Changes

On fallacies:  The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature.  That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist  :^).  All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

On fallacies:  The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature.  That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist  :^).  All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^).  There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology.  The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator".  This is a concept from Thermodynamics.  The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this:  That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

== Outside topics ==

 

Let us continue the discussion on whether the universe has an outside [[Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:43, 9 March 2007 (EST)

 

 

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis."  Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

 

 

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

 

 

 

 

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly.  Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of.  BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero.  Remember the radiation is in all directions.  So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses.  All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity.  In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse.  The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior.  --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

 

 

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going.  Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure.  But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in a static enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas.  --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

 

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

 

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

 

''"The Universe doesn't have an outside"''? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside this universe.  And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders and heads around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...)  The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would also eventually disappear.  However, neither of those is the actual point.  The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''.  We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse.  The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

 

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression: Valid Reasoning or No?  Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

 

:There is certainly no evidence that radiation is leaving the universe. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

 

:"Finite nature of the Universe?" Gah. Look, FRW Universes fall into two broad categories; those which are ''infinite'' in spatial extent, and those which are ''finite and unbounded'' in spatial extent. Neither has an outside. This is cosmology 101; if you don't know that, you don't know the geometry of the Universe, and you're never going to understand its dynamics. The rest of the discussion is utterly pointless until you grasp this fundamental concept. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)