Why I disagree with static eternal universe

There is a little edit icon at the top of one's own posts. It looks like a pencil and a piece of paper.

You have to be logged in to see it. Also, obviously you can't edit other people's posts.

rd

rderosa


Thank you ,but heck!! I would never ever edit someone elses post, this would be a criminal act

Alan

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

Alan, I didn't mean to imply that you would edit someone else's post, I was merely using that as an example of why you only see that icon on your own posts while logged in.

rd

A couple of equations that might be of some interest here.
T = mc^2 / k (1 - sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2))
k is boltzmanns constant. The other being S = k ln(1 - sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2))
S being entropy.
If we say that the ratio of v^2 / c^2 is equal to h then we are talking about something very close to absolute zero. Note that zero entropy is not the same as absolute zero temperature.

Take a photon of frequency about 1E 13 That would give us a temperature of about 4.799E 02 Kelvin. That's when v^2 is equal to c^2

That's not that far off what the temperature of an electron neutrino would have
5.86191583985E 02 Kelvin for a mass of 9005E-38 kg. However from the first equation a dead cold star will emit neutrinos of lower temperature.

<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 />JMB, Can you post the two Planck statements you referenced? I don't see how you can say a light beam has a temperature. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Planck's law gives the spectral luminance of light as a function of frequency f and temperature T:

L(f,T) = 2hf^3/c^2 {1/[exp(hf/kT)-1]+1/2} (Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges., <b>13</b>, 138 (1911))

The formula may be inverted to give the temperature of a light beam as a function of its luminance and its frequency.
In 1900, Planck had given a wrong formula (ibid. <b>2</b>, 237, (1900)).
His correction was approved by Einstein, Stern and Nernst.

Notice how infinities are sneaking in here. Remember the first law is about an ideal gas, with no cohesive properties. Not a finite gas at all, in-finite. We simply cannot cherry pick the infinities that suit our purpose.

It comes down to the question of whether we add anything to the concept of god by saying that he/she exists. The lions which exist are brown. What colour are the lions then, which dont exist? If I were god (and she is english after all) I would be a bit annoyed at someone saying that I existed. "Nay, nay laddie, you exist, I am real. I am pure reason, the logos. I am logically prior to the universe, not causally. I do not have a cause, your subjective reason exists, ask what caused that. However, you cannot ask the reason of reason. Your job is to bring existence into accord with reason. Infinities are good. Now run along and dont bother me as theres a soccer game I want to watch."