Cosmological Model

Though... unfortunately, the way I depicted an infinite universe could exist in infinite space and time, is not necessarily stable.
It could be stable though, but overall contraction or expansion can occur.

Heusdens, in the model you suggest can we try to examine the universe through a thermodynamical view. I propose that the second law of thermo is incorrect. Stating that the universe tends towards disorder is counterintuitive as we witness daily the antientropic creation of stars, galaxies, and globular clusters. It appears that a system equating construction to destruction is more acceptable, rewriting the second law states that entropy=antientropy across all space AND time. MV

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Heusdens, in the model you suggest can we try to examine the universe through a thermodynamical view. I propose that the second law of thermo is incorrect. Stating that the universe tends towards disorder is counterintuitive as we witness daily the antientropic creation of stars, galaxies, and globular clusters. It appears that a system equating construction to destruction is more acceptable, rewriting the second law states that entropy=antientropy across all space AND time. MV
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to an infinite universe, will for sure lead to contradictions.
We know from small systems that nature tends from "order" to "disorder". Like a sugar cube dissolves in hot tea.

But in the universe, when a large cloud of gas contracts and forms a star, what state does one call the "ordered" one, and which one the "disordered"?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about heat and heat is not energy. Light is energy and heat is an interaction of energy and mass-you don't have heat without both energy and mass but you can have energy and no heat in x-ray or microwave or any frequency or you can have mass and no heat which is absolute zero in thermodynamic jargon. The misuse of these ideas is a big part of the problem in physics and astronomy.

Jim, once again we come to a problem with interpreting the system. You are correct that energy exists without heat. Yet even the background of the "vacuum" of space has a heat of ~2.1 Kelvin. Heat is the effect seen when energy interacts with matter. If the MM is correct, then the vacuum of space is filled with MI's (perhaps the LCM has matter components).

The 3k background is microwave and the 3k part is an embillishment of the facts from misuse of blackbody law. There is no way to use a tool to measure the temperature of anything in space and as I said this kind of misuse of rules that are workable within reason is most of the problem in physics. If the background radiation was a gas at 3k then it would have mass too.