Why I disagree with static eternal universe

Its clear energy can cause more rections than just heating, so why would rules that work very well in thermal problems work with all the other energy effects? This is why QM&QED have been invented. For example, nothing in the entropy model works when light reactions are explored. Its just that heat is not energy-heat is just one of many interacions of mass and energy and light is pure energy. Entropy is not designed to predict mass or energy but only effects that cause heating of mass by energy. Both mass and energy have properties that don't fit the entropy model(or any other model for that matter).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Its clear energy can cause more rections than just heating, so why would rules that work very well in thermal problems work with all the other energy effects? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thermodynamics works in the whole well known physics. In particular, the temperature of a light beam is deduced from its luminance using Planck's law. No exception has been demonstrated up to now. (is the one indicated in my previous text possible?)<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is why QM&QED have been invented.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
They were invented to introduce paradoxes, incoherence in physics, using wrong demonstrations. For instance the wave-particle duality principle is written:
"a wave cannot represent a particle in classical mechanics"
in place of:
"a LINEAR wave cannot represent a particle in classical mechanics".

An other example:
To demonstrate that classical optics does not work, the residual field (which is the zero point field at 0K) is neglected; This has no importence for the computation of the fields (linear), not of the energy (non-linear). It is scandalous that the Planck's law which is usually taught is the wrong law (Planck 1900) and not his corrected law (1911), recognized as the good one by Einstein, Nernst...

The thing about entropy that I see is that only things that have first been built up in some way can be in a position were they can then fall apart or back to the energy level that they started at. Things can only return to a previously less structured or less hot state after having been artificially or by "divine-design" first been built up or structured or caused into existence from neutral raw elements and raw energies.

There is a flow back and forth--in one direction, perhaps by design--in the other direction maybe not by any particular design, just a relaxing of the original "intent" and the sand castle is washed back to a flat surface by the ocean's incoming tide.

I have to go with no Big Bang, also. "Deaths and births" whether of humans or stars or galaxies are taking a myopic view of nature. You have to step way back and see where the beginnings came from and where the endings are going onto to, in order to see the whole picture which is just endlessly cyclical.

I know that this is equally difficult to put our frail human minds around, but this is a much more satisfying choice for me than that of a single shot of everything coming into existence out of a point and becoming all of this. That is just never going to work for me.

Aaron

Thing might cycle and flow back and forth for a time but on the macro scale of the whole universe there is only one direction the arrow of time and by this entropy wins in the end and all things die, including the universe which is just a macrocosm of our human microcosm reality and life. Like it we die

The universe and we are created by the same intellegence and it keeps to form

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

JMB, Can you post the two Planck statements you referenced? I don't see how you can say a light beam has a temperature. It is just poor science to use concepts like temperature in energy problems because temperature is a property of heat and heat is a result of an interaction of mass and energy. It makes no sense when clearly light has no property other than those of energy. Heat exists in mass but energy exists even without mass.

Hi,

Is there no way of editing or modifying a post?

I make key stroke errors all the time and when I revisite the thread I cannot correct them



I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge