Re: Bekenstein Bound (was: Crypto and new computing strategies)

> 
> >
> >You made the assertion in your rebuttal about area -v- volume in relation
> >to black holes and event horizons about the entire universe not being   
> >containable in a volumn, if you accept this premice then you have to accept
> >the premice that the universe is unbouded and hence not containable. This 
> >leads the bounds on the B-equation to be infinitly large number of possible
> >states.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> So what's wrong with that?
> 
> Jay
> 
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am an attorney, seeking a position in the area of Computer Law.  If you
> know of such a position available, or of someone who may know of such a
> position, please send e-mail!  Thanks.
> 

If you accept the universe as unbounded then you have to throw out the Big Bang
and much of conventional physics, including large parts of what you are trying
to prove.

Jim Choate writes:

 > If you accept the universe as unbounded then you have to throw out the Big
 > Bang and much of conventional physics, including large parts of what you
 > are trying to prove. 

I think you may be confusing the notion of "unbounded" with the notion of 
"finite".  The Big Bang is perfectly consistant with the notion of a 
finite but unbounded universe.  

On a completely different note, physicists were planning to rename the 
event which created the universe after complaints from feminists that 
"Big Bang" was a sexist term.  Does anyone know what new name was 
ultimately selected?  

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.3a Public Key available    $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $