<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GD</i>
<br />Hello North,
I am not questioning plasmas. I actually agree that ordinary matter(ie: the chair I'm sitting on) is composed of atoms which is basically organized, low entropy energy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I am questioning is in what way will the universe end up: you say cold, I say hot.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
no, i said that there is a recycling of plasma states from high to low to high to low etc. remember.
The physics involved between these two endings is drastically different. One implies conservation of momentum, the other doesn't etc...
Concerning the temperature of materials: there is a high temperature limit where the material will be altered irreversibly.
But again, this does not tell us how the universe will end.
There are alot of theories out there. Which one is the right one ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
the right one will start with high energy plasmas at the very least. after that we'll see what different perspectives bring but it will be complex,at least for a long while anyway.
there is one interesting little tid bit though plasmas, at this point anyway, cannot account for all radiation. it can only account for most. hmmmm...
also i would like to find out more about particle collisions(accelerators) and their implications to plasma states.
