A billion degrees - is HOT

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Hmnnn hijackers indeed anywho, (that is intentional Alex, not a typo), if you refer back to my continuous, linear, doughnut model, you will see that each revolution is indeed a previous or future iteration....or put in more succinct terms, "more of the same".

Existence is just one long ride on the icing of my doughnut, going round and round, with a start and finish for each lap. You can call the beginning the 'Big Bang', or you can simply call it a metaphysical change of properties to a different plane, but still going around on the old doughnut

[xelasnave]

Then you are an optimist for it is so said of someone who sees the doughnut not the hole.
alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Well actually I am sort of guilty of eating the middle of the doughnut, but only because I was really really hungry

[xelasnave]

I must be very positive as I see there can be no hole or even an outside so all I see is doughnut .
Except someone has taken a bite out of it ..but if infinite you can take as many bites as you wish and the dougnut will alway remain a doughnut...even if it has no outside .
alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

You cad, you ate part of my universe, why?????? I never 'Rained' on your parade

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by tailwag

Well actually I am sort of guilty of eating the middle of the doughnut, but only because I was really really hungry

There is no point in saying I did not do it unless I can suggest the most likely culprit .
alex

[cohen avshalom]

what is the temperature in supernova?

thank you
avshalom cohen charly
isreal/haifa

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Very, very hot
Seeing no one has been inside one with a thermometer, it is a theoretical temp, and seeing there is no standard supernovae i.e. different sized stars go novae, there would in my humble opinion, be a wide variation in possible temperatures.

[cohen avshalom]

what is the most passible hot that we can get?

cohen avshalom charly
isreal/haifa

[Pascha]

Heja Ron!
Are you sure that temperature is the speed of mainly electrons?
If I rember well in a crystall the atoms swing. If their speed accelerates temperature rises till the crystall becomes a liquid, later a gas. So I would pefer to say temp. is a metron of speed of atom or molecules.
Clear skies Pascha

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Pascha

Heja Ron!
Are you sure that temperature is the speed of mainly electrons?
If I rember well in a crystall the atoms swing. If their speed accelerates temperature rises till the crystall becomes a liquid, later a gas. So I would pefer to say temp. is a metron of speed of atom or molecules.
Clear skies Pascha

Hmmn that is really splitting straws and as punishment you will have to read the following 'Short' excerpt I 'borrowed' from a friendly website. It's true that words such as particles and molecules are used in preference to the more specific electron, but I rather fancy this is a somewhat mute point, because the temperature of things is as a whole unit, not the individual parts anyway, read this more informative description and you will know most of what there is to know about heat (hot). This is the first part and if you want to read the entire story, go to: http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/tmp2.html The question of how hot is also answered near the bottom of the story on the website.

What is Temperature?

In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it.

It is easy to demonstrate that when two objects of the same material are placed together (physicists say when they are put in thermal contact), the object with the higher temperature cools while the cooler object becomes warmer until a point is reached after which no more change occurs, and to our senses, they feel the same. When the thermal changes have stopped, we say that the two objects (physicists define them more rigorously as systems) are in thermal equilibrium . We can then define the temperature of the system by saying that the temperature is that quantity which is the same for both systems when they are in thermal equilibrium.
If we experiment further with more than two systems, we find that many systems can be brought into thermal equilibrium with each other; thermal equilibrium does not depend on the kind of object used. Put more precisely,
if two systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they must also be in thermal equilibrium with each other,
and they all have the same temperature regardless of the kind of systems they are.





The statement in italics, called the zeroth law of thermodynamics may be restated as follows:

If three or more systems are in thermal contact with each other and all in equilibrium together, then any two taken separately are in equilibrium with one another. (quote from T. J. Quinn's monograph Temperature)

Now one of the three systems could be an instrument calibrated to measure the temperature - i.e. a thermometer. When a calibrated thermometer is put in thermal contact with a system and reaches thermal equilibrium, we then have a quantitative measure of the temperature of the system. For example, a mercury-in-glass clinical thermometer is put under the tongue of a patient and allowed to reach thermal equilibrium in the patient's mouth - we then see by how much the silvery mercury has expanded in the stem and read the scale of the thermometer to find the patient's temperature.
What is a Thermometer?

A thermometer is an instrument that measures the temperature of a system in a quantitative way. The easiest way to do this is to find a substance having a property that changes in a regular way with its temperature. The most direct 'regular' way is a linear one:

t(x) = ax + b,
where t is the temperature of the substance and changes as the property x of the substance changes. The constants a and b depend on the substance used and may be evaluated by specifying two temperature points on the scale, such as 32° for the freezing point of water and 212° for its boiling point.
For example, the element mercury is liquid in the temperature range of -38.9° C to 356.7° C (we'll discuss the Celsius ° C scale later). As a liquid, mercury expands as it gets warmer, its expansion rate is linear and can be accurately calibrated.

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/hg.gif

The mercury-in-glass thermometer illustrated in the above figure contains a bulb filled with mercury that is allowed to expand into a capillary. Its rate of expansion is calibrated on the glass scale. The Development of Thermometers and Temperature Scales

The historical highlights in the development of thermometers and their scales given here are based on "Temperature" by T. J. Quinn and "Heat" by James M. Cork.

One of the first attempts to make a standard temperature scale occurred about AD 170, when Galen, in his medical writings, proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. <A href="http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/galen.html" target=_blank>
The earliest devices used to measure the temperature were called thermoscopes.
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/thrmscp.gif They consisted of a glass bulb having a long tube extending downward into a container of colored water, although Galileo in 1610 is supposed to have used wine. Some of the air in the bulb was expelled before placing it in the liquid, causing the liquid to rise into the tube. As the remaining air in the bulb was heated or cooled, the level of the liquid in the tube would vary reflecting the change in the air temperature. An engraved scale on the tube allowed for a quantitative measure of the fluctuations.
The air in the bulb is referred to as the thermometric medium, i.e. the medium whose property changes with temperature.
In 1641, the first sealed thermometer that used liquid rather than air as the thermometric medium was developed for Ferdinand II, Grand Duke of Tuscany. His thermometer used a sealed alcohol-in-glass device, with 50 "degree" marks on its stem but no "fixed point" was used to zero the scale. These were referred to as "spirit" thermometers.
Robert Hook, Curator of the Royal Society, in 1664 used a red dye in the alcohol . His scale, for which every degree represented an equal increment of volume equivalent to about 1/500 part of the volume of the thermometer liquid, needed only one fixed point. He selected the freezing point of water. By scaling it in this way, Hook showed that a standard scale could be established for thermometers of a variety of sizes. Hook's original thermometer became known as the standard of Gresham College and was used by the Royal Society until 1709. (The first intelligible meteorological records used this scale).
In 1702, the astronomer Ole Roemer of Copenhagen based his scale upon two fixed points: snow (or crushed ice) and the boiling point of water, and he recorded the daily temperatures at Copenhagen in 1708- 1709 with this thermometer.
It was in 1724 that Gabriel Fahrenheit, an instrument maker of Däanzig and Amsterdam, used mercury as the thermometric liquid. Mercury's thermal expansion is large and fairly uniform, it does not adhere to the glass, and it remains a liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Its silvery appearance makes it easy to read.





Fahrenheit described how he calibrated the scale of his mercury thermometer:

"placing the thermometer in a mixture of sal ammoniac or sea salt, ice, and water a point on the scale will be found which is denoted as zero. A second point is obtained if the same mixture is used without salt. Denote this position as 30. A third point, designated as 96, is obtained if the thermometer is placed in the mouth so as to acquire the heat of a healthy man." (D. G. Fahrenheit,Phil. Trans. (London) 33, 78, 1724)

On this scale, Fahrenheit measured the boiling point of water to be 212. Later he adjusted the freezing point of water to 32 so that the interval between the boiling and freezing points of water could be represented by the more rational number 180. Temperatures measured on this scale are designated as degrees Fahrenheit (° F).
In 1745, Carolus Linnaeus of Upsula, Sweden, described a scale in which the freezing point of water was zero, and the boiling point 100, making it a centigrade (one hundred steps) scale. Anders Celsius (1701-1744) used the reverse scale in which 100 represented the freezing point and zero the boiling point of water, still, of course, with 100 degrees between the two defining points.
In 1948 use of the Centigrade scale was dropped in favour of a new scale using degrees Celsius (° C). The Celsius scale is defined by the following two items that will be discussed later in this essay:

