Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CVJ who wrote (87745)	12/31/2000 9:13:18 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Respond to of 132070

cjac, I'm not familiar with that, other than to say that it is controversial whether there is sufficient mass in the universe to slow down expansion sufficiently to eventually cause a gravitational contraction. It has not been clearly shown that we are either in an ever-expanding universe, or an oscillating universe (expansion, contraction, big bang, repeat ad infinitum). But either way, I can't see that it has any relation to thermodynamic laws, specifically entropy. If anything, an ever-expanding universe would be more consistent with the highly disordered state which is demanded by the law of entropy. The more disordered, the better, and an expanding universe would seem preferable, all other things being equal. But the second major contributor to the laws of thermodynamics is enthalpy, or heat change. Both contribute to the final quantity, standard free energy change. I guess the "final state" of the universe, or even whether it can ever get there, might be open to question. But the powerful indwelling tendency of everything in the universe---both matter and energy---to "seek" more disordered states, even if that requires net energy (i.e., heat) expenditure, is beyond reasonable question. Regards, Walkingshadow

To: CVJ who wrote (87745)	1/1/2001 12:00:02 AM
From: Shane M	Respond to of 132070

cjac, there's a repulsive force being put forth by cosmologists that works at great distances, sortof the opposite of gravity. The way it was described in Discover magazine, the math works out where apparently the expansion of the universe is reaching a point where this force begins having a larger impact than when the universe was smaller. Sortof like a second order force at work within a system being elevated to where it's effects are noticeable. I don't think pockets of high energy, stars, lifeforms, etc are incompatible with entropy. The rule of entropy only applies to the entire system. Disorder can increase systemically while pockets of order are preserved. That's the fundamental paradox of evolution which works from lower levels of order to higher levels. Shane (I'm just a reader of popularized sources. I'm not a physicist and can't pretend to understand the math)