• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Life and Linear Time

aggle-rithm said:
If you are suggesting that new hydrogen is continually being created, then you have the same problem that the steady-state theory had: There is no known mechanism by which hydrogen can be spontaneously created, much less in the huge quantities that would be necessary to explain the amount of hydrogen we see.
Click to expand...
Jerome stated earlier in this thread that we have to assume that matter can neither be created or destroyed so he's ruled out continuous creation of new hydrogen.

Though one might wonder why he considers that bit of science to be the one inviolate one.
 
Upchurch said:
How quickly you forget. We discussed this already. Galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout space. We would not expect to see evenly distributed background radiation in your scenario.
Click to expand...
JdG's thought is that even in unevenly distributed galaxies, in an infinite time infinite universe, the uneven disitribution we see today is only an comsic "instantaneous" uneven distribution. And that through the death and birth of an infinity of galaxies, the final result would be a smooth BGR.

The problem with this is that unless you have some sort of outlet valve for the BGR, you would expect it to increase with time and result in Olbers paradox.

Now if there is a bleed off, the only example I can think of would be black holes. So, there would have to be enough black holes in the universe to serve as the sinks for all em at the rate that light is produced from all stars in order for the current light density to be at a steady state. Now as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), X-rays escape (or are released) readily from blackholes. Meaning, that we'd expect (in a steady state infinite universe) to see a proportionally high/uniform distribution of X-rays. We don't.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Though one might wonder why he considers that bit of science to be the one inviolate one.
Click to expand...

A good question, since an eternal unchanging universe also violates one of the most fundamental laws of nature - the second law of thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Now as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), X-rays escape (or are released) readily from blackholes. Meaning, that we'd expect (in a steady state infinite universe) to see a proportionally high/uniform distribution of X-rays. We don't.
Click to expand...
X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it is: Virtual particle pairs, one positive and one negative, are constantly popping into existence, then annihilating each other. When the pairs appear right at the event horizon of a black hole, the negative particle is pulled in before they can annihilate each other, while the positive particle escapes as radiation. The net result is that the mass of the black hole is decreased by the mass of the escaping particle, and, given enough time, it will evaporate completely.

Am I close?
 
aggle-rithm said:
The way I understand it is: Virtual particle pairs, one positive and one negative, are constantly popping into existence, then annihilating each other. When the pairs appear right at the event horizon of a black hole, the negative particle is pulled in before they can annihilate each other, while the positive particle escapes as radiation. The net result is that the mass of the black hole is decreased by the mass of the escaping particle, and, given enough time, it will evaporate completely.

Am I close?
Click to expand...
But only very small black holes, which we've never observed, would radiate in x-rays. The effective temperature of large black holes, such as ones consistent with black hole candidates we've observed, radiate at an effective temperature below the CBR. So, in other words, the radiaton of the CBR falling in to black holes alone is more than enough to prevent evaporation happening in this universe at this time.
 
aggle-rithm said:
OK, technically, the universe would have to be infinite in age AND in size. If that were true, then an infinite number of stars, even those an infinite distance away, would be continually bombarding the Earth with light.
Click to expand...

So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.
Click to expand...
Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)
In the steady state universe, in order to see the CBR that we see, all em radiation higher than the microwave range would have to be sucked up exceedingly more rapidly than the microwave range. otherwise the CBR would be a constant smear of radiation through all em wavelengths (the Olbers paradox).
 
Last edited:
Jimbo07 said:
So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.
Click to expand...

Because of the paradox, right.

But an infinite universe with a finite number of stars in it is awfully strange, don't you think?
 
joobz said:
Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't think so.

That's a lot of heroics to rescue Jerome.
 
sol invictus said:
Because of the paradox, right.

But an infinite universe with a finite number of stars in it is awfully strange, don't you think?
Click to expand...

IANAC (I am not a cosmologist)

...

Strange? Maybe, but I can't speak to the truth value of the proposition. I think that positing infinite time/brane-verse as an 'ultimate' explanation is a boondoggle on the order of positing God! :boggled:

I'm prepared to accept a multiverse model, if experimental evidence can demonstrate its existence. However, I'm worried that just creates a, "who created the multiverse," question for theists.

I agree that "It just is," is a completely unsatisfying answer. The nice thing about science is that if you're not satisified, you keep asking questions! :cool: Religion? Not so much...
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Wouldn't think so.

That's a lot of heroics to rescue Jerome.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I always attempt to address the best counter argument that can be devised.

In this way, I was attempting to short cut the drawn out nonsense that JdG was likely to give.
 
arthwollipot said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "infinte both large and small"?
Click to expand...
I second this motion.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.
Click to expand...
Dang acronyms. Internet search didn't turn up anything. Nothing in this thread about it. PLease help me out by filling in the blank. BGR = _____ ?
 
Last edited:
ServiceSoon said:
I second this motion.

Dang acronyms. Internet search didn't turn up anything. Nothing in this thread about it. PLease help me out by filling in the blank. BGR = _____ ?
Click to expand...
BGR=cosmic background radiation. One of the key bits of evidence that supports the Big bang theory but not a steady state universe theory.
 
joobz said:
Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)
Click to expand...

No, there is no such effect - at least not so long as the wavelength of the light is smaller than the size of the hole. But in any case this doesn't work - if the black holes are absorbing light, they will grow. Slowly, but they will still grow. Given an infinite time they will grow to fill the entire space - in other words, there will be a big crunch.

That's roughly a generally relativistic version of Olbers' paradox.

Jimbo07 said:
Strange? Maybe, but I can't speak to the truth value of the proposition.
Click to expand...

Well, think about it. You'd be positing that in an infinite volume there is a single clump of stars somewhere, surrounded on all sides by infinite and totally empty space. It doesn't make any sense - why is there only one clump? If there is some finite probability for a star to be produced, there should be an infinite number of stars. If there is a zero probability, that zero would have to be balanced with infinite precision to cancel the infinite volume and just produce a single clump...

It's as bad as simply saying "God did it" (which I think is what JdG really believes).
 
Last edited:
Jimbo07 said:
So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.
Click to expand...

But, clearly, if hydrogen exists in an infinitely old universe (and, as Jerome believes, matter cannot be created or destroyed), then there MUST be an infinite supply of hydrogen. It then makes sense that there would be an infinite number of stars.

In truth, of course, NONE of this makes any sense, that's why the ideas Jerome is pushing are nonsense.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
No, there is no such effect - at least not so long as the wavelength of the light is smaller than the size of the hole. But in any case this doesn't work - if the black holes are absorbing light, they will grow. Slowly, but they will still grow. Given an infinite time they will grow to fill the entire space - in other words, there will be a big crunch.

That's roughly a generally relativistic version of Olbers' paradox.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So, in other words, even my attempt at trying to rescue JdG's argument fails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom