|
"this explains why we can't model the creation of a galaxy".
Ron this is only a problem because the time needed for galaxy formation can not be fitted into the time frame allowed by the big bang idea. Add to that the annoying finds of very old galaxies that are "too old" for their age, and finding stars older than the Universe can confuse things no doubt.
There is no mystery to me how they form and grow but one wont be able to fit their life cycle into a big bang Universe reasoned to be only some 14 billion years old.
I wonder what was happening say 100,000 billion years ago.. mmm even earlier and how long did we enjoy this state of "nothing" .. what was going on for the last trillion years and the trillion before that...nothing???
To be polite I will say I understand your doughnut approach on the assumption this is a way of simplifying something much more complex, but is an outline of a cycle somehow grouping time and matter.
I take it that you see a cycle.. a cycle that presumably tries to fit current science (big bang idea) into the current abnormalities cosmology presents to us.
However I come back to the point I have made before ... we can not exist in a sea of nothing, as it were, so we must face the prospect of the Universe being infinite..if we face that proposition we find that we can not have a start or a finish, there is no expansion or contraction other than maybe a locally observed matter, if infinite the Universe has no place to expand "into"... it is at this point I disagree with the big bang idea and the big doughnut idea as it seems both call upon human requirement for a confinement of all that is.. why do we need a start finish top bottom or sides for our Universe other than to satisfy humans desire to be more than they are and not face the fact we are very small and maybe at best insignificant...
Infinite is impossible to comprehend but I suspect that is the way it is.
But back on topic re tempreture do you have any thoughts as to what the "bits" do when two bodies seek thermal equilibrium?
What messages are sent back and forth I wonder???
I wonder how such messages pass between them and how these messages are passed.. using the "bits" available.. is it fast particles bumping into slow ones causing the slow one to spped up a little and the fast one to slow down a little.
Or do we need super symmetry??? or better still can we get it a gig in here someplace...
I wonder how string theory explains such a basic thing as bodies seeking thermal equilibrium.. particularly as it concerns the very objects they like to speculate upon.
Dont worry about a link I have some ideas I am following that seems to be ok so far.
Have you noticed that in the past I say that temperature is relevant in gravitational influence... I bet no one will go along with that idea... so I need another prediction to cover that one I guess... but it must.
Of course all will say the speed of a body is relevant in its gravitational relationships but not temprature.. mmm speed is temprature is it not relevant?.. sortta makes sense did we not say temp is speed???
So heat is really the manifestation "speed" and heat is the energy in a form humans can observe... even if they can not observe the reality at the atomic level of the experience.
Heat is maybe the speedometre of speed of the bits we observe. So I wonder if any see the relationship of temp to gravitational influence?
alex
|