(i) The triple point of water is defined to be 0.01° C.
(ii) A degree Celsius equals the same temperature change as a degree on the ideal-gas scale.
On the Celsius scale the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure is 99.975 C in contrast to the 100 degrees defined by the Centigrade scale.
To convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit: multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
° F = 1.8° C + 32
° K = ° C + 273.

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Pascha

So I would pefer to say temp. is a metron of speed of atom or molecules. Clear skies Pascha

Well you sent me off looking up 'metron' which led me to Heim theory (for a quick overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory ) and of course after a full revolution of effort returning to where I left off from (Doughnut theory) I can only conclude that the difference between swinging and vibrating or jiggling electrons, or other sub-atomic particles, is not much

I do want to thank you Pascha for your thought provoking submission, it did enrich me as per Heim theory, which by all accounts, has not set the academic world on fire (heat), a sort of half-pun intended

One last thing that I would like to add, which reflects back to my 'Doughnut Theory' which is analogous to one of the current interpretations about a 'Black Hole'. It has been said that when matter meets the singularity, it ceases to exist, which is like the instant prior to the 'Big Bang' in reverse.

Applying this to my 'Doughnut theory', each revolution of existence, ends in a singularity which is the same instant of creation of the next revolution (or lap). This means that as one reality ceases to exist the next is born, thus it is continuos however each revolution is unique and the linear nature of the flow of existence means it is one way traffic only.

That's not to say that a possible 'Short-cut' might not be possible, similar to a 'Worm Hole' from one side of the 'Doughnut to the other. Perhaps using the word doughnut is a little off putting to most people, it might be wiser for me to say that the flow of all existence at any give location (time) is linear and if one were able to rise above all existence, you would see it flows in a circular shape similar to a doughnut i.e. a void in the centre.

As this existence flows, it heads towards a singularity (which could be the accretion of all known existing black holes into one final unimaginable last black hole that all existence flows into and ceases to exist, emerging at the same instant as a 'big Bang' in a new existence, ready to flow forward for the next iteration.

To help you understand this more think of the mechanics involved in birth-life-death of a star, advance it beyond the creation of a galaxy, advance it further to all existence itself i.e. all known and unknown forces, imagine them on a one-way journey where each new moment (instance of location/time) supersedes the previous.

This relentless journey ends, the next begins, obviously on a time scale we cannot realistically hope to understand, towards the end of the journey all physics begin to mutate and alter, similar to what happens on the other side i.e. physics seems to have changed it's goal post at some stage after the current 'Big Bang', this explains why we can't model the creation of a galaxy.

Anyway, this is just another slant on my 'Doughnut theory', perhaps I should rename it, but in all honesty the humble doughnut for all intents and purposes is the shape that best describes how time and space flows.

The so-called expansion of the universe for-ever is not really forever, it is so large and expanding but still curved and at the point of extinction, fully circular i.e. back to where it came from.

Hmnnnnnn I hope Alex can grasp this, he is the only bloke weird enough that I know that might actually understand what I am trying to say. Oh, and to put this firmly back on topic, yes Hot is very hot but don't confuse it with heat.

[xelasnave]

"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

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Just quickly, heat is the transfer of temperature, this implies from point a to point b. Next, I doubt that the universe is infinite, my stop start is not that simple, it is total annihilation to zero, zilch, nada, then rebirth ala Big Bang, this is very different than your inference of it stop/starting.

Back to dinner, I could'nt let those two slide past, I will review your effort and make fuller comment later

[xelasnave]

A singularity soup boiling evaporating and condencing perhaps?
Eternal but not infinite timeless but maintaining an order that can be described as a cycle not only of time but of matter and on your earlier notes the laws that make it all work also change...

If I could understand it better I would disagree more but must limit myself to what I understand to date.

Still its as good as any idea out there and gravity rain will work your Universe as easy as any other.

What happens between point A and point B has me interested in the temprature thing. The mesages etc must be very interesting to observe..if we could that is.

How can you eat when such matters are under review???

I know the brain uses most of the energy provided for the old body and without fuel you would be lost... at least under powered for thinking.. so eat up, power up and let us have some more of your wonderful explanations .. they really are very good and informative and I am sure all gets as much excitement as I do from your input Ron.

You have a great way of explaining things.

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

How can you eat when such matters are under review???

LOL you are incorrigible

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Alex, it seems that you and I need to come to common ground with regards to a singularity. I'll go first, it is my understanding that the far end of a black hole i.e. the opposite end where you enter, is what is called a singularity.

Within this region matter ceases to exist i.e. doesn't change or alter form, does not convert to anything, it simply ceases to exist. This is where you must either agree with me or disagree. This is the point that we must settle on, because unless we are both of that belief, we can not move forward which in this case is backward

Let's assume that you agree with my description above, then the tricky part is what comes next.....creation......the big bang......a giant universal burp....call it what you like, but the effect is, the exact opposite of what happens in the singularity in a black hole.

What happens is existence comes into being, as it did 14 billion years ago, why are you having trouble with this concept. It starts, it finishes, it exists, it doesn't exist. Things have been observed popping in and out of existence all the time in quantum theory, this is nothing new.

Just apply the same phenomena on a larger scale, it is so simple, really simple, stop looking for exotic explanations where none exists. Apply Occam's Razor in this instance and you will sleep well tonight.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the word infinite, to me it does not exist, it can't. I will admit that existence can last a long time, but definitely not for infinity. Try my model, which is fast gaining support even if not mathematically kosher.

Back to you Alex, can you agree or not on the most basic issue of all, is the universe infinite, is existence infinite, can matter be destroyed - good questions, which I answer No, No and Yes.

Your serve

[xelasnave]

Yes, irrelevant and no.

Occams Razor works for me to cut away all that hides my Universe.

I find it unacceptable that such a small amount of time has been allocated to our Universe when presumably there is so much more available... 14 billion years is nothing really when measured against say a trillion.

It makes no sense to me to place such a limit upon it which is derived from human dabling at the issue. Particularly when galaxies pop up that simply dont fit the time frame. I understand it there are stars that say they are older than the big bang Universe age??? maybe wrong, maybe data is corrupt maybe who wrote the things I have read are uninformed..

It is not easy to determine why certain ideas are followed so strongly but I fear if something threatens the big bang approach it is dispatched promptly..even if it takes a fanciful notion such as inflation to do so..

Why can inflation be so readily accepted I have no idea .. I am only human but this does not limit me from calling a proposition, requiring all we know about (the observable Universe) at some stage, growing at a trillion times in a split second..unreasonable.

I say that is unreasonable others say it is not... I can not prove I am right and I doubt if they will prove inflation as a fact..ever to my satisfaction. I find it extrodinary that they wish to try given that the data will be somewhat "old" but they will and I suspect they will find the proof.. because that is waht they expect to find.

But Ron it is a matter of views ..you have yours I have mine and they are not the only explanations of creation or non creation available I expect.

It will irritate folk that I dont buy what is on offer given all the science to prove their point but they are best seeing that as my problem.. not theirs... and let me drown in my ignorance of the science..still I say that I read a lot and never like to sound as though I know more than I do but I am not as uninformed I suspect many think I am.

I do find however by asking questions one gets closer somehow to at least assessing why folk believe what they do which is more relevant to me than what may or may not be so.

I simply think that the idea of singularity is wrong.
It is so convenient to cop out of working for a better answer I feel.

I see singularity as a concept born of speculation on paper using geometry to describe boundaries arrived at by extrapolation of observations that may indeed have other explanations.

No one will have it that the Universe may not be expanding because of their preference of interpretation of the observation.

Dr A was of a different view until Mr Hubble made his observations public.

What would Dr A have found if such information had not been accepted and the doppler effect considered may not be appropriate when dealing with vast distances.
The big bang is supposedly tidy but so is Lord of the Rings however the story line may have little to do with the reality.

