Hi Ng
when we think about the earth to cool down and the sun to burn its fuel,
there are believes that are naive (and plain wrong).
Why do you think, the inner of the earth is hot? When will it be cold? Why
was it hot in the first time?
Our supposed answers to that questions are based on believes about
thermodynamics, that are not appropriate to cosmology.
For some reason you may think, our universe is isolated and for that reason
its an adiabatic process. Its a perfectly closed system and cannot gain or
loose entropy, since there ain't no somewhere to loose that to.
So entropy in the universe is kept as sum over all. This is not our common
believe. And even allmost no cosmologists think so, but: if the universe is
a closed system and second law of thermodynamics is true, it can't change.
The right picture is, if you think about a balance of temperature and
expansation. That is like a ideal gas being carefully expanded. That is an
adiabatic process. Real expansation increases entropie and let the gas heat
up a bit more than it could be and prevent that process from being reverted.
But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is, the ideal gas is
something like spacetime itself. Thats kind of strange, since we apply those
terms of i.e. heat only to objects or maybe gases.
As consequence of this believe we think about stars as beeing build out of
dust and gases. That is the naive part.
As said above, spacetime itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite
against our believes.

Thomas Heger

"Thomas Heger"
Hi Ng
when we think about the earth to cool down and the sun to burn its fuel,
there are believes that are naive (and plain wrong).
Why do you think, the inner of the earth is hot? When will it be cold? Why
was it hot in the first time?
Our supposed answers to that questions are based on believes about
thermodynamics, that are not appropriate to cosmology.
For some reason you may think, our universe is isolated and for that
reason its an adiabatic process. Its a perfectly closed system and cannot
gain or loose entropy, since there ain't no somewhere to loose that to.
So entropy in the universe is kept as sum over all. This is not our common
believe. And even allmost no cosmologists think so, but: if the universe
is a closed system and second law of thermodynamics is true, it can't
change.
The right picture is, if you think about a balance of temperature and
expansation. That is like a ideal gas being carefully expanded. That is an
adiabatic process. Real expansation increases entropie and let the gas
heat up a bit more than it could be and prevent that process from being
reverted.
But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is, the ideal gas is
something like spacetime itself. Thats kind of strange, since we apply
those terms of i.e. heat only to objects or maybe gases.
As consequence of this believe we think about stars as beeing build out of
dust and gases. That is the naive part.
As said above, spacetime itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite
against our believes.

In a closed complex system with many processes, entropy always increase.
It is not conserved like energy.

Aage

The right picture is, if you think about a balance of temperature and
expansation. That is like a ideal gas being carefully expanded. That is
an adiabatic process. Real expansation increases entropie and let the gas
heat up a bit more than it could be and prevent that process from being
reverted.
But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is, the ideal gas is
something like spacetime itself. Thats kind of strange, since we apply
those terms of i.e. heat only to objects or maybe gases.
As consequence of this believe we think about stars as beeing build out
of dust and gases. That is the naive part.
As said above, spacetime itself is that carrier of entropie, what is
quite against our believes.

In a closed complex system with many processes, entropy always increase.
It is not conserved like energy.

I used the concept of entropy to lead to something else: are you/we shure,
that this concept is appropriate to cosmology?
There is a chance that this is not the case. The expansation leads to more
possibilities in a sense, that this could balance out the possibilities
chosen. If you have 1000 fields and put 100 stones on some field, than that
pattern has the same propability as putting 1000 on 10000 fields. A specific
pattern has no physical meaning, only if you build a pattern by hand. That
gets disturbed and will not return, but a random pattern is as good as any
other.
If we now think about entropy in the way of thermodynamics, then there is a
good chance we apply the wrong concept, since we have to think about the
expansation of spacetime too.

Thomas Heger

Dear Thomas Heger:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Hi Ng
when we think about the earth to cool down and the
sun to burn its fuel, there are believes that are naive
(and plain wrong). Why do you think, the inner of
the earth is hot? When will it be cold? Why was it
hot in the first time?

1) the friction of initial coalescence caused it to be molten.
2) the tidal interaction of the Sun and Moon add heat.
3) there is expected to be non-negligible nuclear decay in the
heavy metals there.
4) the atmospehere and crust of the Earth are insulators.

