99
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: − + + +
Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be? (view source)
Revision as of 01:29, March 9, 2007
, 01:29, March 9, 2007no edit summary
:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
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 would be 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)
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)
:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 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 an 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)