It makes sense only if you are a small human wanting to define your exsitence and intelect to answer unanswerable questions.

I am seen as strange because I refuse to accept what has been accepted by others ... but to me it is no more than being outcast by mob rule, unkind but lets face it there is no alternate view to the big bang and given the short comings of the idea I find this strange.

If you hold another view it is asked to provide the most sound proof, yet say with the big bang idea when a problem is reached another idea is added to support it and hold it from drowning.

I find it impossible to give any credibility to the concept of inflation... yet such a long stretch is eagerly grasped by all who wish the Universe to have a start and an end...without inflation the big bang idea has serious problems.

Maybe drop inflation and fix the problems with something believable may be a better approach.
When inflation was first floated it was seen as a little over the top but in time (20 yrs I think) it was the best available to save the big bang so inflation was installed. It is possible by math.. but maybe other things are also possible.

If one has a system that requires an idea , followed by an prediction, followed by observation do you not conceed to observations will possibly fit the things being sought.
I feel that is the problem.
I can not suggest better but that does not mean that such a system may lead us to one conclusion very fast without other conclusions even being considered.

Major problems present with the big bang idea but it is held onto as if there can be no other alternative... to support an idea so strongly has advantages but may see all information guided to support the original idea.

We think we know it all and the big bang is it, I simply say it may have been a good idea at the time but really if we look at the problems perhaps other ideas should get equal time.

Just as I could not convert the whole of the Catholic Church to Non belief I can neither convert those, who believe the big bang is it, to see any other alternative.

That is the way it is.

But also the whole Catholic Church can not convert me to their thinking nor can the whole big bang movement convert me to their way of thinking... And I know there is evidence (both will provide to support a conversion)..

I am happy to comment upon item by item offerring my foolish and unscientific explanations and many will laugh but my views are considered whereas many take what they are told without any consideration that it may or may not be valid.

Why should a point be reached where another set of rules take over as we expect with singularity.. it makes no sense to me ..it sounds neat but it is so untidy I reject the notion.. AND it is no good saying but our science can not explain past a certain point if that point opf itself is unreasonable.. why should the laws break down..only to suit humans that all.. I doubt if nature deals iwth things in such a manner...

I do not accept that matter can pop into and out of existence that there is some sort of "other" side or that there are multiple Universes..that does not mean I am correct or incorrect it is simply my view... suported only by my lodgic and presumably will make perfect sense to me but not to others.

Still I like to know accepted thinking and enjoy any futher explanation of the big bang Universe or the Doughnut Universe.

So I hope this has qualified for others your observation that I am indeed weird in my thinking.... but that I think nevertheless.

Best wishes with your Universe and all others I hope my observations firm your beliefs rather than erroding them.

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

So I hope this has qualified for others your observation that I am indeed weird in my thinking.... but that I think nevertheless.

Hi Alex

Firstly, it was a little unkind of me to insinuate you were weird in your thinking, please accept a $2.00 scratchie that should arrive in the mail at some stage in your future

Next, as I read your short reply, I thought of many things paragraph by paragraph that I was going to say, but dumped it all when near the bottom you mentioned 'Nature'.

It was then that in an instant I could see that you totally do not understand a basic fundamental point, that if you did, if I could find the right words to demonstrate one single idea, that you would start to understand everything else.

You used the word 'Nature', when I used words like existence, reality and so forth. I am glad you used the word 'nature' because now I challenge you openly in this court of our peers to explain exactly what you think 'Nature' is.

Seeing this is my reply, I will take the liberty of explaining what I think it is, and why it is such a compelling factor for singularities, Big Bang's and so on.

A quick review of the Black hole before we start however, just so I don't get misquoted out of context. A Black hole, surrounded by an event Horizon, which is a location or a point where to go further you will not be able to escape the force of the Black Hole itself, commonly referred to as the point of no return.

The black hole, which is defined not by the hole itself but by the consequences of coming within range of the forces (I do not use the word gravity here purposefully) of the Black hole.

The passage through the Black hole which really means the stresses and changes (spaghettification) to all matter, which increases as you journey towards the 'End' of the Black Hole, which we call a singularity.