It will get _colder_ when the Earth is tidally locked to the
Moon. What do you mean by cold?

Our supposed answers to that questions are
based on believes about thermodynamics, that
are not appropriate to cosmology.

.... because the laws of physics elsewhere are not the same as
here?

For some reason you may think, our universe is
isolated and for that reason its an adiabatic
process. Its a perfectly closed system and
cannot gain or loose entropy,

2nd law of theromdynamics. Any closed system tends to maximize
entropy. Expansion is maximizing entropy.

since there ain't no somewhere to loose that to.

Entropy is not "stuff". Entropy is measured / defined by the
number of available states. More states, increased entropy.

Real expansation increases entropie and let
the gas heat up a bit more than it could be and
prevent that process from being reverted.

Expanding gasses *cool*, not heat.

But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is,
the ideal gas is something like spacetime itself.
Thats kind of strange, since we apply those terms of i.e. heat
only to objects or maybe gases.

Spacetime has no material properties. *We* cool or heat with
expansion / contraction, not spacetime.

As consequence of this believe we think about
stars as beeing build out of dust and gases.
That is the naive part. As said above, spacetime
itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite against our
believes.

Do you have a real job? Because you suck at mechanical
engineering. And cosmology.

David A. Smith

1) the friction of initial coalescence caused it to be molten.
2) the tidal interaction of the Sun and Moon add heat.
3) there is expected to be non-negligible nuclear decay in the heavy
metals there.
4) the atmospehere and crust of the Earth are insulators.

It will get _colder_ when the Earth is tidally locked to the Moon. What
do you mean by cold?

I know, but I was interested in an other question, that is quite difficult
to explain.
I have this model about spacetime and now I'm 'knocking on every door'. I
try to check all possible crossreferences and now I'm at thermodynamics.
The problem is this:
my model is about spacetime and there I can see something that you might
call dark enery. My question is: how would that look like in 3d? In fact it
would look like a star. Thats kind of strange. So I have a closer look at
the use of thermodynamics in cosmology and find it uses a concept of a
closed system, that you can't apply to an expanding universe.
What does this mean? Entropy is about statistics too. In an expanding
spacetime you have a balance between chosen possibilities and the number of
possiblities increasing, due to expansation. The universe cools down in an
adiabatic way. So there is a good chance, that entropy stays even or
increases very slowly.
So where is the connection between heat and spacetime. My model would assign
the term heat to spacetime itself in a special way. I call that the
temperatur of space. This is odd too, since no matter would mean no
temperatur, since there is nothing to assign that to. But this is the wrong
picture (in my eyes).

Our supposed answers to that questions are
based on believes about thermodynamics, that
are not appropriate to cosmology.

... because the laws of physics elsewhere are not the same as here?

Yes they are, but you are shure you know all the laws? .. and the right
ones?
...

Real expansation increases entropie and let
the gas heat up a bit more than it could be and
prevent that process from being reverted.

Expanding gasses *cool*, not heat.
Sorry, I mean that increase of entropy related to heat, that you have to add
up to the adiabatic cooling. Or: a disturbed process does not make the
expanded gas as cold as if not disturbed.
Again: if you model a process in spacetime, the question is, how does that
look like to an observer. It could be the case, that the universe is in
general adiabatic and that surplus heat pops out of nothing like a
star.(This the strange idea I'm speculating about. But don't take that too
serious, since it difficult to imagine all the processes, and trying to do
so causes a memory overflow in my head)

But the counter-intuitive part in this picture is,
the ideal gas is something like spacetime itself.
Thats kind of strange, since we apply those terms of i.e. heat only to
objects or maybe gases.

Spacetime has no material properties. *We* cool or heat with expansion /
contraction, not spacetime.

As consequence of this believe we think about
stars as beeing build out of dust and gases.
That is the naive part. As said above, spacetime
itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite against our believes.

Do you have a real job? Because you suck at mechanical engineering. And
cosmology.

I have a diploma in engineering. Thermodynamics wasn't my favorit class, but
I know what that is.
... anoying some cosmologist couldn't be worse than anoying you...

