Carrock

If the mass is not isolated from its test universe, then its temperature depends on that universe's state. I don't think e.g. a static universe is consistent with current physics. I'll assume the universe is much like ours, and that it will continue to expand for unlimited time. Choosing a random time, I'd expect the temperature of the mass to be very close to 0K as our cosy universe with stars and people exists for a negligible fraction of unlimited time. I don't believe anyone thinks that, but any reply requires a lot of assumptions; a question where all the assumptions are explicit wouldn't be any fun to respond to!

0K and in a low(est) energy configuration. Otherwise it would have radiated photons and wouldn't be isolated.

From the abstract of Right-wing Extremism and No-go-areas in Germany Without any actual quotes from you, a brief summary in an appropriate order: No go areas are described, whether they exist (or are fictitious) is examined and these possibly nonexistent no-go-areas areas are conflated with places tourists who don't want to hang out with neonazis avoid and where crimes are often committed by neonazis. A less glamorous name for such a place is 'high crime area.' The concept of 'no-go-area' to most people implies that the state (police etc) do not enforce the law in such areas. Can you provide any specific quotes about anywhere in Germany where that happens? As I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of media coverage of such 'state within a state' enclaves I'm not interested in what seem to be radical right wish fulfilment concepts.

Citation needed, preferably not Foxisch News.

Attenuation isn't jamming and doesn't generate interference so is usually perfectly legal and not much use for blocking. I don't think intending and failing to create a jammer is illlegal. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage Without an aerial, a spark gap transmitter is mostly but not entirely near field; I doubt you could create a near field noise generator for 1 MHz - 10 GHz with a range close to 3m throughout the entire range without significant far field. If you happen to be close to (the line of sight of) an important microwave link and block it with interference, I doubt you'd get much sympathy even if you could prove 99% of the generated noise was near field.

You specifically asked about intentional jamming. Intent is legally important in this context. 'jam any signal in the 1 MHz - 10 GHz range or so' up to about ~3m jams weak signals much further away. As its easy to look up I'll mention the spark gap transmitter which is/was specifically banned in some radio licenses and should soon have the authorities coming round to confiscate your equipment and take you to court.

There are various quite cheap options. I'll answer a simpler question: Is there a legal way to do the above? No.

Ablative shields such as on the Apollo command modules worked perfectly. The tiles on the shuttle worked well without ablating but were very fragile. Anything more specific requires more info from you. I'm not an engineer so can't help you further.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think what's wanted is the ability to edit bbcode, which shouldn't have security risks, rather than html.

Wind power is naturally concentrated solar power, so I think this is a legitimate comparison. From Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear (11th Sept) Interesting way to make the inability of nuclear plants to reduce output below about 60% into a virtue. From https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf So during a summer night, nuclear supplies more than 100% of Britain's electricity needs; unlike wind or solar, it can't be switched off when not needed.

Bondi and Gold, who had collaborated with Hoyle, independently published a version of Steady State, which claimed there was no beginning, before Hoyle was ready to publish. Their theory was soon disproved with pencil and paper and no need for empirical observation. In the speculative Mach's Principle and the Creation of Matter Hoyle clearly separates his theory from theirs, which he sarcastically describes as based on 'the "perfect" cosmological principle,' and goes on to discuss the past boundary conditions necessary to initiate the steady state universe. He may well have been annoyed that Bondi and Gold picked his brains, gave IDers and religious folk a cheap victory and tarnished his own theory, which required empirical observation to disprove it.

I was planning to email him. Then I noticed the age of the paper. It's not believable that no one has raised this issue with him in nineteen years. One more email won't make any difference.

You'd have to define 'a finite pointlike portion' before I could answer that.

A problem with Prof. Wright's claim is that he doesn't mention what assumptions he's using. But it certainly seems he assumes a point source for each observable universe and that each point expands into a finite observable universe currently around 10^21 light years in volume - rather large for each observer. You don't get significant overlap as each point expands a similar amount. A strongly implied claim is that at the time of the Big Bang sufficient space existed to contain two or more points. A volume large enough to contain two points is also large enough to contain an uncountable infinity of points. The problem is that if each point expands to a finite volume, you have an uncountable infinity of finite volumes. As I've said before in this thread, that would require every zero volume point in the (spatially finite or infinite) universe to enclose a finite volume of space. Most physicists regard this prediction as not valid, which is why they describe the universe as originating from a singularity. Strange has addressed this. in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html is rubbish,. That is presumably where you got the above strange idea. I suggest you try to forget anything you think you learned there.

From http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html As every physically separate observer has a slightly different observable universe, there must be numerous relevant separate points, each of which expands into a finite volume. There are also aleph-one points 'between' each point, each of which expands into a finite volume i.e. aleph-one finite volumes in the post big bang universe. This isn't possible - see e.g. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108435-is-the-universe-infinite/?do=findComment&comment=1008151 I was sad to see the moderators decide by unchallengeable fiat that 'Is the Universe infinite or just really, really big?' is a question which cannot be scientifically discussed, but seeing such a statement by a highly respected physicist is even worse.

For the same reason you can't consider the universe as having a temp of 1.95K - the cosmic neutrino background temperature. The CMBR now has the spectrum of black body radiation from a source at 2.7K. It ceased to be in equilibrium at its time of last scattering when its temperature was about 3000K at 380000 years after BB. The CNBR now has the spectrum of black body radiation from a source at 1.95K. It ceased to be in equilibrium at its time of last scattering when its temperature was a few million K at around 1 second after BB. [neutrino interactions are complicated and this description may not be very accurate.] So the universe is not in equilibrium. 'spatially homogeneous and isotropic' need not and in this case does not mean in equilibrium. The CNBR does not have much current effect so it can often be ignored in calculations (but not in calculating critical density). However it has had a major effect and cosmological models have to take it into account. Strange has addressed the other points you've made. This post is simply an expansion of what I've previously written. I've learned a fair amount about cosmology in this topic. You now have four temperatures to choose from....

"That does mess me up. I thought each portion was finite. Or infinite." - Carrock Infinity/infinity or infinity-infinity is basically not defined - I was being (too) informal. Addition and multiplication of infinities is well defined. Using e.g. the denumerable infinity aleph-null, aleph-null = n+(aleph-null) = n*(aleph-null) =(aleph-null)^n where n (I'm being overcautious) is a finite positive integer and definitely not infinite. So a spatially infinite universe can be considered to be e.g. aleph-null units of finite space or aleph-null units of space each of volume aleph-null units.

I was referring to this and the fact that the CMBR at 2.7K and the CNBR at 1.95K are not now and never again will be in equilibrium with themselves or each other. Black body radiation is generated by a body in thermal equilibrium. Once the radiation leaves or is decoupled it is no longer in equilibrium. You're avoiding the question of whether you think the universe is a black body at 2.7K or 1.95K or neither.

I'd update CERN to the diameter of the earth. I predict that inflation induced by building it will ensure that there's never enough money to bring it up to full power.

Which cosmic background radiation do you think is relevant? The neutrino background at 1.95K or the microwave background at 2.7K? IIRC the neutrino time of last scattering was about one second after BB and the photon(microwave) time of scattering 300 thousand years. Expansion lowered their temperature after last scattering but these particles were never again in equilibrium. Perturbations and blocking after last scattering will never be smoothed out. Again these photons are no longer in thermal equilibrium when they've left the sun. The sun heats one side of objects on earth, but not the other. The black body radiation you're referring to here is radiation from a black body, not radiation inside a black body.

There's an analogy used in this thread that I feel has been stretched to breaking point, with some posters confused by its departure from actual cosmology. This is the analogy with a classical container whose gaseous contents remain in thermal equilibrium and cool as it expands, and that the CMBR is the same as the equilibrium radiation associated with a temperature of 2.7K. After the time of last coupling, if the universe doubles in size, the energy of each photon is halved since the wavelength has doubled due to the expansion of space and its energy is hc/wavelength i.e. its energy is inversely proportional to the size of the universe. Non relativistic matter has kinetic energy= (1/2)mv^2. If the universe doubles in size each particle has its velocity halved since it travels twice the distance in unit time. However because of the v^2 term its energy is quartered i.e. its energy is inversely proportional to the square of the size of the universe. Other interactions e.g. gravitational soon swamp the effect of expansion on non relativistic matter. There is an exception, the neutrino, which is ordinary matter travelling at relativistic speed, which complicates things. The temperature of the cosmic neutrino background radiation (with similar caveats as above) is estimated to be about 1.95K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background provides interesting info. The CMBR at 2.7K and the CNBR at 1.95K are not in equilibrium in the sense that there is negligible interaction to even out any perturbation induced since the time of last coupling. While these temperatures, especially the CMBR, are very useful in calculations, neither is applicable in some calculations involving equilibrium thermodynamics.

I don't see it that way. Consider a volume of space (finite or countably infinite i.e. at most aleph-null finite spatial elements) which expands exponentially for aleph-null years i.e. for infinite time. During that time it will double in size aleph-null times i.e. its volume will be 2^(aleph-null) finite spatial elements. 2^(aleph-null) finite spatial elements is equal to aleph-one finite spatial elements, whose number is equal to the number of irrational numbers, or the number of points in aleph-null units of space. So space must contain aleph-one finite units of space. There cannot be a one to one correspondence between the non-denumerable set of points (aleph-one) in space and the set of all finite non overlapping spatial elements. This is an argument by contradiction, showing that there cannot be aleph-one finite units of space. Informally, you cannot store a finite volume of space in a point. I don't think it's necessarily impossible to have eternal expansion, but I don't think it's acceptable to say 'but the universe does not really give a damn about our limited intuition' so infinite expansion must be possible. There's a lot more to this of course but I'll just refer you to http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/186708 and International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1975), pp. 217-223 Cosmological Models and Non-Denumerable Singularities RICHARD SCHLEGEL My link to this has died.

Opinions aside, you have written little inconsistent with what I've said. "Again I see the fact that the concept of infinity itself is the problem." - Cantor developed a very rigorous mathematics of transfinite numbers; what is the problem? "So why then cannot an infinite universe not expand or stretch if you will?" - it can. "According to the BB, the universe is all there is...it is expanding into nothing, just as it has no borders or edges." - ambiguous. "An infinite universe still expanding/stretching, may seem to be against our intuition, but the universe does not really give a damn about our limited intuition." - my limited intuition is that the universe, infinite or not, is expanding locally, perhaps everywhere, but that is not in itself proof that the universe is not expanding. You're describing a universe which only expands exponentially for finite time, where I was describing one which expands for infinite time. If you want a full response from me, claim something inconsistent with my earlier posts, rather than repeating some of it and saying what I wrote 'does not compute.'

The data, or most of it, is not erased and can be recovered. Only permanently erasing data necessitates increased entropy. Overwriting and destroying data increases entropy; the increase in entropy has just been delayed until the original data is destroyed.

Interesting quote from Kashlinsky, but the link to the original is dead, so I'll reserve judgement...