for this, being new to the list, but > >> the expansion of the universe is a universal consequence of general > >> relativity. So it is built into the laws of physics, and has > nothing > >> to do with whether or not there ever was a period of rapid > inflation. > >> > >> > >> Expansion or collapse is a consequence of GR, certainly. However I was > thinking on a > >> larger scale with the EI comment, since EI seems to necessitate the > existence of > >> expanding universes. Not sure that it can be counted as a TOE though, > so it's still in > >> need of ultimate explanation.. > >> > >> The AoT comes from the third law of thermodynamics and has little > to > >> do with the expansion of the universe. Entropy increases in the > same > >> direction as the expansion solely because the universe 'began' in a > >> state of very low entropy. (The Past Hypothesis). > >> > >> I didn't realise there was a 3rd law, but anyway - saying the U began > in a low entropy > >> state begs the question - why did it? The big bang fireball was more or > less in > >> thermodynamic equilibrium as far as I know, and if it had stopped > expanding it would > >> have rapidly reached that stage. My point is to explain the > > > > > > Sorry -- typo. I meant the second law, of course. > > > > I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the thermodynamic > AoT, itself stands > > in need of explanation. This is the great unsolved problem of cosmology > -- at least > > according to many cosmologists. The initial big bang might be assumed to > be in > > thermodynaic equilibrium, but that is essentially the same assumption as > the assumption > > of low entropy. The question remains as to why it was in equilibrium. > Generic creation > > events might actuallybe expected to produce extremely lumpy universe > down to the > > smallest scaels. I.e., state with very high entropy. > > What would be the highest possible (and therefore most probable) initial > state? A single > black hole? From an information theoretic viewpoint a universe inflating > up from a Planck > scale patch would seem most likely - doesn't require any information > input. >
It depends very much on the theory of reference. From mine, the first ever initial state is everything because it doesn't go anywhere Something I question about the incumbent worldview is that it doesn't of itself obstruct ordiscourage really large assumptions slipping for no more conscious reason than it relates to something else about the universe being described same. So the assumptionca about that other thing just becomes entwined. like Scale and relative scale. Looking in a microscope. If that's the assumed part, then it's also the assumption scale is what it intuitively feels like it has to be....which has to mean and require that the universe history has to have an intuitive spatial conception start to finish, for scale to be exactly what it obviously is. But what if it isn't? What if it's distortion. What if that's what it is, and what if that's the single only key there will ever be to a breakthrough theory. If all that, chances are the human possibility for that theory blinked out of existence with ...an assumption that was barely made or conscious -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