Thomas Heger

Dear Thoams Heger:

On Apr 17, 6:59*am, "Thomas Heger" wrote:
1) the friction of initial coalescence caused
it to be molten.
2) the tidal interaction of the Sun and Moon
add heat.
3) there is expected to be non-negligible
nuclear decay in the heavy metals there.
4) the atmospehere and crust of the Earth are
insulators.

It will get _colder_ when the Earth is tidally
locked to the Moon. *What do you mean by cold?

I know, but I was interested in an other
question, that is quite difficult to explain.
I have this model about spacetime and now I'm
'knocking on every door'. I try to check all
possible crossreferences and now I'm at
thermodynamics. The problem is this:
my model is about spacetime and there I can
see something that you might call dark enery.
My question is: how would that look like in
3d? In fact it would look like a star.

Then it does not look like Dark Energy to me. Dark Energy is diffuse,
having no effect on "bound systems", but affecting the spaces between
unbound ones.

Thats kind of strange. So I have a closer
look at the use of thermodynamics in
cosmology and find it uses a concept of a
closed system, that you can't apply to an
expanding universe.

Yes, you can. There is no heat transfer from / to something outside
this Universe.

What does this mean?

That you didn't like thermo, and you have forgotten it.

Entropy is about statistics too. In an
expanding spacetime you have a balance
between chosen possibilities and the number
of possiblities increasing, due to
expansation.

"Choosing" has nothing to do with it. "Current" might be a better
word in this context.

The universe cools down in an adiabatic
way. So there is a good chance, that
entropy stays even or increases very slowly.

No. Please give this up and try something else. Expansion creates
new states between each current position. Increasing states increases
entropy.

So where is the connection between heat and
spacetime.

Increasing states, decreases temperature. Just like expanding a gas
cools it.

My model would assign the term heat to
spacetime itself in a special way. I call
that the temperatur of space. This is odd
too, since no matter would mean no
temperatur,

... and no spacetime ...

since there is nothing to assign that to.
But this is the wrong picture (in my eyes).

And mine too.

Our supposed answers to that questions are
based on believes about thermodynamics, that
are not appropriate to cosmology.

... because the laws of physics elsewhere are
not the same as here?

Yes they are, but you are shure you know all
the laws? .. and the right ones?
..

If they are the same, and I know laws that apply, and they show you to
be clearly wrong... are you sure you should be pointing fingers?

Real expansation increases entropie and let
the gas heat up a bit more than it could be and
prevent that process from being reverted.

Expanding gasses *cool*, not heat.

Sorry, I mean that increase of entropy related to
heat,

"cool" has to do with heat. It is just the other end of the same
stick.

that you have to add up to the adiabatic cooling.
Or: a disturbed process does not make the
expanded gas as cold as if not disturbed.

What!!!??? That a system might have some kinetic energy in additon to
"heat", has nothing to do with heating or cooling.

Again: if you model a process in spacetime, the
question is, how does that look like to an
observer. It could be the case, that the universe
is in general adiabatic and that surplus heat
pops out of nothing like a star.

Violation of conservation of energy.

(This the strange idea I'm speculating about.
But don't take that too serious, since it
difficult to imagine all the processes, and
trying to do so causes a memory overflow in
my head)

You are waving your arms really fast, but I am not seeing more sense
show up. Perhaps expansion is carrying of the heat of all the
friction...

...
As consequence of this believe we think about
stars as beeing build out of dust and gases.
That is the naive part. *As said above, spacetime
itself is that carrier of entropie, what is quite
against our believes.

Do you have a real job? *Because you suck at
mechanical engineering. *And cosmology.

I have a diploma in engineering. Thermodynamics
wasn't my favorit class, but I know what that is.

I think you don't. Other than just some word, the subject of which
you misremember badly...

.. anoying some cosmologist couldn't be worse
than anoying you...

I just find it hilarious when someone treds on an area I know
something about, and gets it so completely wrong. It isn't all that
hard... the stuff you are "passing through".

But if you are so wounded by my words, why did you post this "mental
masturbation" of yours in a public forum, inviting comment?
Obviously, this sort of attention is is *exactly* what you wanted.