At the singularity all physics is altered, all science stops, all matter, energy and force ceases to exist, sort of like death.

I ended my simplistic review of a black hole with the word 'DEATH', I did this intentionally, because the words 'Nature' and 'Death' are synonymous with each other, they are in fact the same thing.

In nature, IMHO, we see life through birth, the struggles for survival, the evolution, the growth and finally the death, of everything that we consider to be 'Alive'.

I believe that 'Nature' is a perfect way of explaining the 'Universe', of explaining the way that matter comes into existence, in my mind, it is exactly the same as we experience 'Nature' here on Earth.

If you agree with my version of nature i.e. birth, growth, survival, death then simply (forget all that you ever learned or read from others) and apply the 4 main nature keywords to the universe as a whole.

Let's go, a simple exercise, lets see if we can create a model that fits and then figure out the math afterwards.

Birth, growth, survival, death:

Birth: We see birth on a local level in the magnificent creation of a human child, I would think that nearly everyone marvels at this, yet after many billions of human births and trillions of animal births, we still 'Don't get it', but we accept it because we see the result.

On a larger scale we see star birth and can explain that pretty satisfactorily.

On an even larger scale we look at the birth of a galaxy however I discount this is true birth in the sense I am speaking of, I believe that galaxies are more about formations, or locations of stars due to forces which by and large we understand.

What of the final scale, the Universe itself? Answer this, if the smallest parts and the medium sized parts follow a blueprint i.e. they are born (Birth), then why break away from this theory and try to suggest that the Universe itself was not born?

To me, it does not make sense to accept birth at every level along the way but then change the method at the final level. If nature tells us anything at all, it is that there is a uniform and never ending theme in nature itself i.e. the continual birth, evolution, death cycle. It's everywhere in the Universe, so why then does it not apply to the Universe itself as a whole.

Growth: Once again examples of living things having growth is everywhere, at every level, regardless of size. The very small, through to the very large, everything seems to grow, this is a recurring theme in nature IMHO. So then once again I ask, why if everything inside the universe tends to have this characteristic, why stop at just the Universes contents, why not go all the way and apply it overall, to the universe itself.

We all believe the universe is expanding because we have empirical proof, so we should all agree that this is growth, the second element of my interpretation of 'Nature'

Survival: This is a tricky one but overall on the balance of probability, I believe that most life strives to survive. I do not accept and cannot subscribe to the notion that anything that is living, would willing go to it's demise. Not human, animal, plant or other wise.

Can you apply the desire for survival to galaxies, to the Universe itself? Well that is a good question, and the answer revolves around the word desire. If you ask the question using the word desire you would answer in the negative, because galaxies can't desire things.

If you ask the question a different way, say like this, Given a galactic formation, and providing no new outside force was introduced, would the formation remain as it is? The answer would be positive. Not wanting to split straws on whether you consider a galaxy a living thing, that is a different debate, but trying to draw your attention to the similarities we see in Nature being consistent, even when speaking of a galaxy.

It is my opinion, that unless something new is introduced, a galaxy would be consistent and happy (that is the wrong word) to remain the way it is, further I believe that if a potentially changing force was introduced, that the existing galaxy schema would resit the change until such time as it was overcome by a stronger force. In my mind, this is close to the rhythm of survival in nature.

Death: This the easiest to understand and observe everywhere, death is our constant companion, for without it, we would not exist. Life cannot begin unless death has preceded it and so on.

Locally and at planetary level, star level and even at a galactic level, we see examples of death. It depends on your interpretation of death when speaking galactic, but I put it to you that death in this sense is to become something totally different than it used to be i.e. gas and space debris accretes into a galaxy, to me this is a great interpretation of the life/death cycle.

Why then once again I ask you can't we apply this universal constant to the Universe as a whole? When everything in nature seems to follow a certain pattern, regardless of scale and dynamic force, why can't you accept it at the next highest level and say that the universe itself, is Born, Grows, struggles to survive and finally dies.

Whether the death is in a singularity or not, in this argument is not the point, the point is that the universe was seemingly born, thus at some point in time will probably die, then what? All for nothing? Or is there something else going on here? Is Nature going to continue on it's pattern and give birth to a new universe?

