Changes

:'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)

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.

: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)

: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 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 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'''''.

'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)

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)