David A. Smith

Then it does not look like Dark Energy to me. Dark Energy is diffuse,
having no effect on "bound systems", but affecting the spaces between
unbound ones.
My model is entirely spacetime like and I have not notation of space. That
would exclude space being effected by something. Gravity in my model is
elsewhe in geometry of spacetime. So dark energy is in my model the
content of spacetime itself. Its totally conserverd, but its difficult to
explain, what that means. Its conserved through causuality. Causuality is
restricted to a kind of light cone. Within that energy is conserved. Dark
ernergy does influence geometry. It does because the hole picture is more or
less based on that. I use rotations that have mainly an amplitude or
intensity of rotation. That is the main feature of the model. Space is
mainly something like time in my picture. Matter are patterns in that kind
of dark energy. So there could be energy without matter.
I agree, that is a kind of weird modell. But I checked it as carefull as
possible to me.
And I would bet my old VW that I'm right.

Usual thermodynamics is not appropriate to the model, because it would
require matter and some other terms not yet defined. This is a weird
consequence of my model too. There are no particles or fields. Its entirely
about some kind of energy flow.
If we apply concepts for heat from the realm of our machines to i.e. black
hole, we make more than one mistake. First is, that heat and energy are
observables and hence belong to the realm of an observer. Those are not
observer invariant. Entropy I'm not shure. Its a believe, that entropy
allways increases in the universe, but how are you shure?
Think of a big chessgame. Put some stones on that and calculate the
propability. Now through some stones again on the chessboard and calculate
the propabilty again. All sets have the same propability and that depend not
on the pattern at all but on the number of stones and on the number of
fields. The stone are realised states and the fields is expanding spacetime.
In my model the ratio stays even.
Heat in my model has a certain meaning. That is an important feature of my
model. Its something like coumbed spacetime. Its the average allignement of
worldlines. Its a feature of spacetime itself. Its a residue of the big
bang.
Imagin an explosion. Those constituents of the explosion ball start random,
but they build a ball after some (short) time. Why that? Because random
flight lead allways out. So the universe cools down. But dont need to cool
down evenly. Some areas have more content than others. In some areas there
is energy, but no condensation cores. This is the way I think that gallaxies
work.
Anyhow
greetings
Thomas Heger

Dear Thomas Heger:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

Then it does not look like Dark Energy to me. Dark
Energy is diffuse, having no effect on "bound
systems", but affecting the spaces between
unbound ones.

My model is entirely spacetime like and I have not
notation of space. That would exclude space being
effected by something.

Then it fails observation.

Gravity in my model is elsewhe in geometry of
spacetime. So dark energy is in my model the content of
spacetime itself. Its totally conserverd,
but its difficult to explain, what that means. Its
conserved through causuality. Causuality is restricted to a
kind of light cone. Within that energy
is conserved. Dark ernergy does influence geometry.
It does because the hole picture is more or less
based on that. I use rotations that have mainly an
amplitude or intensity of rotation. That is the main
feature of the model. Space is mainly something
like time in my picture. Matter are patterns in that
kind of dark energy. So there could be energy
without matter. I agree, that is a kind of weird
modell. But I checked it as carefull as possible to
me. And I would bet my old VW that I'm right.

I never bet more than $0.05 USD. I see you don't either.

Usual thermodynamics is not appropriate to
the model, because it would require matter and
some other terms not yet defined. This is a weird consequence
of my model too. There are no
particles or fields. Its entirely about some kind of
energy flow.

Which suits theromodynamics quite well.

If we apply concepts for heat from the realm of
our machines to i.e. black hole, we make more
than one mistake. First is, that heat and energy
are observables and hence belong to the realm
of an observer. Those are not observer invariant.
Entropy I'm not shure.

Same. Temperature is one measure of entropy, and you can make a
system appear "cooler" by having it move wrt you.

Its a believe, that entropy allways increases in
the universe, but how are you shure?

Our only surity is that the past was like the present, and the
future will be too. All we have is the last few hundred years of
local data, and the 13 billion years displayed.