I prefer to believe yes. I prefer to think that there is a sense and natural rhythm to the universe. I prefer to think that every small part of the universe goes into making the universe as a whole and the fate and rules that govern the parts is the same that governs the whole.

Yes Alex, like you, I make some gigantic assumptions and yes due to ignorance I could be shot full of holes at certain parts, but in an overall sense, is this all for nothing? If so, to coin those immortal words from Contact, "It seems an awful waste".

Over to you champ

[xelasnave]

Ron I am sorry I did not mean to make your feel embarrassed in fact I would be somewhat disappointed if I found myself in a group who did not consider me weird ... I mean that would really put into question the general company they keep if I seemed to them somewhat normal . There is the perception and the reality either area provides opportunity to find a degree of weirdness… but its mostly “oldness” .

You present a very interesting view on all that you have sought to cover which is basically “everything” .

Nature in the context was to point to the laws of everything .
I will not try to escape the use of the word but suggest that perhaps in the context one could see it to cover more than things relating to life .

Life is but one of the systems of nature...of everything.

Ron I cant say I disagree with anything you say, not because I may well do so when I get to think about it all very exactly, but your manner is so persuasive one can feel washed over to the side you present. It is pleasant to read and seems the natural way of things.

I can not see much difference in our approach.

You lead me to think that one should draw conclusions from evidence that makes sense. That is reasonable and it makes it hard to disagree when someone who makes such a reasonable attempt to explain their view.
I would like to think there are various sources of evidence that can support whatever view one wishes to take.

I can site problems for the big bang but it will provide no place for use to decide the issue if you seek to draw from human experience .

It is human experience that qualifies things in the “nature” context you seek to approach the matter and on those grounds seek a parallel. There is no reason why this should be so...apparent as sensible... it implies we know all there is to know about the experiences covered in your observation of “nature”.

I could say “yes” “now” having corned you in the nature end of the yard say...”But look at the Great Barrier Reef this is more to the way our Universe can be related”.
“ It is it always has been here ..Different things come and go die live become extinct”. “Their individual presence or observations of their environment did nothing to change the overall order of the reef”. “This has always been here…”

Please done get sidetracked to attack the metaphor because it is not entirely suitable because indeed thee reef is finite and has a start at some point… so you will say from that your point is proved... yet I say the Universe is a little different to the reef in so far as there is indeed no start but many things come and go hopefully all with no perception of simple life’s experiences will not apply at this scale..
This is beyond our human experience and crude attempts to conceptualise a beginning simply because we observe that is all other things.

I do find that for most people confronting the possibility of the infinity for our Universe is unacceptable, I also say the reasons offered for why such should be unacceptable do not relate to matters of reason but more of a non preparedness to grasp the insignificance of our existence…maybe .

I find everything you suggest compelling.
As to the Universe expanding I don’t believe it is.

I know we have the proof...well I will wait... time will show something is wrong the data, the software was corrupt whatever... but it makes no sense...to me. It makes sense if you want to endorse human experience otherwise why should it be expanding and if so into what specially reserved region of “nothing”.

Still on the positive if we are dealing with a finite Universe we can one would think reasonably estimate its size… we will have a boundary to comp template... a spot where we can leave off worrying about anything more .

I would like to see the other side of the boundary into the sea of nothing and beyond to determine what gave birth to our Universe. I would not be happy to settle for a quantum fluctuation on a two dimensional plan on a three dimensional sheet of paper pointing to the solving of the mystery either. Yet we do and so we have a satisfyingly simple neat finite view and most important manageable view of the Universe.

The Universe must be “everything” how can there be a limit set on everything?

If so little life available for study in the Universe why should we seek to see a life cycle anywhere but on this planet?
It is due to human experience that we seek to solve the problem this way and as such reasonable to other humans.

I simply do not go along with the current views … all of them!!!! Not only big bang but everything … that is part of getting old I guess one becomes more thoughtful but less knowledgeable… sorry this is an observation of me and not other old people as for others I do not suggest any negative condition at all.

Alex