Eternal Energy

I agree 100%, indeed Einstein will give the new emergence of the Existentialist ideas a boost as well. When it has come that GR finally does crash, the new ideas will stream forward quickly, those unwilling to be connected to the sinking ship will quickly hitch their wagons to the new star for a time. Infinity (no beginning or end) will be easier to stomach if we get over curved-space

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

This notion of the Universe was very popular amongst Atheist movements in late 19th and early 20th century....

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sorry Patrick, I meant to say: The idea of a finite Universe was very popular amongst Atheist movements in late 19th and early 20th century.... I skipped a word or two.

In basic form, their idea was that the universe is made of infinite (in time) permutations of finite elements. Although the primary elements are finite, the universe appears infinite because the expansion series does not converge, i.e. things get permutated constantly. Then, evolution in a straight line but its has a hellix type of shape, as elements in its combined, destroyed and recombined.

That's sounds more of a mathematical approach to the infinite/finite universe problem. Can you get infinity out of finite? The answer is yes, is you keep combining the elements through a sequence that never converges. Is that absolute infinity or just mathematical infinity?

In mathematics of infinity, a big number M is a number bigger then the biggest possible number Mmax (the "google"). Infinity is bigger than the biggest possible number always. But in Theology, infinite means something different. I guess the same in the MM. However, they do not define it. the term is used "losely". They claim that theories must be verified experimentally, but when it comes to their premises, they cannot be verified. This is because their process is deductive, a process now known to produce no results but a lot of people are still stuck with it. It's time to turn the page.

Einstein in the photoelectric effect is eventually responsible for suggesting a method for aging the universe. Hence the BB theory, hence a beginning of space/time ~20bya.

I would like to argue that the universe is infinite. As the MM suggests, all scales are infinitely divisible and expandable. Perhaps the vastness is truly too difficult a concept for any of us. We, for a moment, must forget our desire to issue unnecessary importance to our own existence. As an individual atom is unaware of its inclusion in our own bodies, we could be the small particles of a larger being or consciousness. That sounds trite but consider this:
In biology a microbiologist (cant remember a name right now) calculated that there is actually more alien cells in a person at any given time than there are actual cells of that person, in essence there is more that is not us than is us. This intrigued me greatly the first time I read it, now however, I think I see the greater picture. For the alien cells in us, our body is simply a universe, a place with boundaries perceived yet unseen. The notion that our own Milky Way galaxy could be just a cell amongst uncounted peers is something we should be prepared to accept if it proves to be true. This is like excedrin headache 6.022 x 10^23. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I don't know the laws of physics all that well to advise as to violations. The statement e=mc2 works is both directions at the same time so mass is in balance with energy in my opinion.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think you are correct under the MM, however in BB matter is constantly being created from nothingness. This is clearly impossible but e=mc^2 is only the beginning because it assumes that matter and light coincide. However very small masses and unexplained energy observations may allow for the inclusion of gravitons and their medium into the construct. What I mean to say is that for masses in our range of scale, e=mc^2 holds true. However if we operate in the smaller scales where gravity and LCM are able to influence the behavior of light and masses then other interactions need to be catalogued. I think it is likely that problems seen in gas laws and special relativity will be solved with study of the scales that can influence light's behavior.

Most of this issue is of very little interest but gas laws are very interesting to me. So, what are the problems that you say exist in the gas laws and how would you fix them? I find they are exellent as long as the limits are established.