Think of a big chessgame. Put some stones on
that and calculate the propability. Now through
some stones again on the chessboard and
calculate the propabilty again. All sets have the
same propability and that depend not on the
pattern at all but on the number of stones and
on the number of fields. The stone are realised
states and the fields is expanding spacetime.

In expanding spacetime, the number of squares on the chessboard
is increasing. So the probabilities are different with each
throw.

In my model the ratio stays even.

Then it fails observation, and is not at all descriptive of "Dark
Energy".

Heat in my model has a certain meaning.
That is an important feature of my model. Its
something like coumbed spacetime. Its the
average allignement of worldlines. Its a feature
of spacetime itself. Its a residue of the big bang.

Sounds like the opposite of heat... sounds like "order".

Imagin an explosion. Those constituents of
the explosion ball start random, but they build
a ball after some (short) time. Why that?
Because random flight lead allways out. So
the universe cools down.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

But dont need to cool down evenly. Some areas
have more content than others. In some areas
there is energy, but no condensation cores. This
is the way I think that gallaxies work.

OK.

Happy Friday.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Dear Thomas Heger:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

Then it does not look like Dark Energy to me. Dark
Energy is diffuse, having no effect on "bound
systems", but affecting the spaces between
unbound ones.

My model is entirely spacetime like and I have not
notation of space. That would exclude space being
effected by something.

Then it fails observation.
The relation between GR and thermodynamics is a bit more tricky than you
think. But I stay with your point of view and define a closed system. What
does 'closed' mean? There is a kind of border to that system and no exchange
possible. Everthing (all energy and all particles) stay within. Thats a
closed system by definition of thermodynamics. So entropy allways increases
in that. This is what second law of thermodynamics says.
How would I map that to spacetime? In general I use a simplyfied model with
only three dimensions (otherwise I get a headache) and my closed system is
now a spacelike (hyper-)area 'moving' along a timelike path. For some
reasons I want that closed system to be constant in extension. So lenght and
width is fixed. In my spacetime model, the ratio between the spacelike
hyperarea of all spacetime to my closed system shrinks. This is because
spacetime expands and my closed system don't. So the increase of entropy is
counterbalanced by that shrinking ratio.This is why you can't applay second
law of thermodynamics to spacetime in this simple manner. The reason is,
that you use terms not appropriate to spacetime. Its spacetime and not space
plus time. This is very important. Spacetime units are imaginary and
different to what we observe.


Gravity in my model is elsewhe in geometry of
spacetime. So dark energy is in my model the content of spacetime itself.
Its totally conserverd,
but its difficult to explain, what that means. Its
conserved through causuality. Causuality is restricted to a kind of light
cone. Within that energy
is conserved. Dark ernergy does influence geometry.
It does because the hole picture is more or less
based on that. I use rotations that have mainly an
amplitude or intensity of rotation. That is the main
feature of the model. Space is mainly something
like time in my picture. Matter are patterns in that
kind of dark energy. So there could be energy
without matter. I agree, that is a kind of weird
modell. But I checked it as carefull as possible to
me. And I would bet my old VW that I'm right.

I never bet more than $0.05 USD. I see you don't either.

Usual thermodynamics is not appropriate to
the model, because it would require matter and
some other terms not yet defined. This is a weird consequence of my model
too. There are no
particles or fields. Its entirely about some kind of
energy flow.

Which suits theromodynamics quite well.

If we apply concepts for heat from the realm of
our machines to i.e. black hole, we make more
than one mistake. First is, that heat and energy
are observables and hence belong to the realm
of an observer. Those are not observer invariant.
Entropy I'm not shure.

Same. Temperature is one measure of entropy, and you can make a system
appear "cooler" by having it move wrt you.

Scratch. I guess it was temperatur devided by entalpy (or energetic content
of a system).

Its a believe, that entropy allways increases in
the universe, but how are you shure?

Our only surity is that the past was like the present, and the future will
be too. All we have is the last few hundred years of local data, and the
13 billion years displayed.

Yes, but you apply a rule of machinery (second law of thermodynamics) to the
expanding univers. You think that is possible? I dont trust in that idea,
cause machinery usually don't expand.
What you do, is applying rules of observed physics to spacetime, what you
can't do. Spacetime is quite odd and not something like space with four
dimensions.


