From: jimgoetz316@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:56:48 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:   
   > James Goetz wrote:   
   > > Ned Latham wrote:   
   > > > James Goetz wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Lord Kelvin's prediction of heat death indicates the eventual end   
   > > > > to star formation in the observable universe.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Have any astrophysicists made any predictions for the endurance of   
   > > > > star formation in the observable universe?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Or does anybody here want to take a crack at predicting it?   
   > > >   
   > > > It'll continiue forever.   
   > > >   
   > > > Despite what the proponemts of BBT say, there is no beginning, and   
   > > > there is no end.   
   > > >   
   > > > > [[Mod. note --   
   > > > > 1. This is really an astronomy question rather than a general physics   
   > > > >    question, so I have set the  Followup-To  header to point to our   
   > > > >    sister newsgroup   sci.astro.research  .   
   > > >   
   > > > It might seem so at first, but there's an aspect to the question that   
   > > > keeps it firmly in the area of basic physics. I have, accordingly,   
   > > > undone the Followup-To action.   
   > > >   
   > > > Entropy and gravity work antagonistically (so to speak). The one works   
   > > > to disperse energy/matter; the other to consolidate it/them.   
   > > >   
   > > > We can regard the universe as a closed system, but unlike the Second   
   > > > Law, we cannot ignore gravity.   
   > >   
   > > The Big Bang singularity and anybody's favorite cosmology with no   
   > > origin for gravity and thermodynamics are all highly speculative   
   > > cosmologies.   
   >   
   > All cosmologies are speculative.   
   >   
   > >              My original question specified the observable universe,   
   > > so that excludes gravity and thermodynamics with no origin.   
   >   
   > Gravity's observable. We can't see it but we can feel it and we can   
   > observe its effects. Thermodynamics is not a physical phenomenon;   
   > it's a theory. So what I said above *does* hold for the observable   
   > universe, except for a misstatement of the position. Here it is,   
   > corrected: despite what the proponents of BBT say, there is no need   
   > to postulate a beginning and there is no need to postulate an end.   
   >   
   We observe the effects of gravity and never observed the source of gravity. We   
   also observe the perpetual decrease of order and call it the 2nd law of   
   thermodynamics.   
      
   > > Since cosmologies with no origin for gravity and thermodynamics were   
   > > mentioned, I will mention that an actual infinite elapse of Planck times   
   > > is mathematically impossible. For example, the observable universe   
   > > might expand forever and likewise its Planck times might elapse forever,   
   > > but that would never equate an actual infinite elapse of Planck times in   
   > > the forever future. Similarly, no origin for gravity and thermodynamics   
   > > would indicate no origin for the elapse of Planck times and a past   
   > > actual infinite elapse of Planck times that is mathematically impossible.   
   >   
   > According to both GR and Particle Theory, light is accelerated toward   
   > gravitational sources. That explains the "gravitational lense" effect.   
   > It also provides a mechanism for the phenomenon of red shift, and taking   
   > that into account breaks the assumed correlation between a star's red   
   > shift and its radial velocity. IOW, there is no reason to postulate an   
   > expanding universe.   
      
   We observe a larger redshift in the most distant galaxies compared to   
   closer galaxies. This observation indicates that the observable universe   
   is expanding.   
   >   
   > As well, I would point out the "no beginning" is not equivalent to   
   > "no origin".   
      
   I meant them as synonymous, but terms with possible multiple meanings   
   sometimes need clear definitions for a particular context.   
   >   
   > > One might argue that there is no actual elapse of Planck times while   
   > > appealing to eternalism, but eternalism is also highly speculative.   
   >   
   > My apologies for misstating the position: there is no claim of   
   > "eternalism", just a recognition that whatever is postulated   
   > requires justification. "Eternalism", the notion if the expanding   
   > universe and BBT are all pure speculation. The expanding universe   
   > postulate is, in fact, contradicted by our observations.   
   >   
   There are different levels of speculation. Eternalism and a BBT   
   singularity are more specualtive than an expanding universe.   
      
   > > In any case, somebody at the sister newsgroup sci.astro.research cited   
   > > an excellent compilation of astrophysics speculation on the demise of   
   > > the observable universe by John Baez:   
   > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html   
   >   
   > "Speculation" is right.   
   >   
   >>"This means that all the stars will eventually burn out. The longest lived   
   > > are the red dwarf stars, the smallest stars capable of supporting fusion   
   > > today, with a mass about 0.08 times that of the Sun. These will run out   
   > > of hydrogen about 1013 years from now, and slowly cool."   
   >   
   > 1013 years? Really?   
      
   No, the formatting for the superscript didn't hold. It's 10^23 years :-)   
   >   
   > > I hope I finally figured out a good way to format posts for this group.   
   >   
   > This post was fine, IMO.   
   >   
   > Ned   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)