COSMOLOGY

Sorry that my response was so wordy/cumbersome and I see what is meant by quote boxes now. Problem is, I have the habit of copying the entire text of the message to which I wish to reply and then replying either within or outside the text. But I will definitely try using quote boxes from this point on. The only other problem was that I was in the midst of replying to your extensive query and about 3/4 through, the bloody site "logged me out" thus I lost about an hour's worth of text. Very frustrating. That's why it took me so long to reply. I may use my technique as a backup AS I write so that I don't lose the work I have done. Thanks: JCHARDY

Are you saying that the outside void i.e the nothing is absolute zero? This might be semantics but just to clarify that prescribing a property i.e. temperature on "nothingness" makes no sense to me.WELL, ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE WE HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHAT THE "TEMPERATURE" MIGHT BE WHERE THERE IS, BY DEFINITION, NO SPACE-TIME SCALAR, AT SUCH A "NULL" INTERFACE CONFRONTING AN ENERGETIC QUANTA MEASURED AS 10 to the 18th GIGA EV's, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER SINCE AT THAT REACTIVE INTERFACE, THE "TEMPERATURE" MIGHT BE THOUSANDS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEGREES, BUT THE RELATIVE EFFECT WOULD BE THE SAME.I still am wary of using the terms nothingness or void for what is outside this universe. I stand by my statement that there is no outside thus no void thus no thermal content.WELL, THERE IS EITHER SOMETHING (WHICH WE CANNOT NAME) OR AT THE VERY LEAST A BOUNDARY WHICH NOW LIES AT THE MARGIN OF OUR CURRENT UNIVERSE. WHATEVER OUR CONCEPT OF "IT" IS, IS IRRELEVANT AND PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL BE. IT'S WHAT LIKELY TOOK PLACE AT THE INTERFACE THAT WAS (AND MAY STILL BE) IMPORTANT.Also in regards to your explanation of Onsager Reciprocal Relations in the universe I agree this explains the temperature gradients in the early cosmos which eventually spread out to form galaxies, etc in the universe. However, if we say the universe originated from an infinite density singularity then this singularity would by definition have to be homogeneousness would it not? That is this singularity would have to be uniform in its energy composition because singularity implies a finited mass compressed into 0 space. If this is true how would it form these pressure differentials in 0 space?ONCE INFLATION BEGAN, THERE WOULD BE NO "ZERO SPACE" AND ONCE THE SINGULARITY BEGAN REACTING (INFLATING) AT THE INTERFACE, MORPHING TO PROGRESSIVE ENTROPY WOULD COMMENCE. THUS ENORMOUS ENERGY ADMIXED IN CHAOS WITH FOCAL HARMONICS GUIDED BY NON-EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS WOULD INEVITABLY PROGRESS TO "THE BITS AND PIECES" (STRINGS AND MEMBRANE "COMPONENTS") OF PRIMORDIAL MATTER. ALL THAT IS THEN NEEDED IS TIME -- ALSO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FROM THIS POINT ON -- TO ALLOW THE SUPERSYMETRIC MATTER-ANTIMATTER ANIHILATIONS TO TAKE PLACE AND NEUTRINO EVOLUTIONS TO RELATIVISTIC MATTER. ANOTHER 300,000,000 YEARS (OR SO) AND THE FORCES NOW SEPARATED AND THEIR DOMAINS WELL ESTABLISHED. EVENTUALLY YOU HAVE PROTONS WHICH HAVE ACQUIRED ELECTRONS TO FORM THE PROTONIC MATERIAL FOR THE FIRST STARS AND THE REST OF THE STORY IS PRETTY WELL DETERMINED.

"This tiny amount of energy did not have within it all the energy of the cosmos we find around us today, all the energy comes from the expansion at the cusp, the energy is a result of any existing energy at the cusp being pulled into the vacuum creating energy where there was once nothing, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at either the cusp or beyond, they don't have to, only when the new energy is generated does it have to conform to the state of existence, at the cusp it is being made literally from its own energy of motion touching a true void."I AGREE. IT IS THE DYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS THAT EVOLVE THE GEV ENERGIES AT THE INTERFACE. HOWEVER, THE QUANTUM-EFFECT WITHIN THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENT WOULD HAVE TO EVOLVE EXCEEDINGLY RAPIDLY, PERHAPS IN MICROSECONDS. THE CURVE WOULD BE EXCEEDINGLY STEEP ONLY IF THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE. THAT STATISTICAL TENSOR SHOULD BE CALCULABLE BUT WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO MAKE A TON OF ASSUMPTIONS. THE "OTHER SIDE" OF THE NEW SPACE-TIME INTERFACE (I THINK) SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE ZERO. IF THAT IS A LOGICAL "KNOWN" AND WE "KNOW" FROM OTHER DATA THAT THE EVOLVED TEMPERATURE ACHIEVED AT THE POINT OF INFLATION WILL BE 10 to the 18th GEV, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE MINIMAL GRADIENTS AND TIME FACTORS NECESSARY AT THE INTERFACE. WHATEVER, I REMAIN CONVINCED THAT NONEQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS INTERACTING WITH CHAOS ARE EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT IN THIS PROCESS FROM "THE BEGINNING".

First of all, it is Stephen HawkinG. Not Hawken. But importantly: I am completely puzzled about some of our member’s obsessing about “the earth is the center of the universe”. What possible relevance has that to do with (virtually) anything?
Aside from the fact that I (a Christian) find that laughable, it is also arrogant and unimportant. What is important -- if you are amongst those who believe that mankind is “special” and that our solar system is probably quite unique and tailored more probably on purpose than by chance - is the most important concept. NOT WHERE in the universe we or our planet is located. Only the most uninformed could look at the special circumstances of our Terran system and not recognize it for what it is. Remarkable and a miracle of location; composition; comfort; stability; beauty etc. It would be more worthy to point out all THOSE remarkable circumstances rather than whether the Earth is at the center of the universe! True, other planets (and there may be a number even within our own galaxy as well as elsewhere in this Universe) may be just as “wonderful” as perceived by its occupants. But ultimately isn’t the spiritual meaning of this not in the province of our/their own individual spirituality? Does it have anything to do at all with our search for scientific truth? And doesn’t this continuous bickering interfere with that search? Does anyone actually believe that God (or whomever) would make a centrist location of the Earth the first priority of His goal for mankind? If our search for the scientific truths of cosmology and cosmologic evolution lead us ultimately to accept or reject the role of a Creator, does anyone actually think that the centrist location - if that were so - would be anything other than another (in an enormous number of) improbable miraculous facts which are much easier to establish as so than a centrist location for our remarkable planet? I would plead with everyone to abandon this meaningless argument that “the Earth is the center of the Universe”. It is just silly beyond words! JCHARDY

"Onsager is good enough, excepting that at the cusp [edge] of the expansion the laws of thermodynamics don't exist, it is at the point where 'something' touches or reaches out to the void energy is created simply by the action of the motion itself."---(and why not? The “fourth law” was possibly different since we are talking about an accelerating GEV (temperature) due to the confines of the initial system; timing etc. but the fourth law (the Onsager reciprocal) is applicable to dynamic systems with changing pressures of both matter and energy. NONE of the other laws of thermodynamics are applicable in such a chaotic and changing system.)