Think of a big chessgame. Put some stones on
that and calculate the propability. Now through
some stones again on the chessboard and
calculate the propabilty again. All sets have the
same propability and that depend not on the
pattern at all but on the number of stones and
on the number of fields. The stone are realised
states and the fields is expanding spacetime.

In expanding spacetime, the number of squares on the chessboard is
increasing. So the probabilities are different with each throw.
Yes, but the number of stones increase too. So there is no real meaning for
what to calculate propabilities of. What does is mean to spacetime, that a
certain pattern vanishes? It means nothing, since one pattern is as good as
any another. It would make a big difference to me or you. But in my model I
have no me or you (or any other observer). That is another strange feature
of GR that you deal within a space of observerinvariant relations.

In my model the ratio stays even.

Then it fails observation, and is not at all descriptive of "Dark Energy".

Dark energy is a main feature of my model. It is somehow based on that idea.
I use quaternions and let them rotate. This is somehow the hole model.
Everything we observe is now a kind of relation or pattern within evoloution
of that. I actually can show, how you get to observations from this simple
model. You do it step by step as you put an observer into that picture.

Heat in my model has a certain meaning.
That is an important feature of my model. Its
something like coumbed spacetime. Its the
average allignement of worldlines. Its a feature
of spacetime itself. Its a residue of the big bang.

Sounds like the opposite of heat... sounds like "order".
Heat or entropy or thermodynamics has a specific meaning via statistics.
Cool means 'in order', hot means ' disordered'. My hole model contains only
spacetime-elements, so applying the term heat to space make some sense.
Space is (as above) a moving hyperarea in this model, projected into space
of observations.
We actually experiance that. I.e. a selfgravitating systems heats up. That
could not possibly be true if gravity somehow mediate heat. Otherwise there
would in fact some energy conservation laws beeing violated.


Imagin an explosion. Those constituents of
the explosion ball start random, but they build
a ball after some (short) time. Why that?
Because random flight lead allways out. So
the universe cools down.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.
This was a picture or an analogy. What I wanted to say is a) the primordial
singularity does not have very low entropy and b) that order is gained over
time inevedivly.

But dont need to cool down evenly. Some areas
have more content than others. In some areas
there is energy, but no condensation cores. This
is the way I think that gallaxies work.


David A. Smith
happy weekend

Thomas Heger

Dear Thomas Heger:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ...
Dear Thomas Heger:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

Then it does not look like Dark Energy to me. Dark
Energy is diffuse, having no effect on "bound
systems", but affecting the spaces between
unbound ones.

My model is entirely spacetime like and I have not
notation of space. That would exclude space being
effected by something.

Then it fails observation.

The relation between GR and thermodynamics is
a bit more tricky than you think. But I stay with
your point of view and define a closed system. What does
'closed' mean? There is a kind of border to
that system and no exchange possible.

The border is not required. Or if you like define a very small
"control volume" right in front of you, and invert it.

Everthing (all energy and all particles) stay within.
Thats a closed system by definition of
thermodynamics. So entropy allways increases in that.

.... or stays the same ...

This is what second law of thermodynamics
says. How would I map that to spacetime?

See above.

In general I use a simplyfied model with only
three dimensions (otherwise I get a headache)
and my closed system is now a spacelike
(hyper-)area 'moving' along a timelike path. For
some reasons I want that closed system to be
constant in extension. So lenght and width is
fixed.

Such "patching method" can be made to work.

In my spacetime model, the ratio between the
spacelike hyperarea of all spacetime to my
closed system shrinks. This is because spacetime expands and
my closed system
don't.

You are confusing yourself. You can potentially measure your
"closed system" at any time, and see that it did not shrink.

So the increase of entropy is counterbalanced
by that shrinking ratio.

No.

This is why you can't applay second law of
thermodynamics to spacetime in this simple
manner. The reason is, that you use terms
not appropriate to spacetime. Its spacetime
and not space plus time. This is very
important. Spacetime units are imaginary and different to what
we observe.

It was your strawman. So what was your point in raising it?
Time is (can be) a measure of entropy. "Inflating space",
increasing available states, occurs in time.

....
If we apply concepts for heat from the realm of
our machines to i.e. black hole, we make more
than one mistake. First is, that heat and energy
are observables and hence belong to the realm
of an observer. Those are not observer invariant.
Entropy I'm not shure.

Same. Temperature is one measure of entropy,
and you can make a system appear "cooler" by
having it move wrt you.

Scratch. I guess it was temperatur devided by
entalpy (or energetic content of a system).

....
Its a believe, that entropy allways increases in
the universe, but how are you shure?

Our only surity is that the past was like the
present, and the future will be too. All we
have is the last few hundred years of local
data, and the 13 billion years displayed.

Yes, but you apply a rule of machinery
(second law of thermodynamics) to the expanding univers. You
think that is possible?

Yes. It is also applied to information.

I dont trust in that idea, cause machinery
usually don't expand.

Happens all the time. Change its temperature upwards.

What you do, is applying rules of observed
physics to spacetime, what you can't do.

No. What I do is apply it to *contents*. Spacetime is only the
relation between contents.

Spacetime is quite odd and not something
like space with four dimensions.

I didn't say it was. That was your strawman.

Think of a big chessgame. Put some stones on
that and calculate the propability. Now through
some stones again on the chessboard and
calculate the propabilty again. All sets have the
same propability and that depend not on the
pattern at all but on the number of stones and
on the number of fields. The stone are realised
states and the fields is expanding spacetime.

In expanding spacetime, the number of squares
on the chessboard is increasing. So the
probabilities are different with each throw.

Yes, but the number of stones increase too.

No, they don't. Do you see a white hole anywhere?

So there is no real meaning for what to calculate
propabilities of.

It was your analogy, and was appropriate.

What does is mean to spacetime, that a certain pattern
vanishes?

Loss of information. Entropy increases.

It means nothing, since one pattern is as good
as any another. It would make a big difference
to me or you. But in my model I have no me or
you (or any other observer). That is another
strange feature of GR that you deal within a
space of observer invariant relations.

And?

In my model the ratio stays even.

Then it fails observation, and is not at all
descriptive of "Dark Energy".

Dark energy is a main feature of my model. It
is somehow based on that idea. I use
quaternions and let them rotate. This is
somehow the hole model.

By the way, this word is spelled "whole" not "hole", in this
context. English is a true patchwork quilt... it is pronounced
exactly the same.

Everything we observe is now a kind of
relation or pattern within evoloution of that.
I actually can show, how you get to
observations from this simple model. You do
it step by step as you put an observer into
that picture.

Heat in my model has a certain meaning.
That is an important feature of my model. Its
something like coumbed spacetime. Its the
average allignement of worldlines. Its a feature
of spacetime itself. Its a residue of the big bang.

Sounds like the opposite of heat... sounds like
"order".

Heat or entropy or thermodynamics has a specific
meaning via statistics. Cool means 'in order',

No, it does not.

hot means ' disordered'.

No, it does not. "Heat" is a measure of internal energy, and
says nothing about order. Cold soup and hot quartz, for
examples.

My hole model contains only spacetime-
elements, so applying the term heat to space
make some sense.

No, it does not.

Space is (as above) a moving hyperarea in this
model, projected into space of observations.
We actually experiance that. I.e. a self
gravitating systems heats up. That could not
possibly be true if gravity somehow mediate
heat. Otherwise there would in fact some energy
conservation laws beeing violated.

A self-gravitating system heats up, if masses are losing
"altitude"... via friction.

So you are saying that your little bits of spacetime constantly
shuffle around, so that forward is briefly +/- up, then +/-
left... as "spacetime temperature" increases. Seems like this
would be hard on nuclear binding, atomic bonds and so on.

Imagin an explosion. Those constituents of
the explosion ball start random, but they build
a ball after some (short) time. Why that?
Because random flight lead allways out. So
the universe cools down.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

This was a picture or an analogy. What I wanted
to say is a) the primordial singularity does not
have very low entropy

It does. How many states are there? One.

and b) that order is gained over time inevedivly.

Which is clearly wrong. I strongly suggest that you either give
up on entropy... or learn it.

David A. Smith