Abstract:  These few pages deal with a hypothesis that the 
cosmic background radiation is being currently generated and 
may be or even is a simple field dissipation of very intense 
heat, which when approached (in theory only) keeps 
increasing to unimaginable levels.  This hypothesis detracts 
from the "big bang" source of the universe.  The background 
radiation pictures of proposed temperature, when eventually 
resolved to higher resolution, might reveal something quite 
different from that which they now show.

But first, let's guess a bit about cosmic "heat".  Let's go 
to the center, for example, of the "Great Attractor", and 
pick out a single quantum bit of energy, which by all 
standards should be in a very agitated and "hot" state.  

This particular quantum speck isn't by any means at it 
theoretical heat limits but it is theoretically hot enough 
to serve as an example.

This quantum "furball" of something mass is hot.

It is hot because of its energy.  Its interior is in motion 
and probably under somewhat cubic conditions or at least 
approaching that status by now.  We can only guess at the 
dimensions of the quantum furball, but let's say, for 
arguments sake, that we are dealing with a one angstrom 
semicube.  A semicube is not quite a perfect cube yet and 
has roundish corners, (see the Podding Factor) its internals 
would have or have a certain dependent resonance of some 
frequency which is totally dependent upon the energy (heat) 
of the quantum furball under examination.

As the quantum cubic furball size keeps shrinking due to 
more and more pressure from the accretion processes of the 
main mass, the internal resonance increases and of course 
its "cubicness".  It loses its rounded corners and 
approaches perfection with respect to its pure cubic 
effectivenss in linking.  The temperature (energy) goes up 
and so does its gravitational linking ability.

How high can the temperature of such an item go up?

Well, my best guess is until the unfolded resonance reaches 
a velocity of c.  What would be the dimension of the cube 
under those conditions?

Joe doesn't have the foggiest.

Remember this whole thing is just a hypothesis anyhow, and 
should be treated as such.  But let us guess, oh, say 1/1000 
of an angstrom for starters, perhaps even a millionth or a 
billionth of an angstrom might do as well for arguments 
sake.  You choose the size.  But it is some very small 
distance but perhaps still, not even the final quantum one.  
But you bet one thing.  We are dealing with something very, 
very, hot now.  And that is our subject, and it may even 
relate to the Cosmic Background Radiation.



                        The Question

One of the questions that joe bumped into was the issue of 
heat.

Is there an upper limit to heat?

How hot can hot get?

Is heat a simple manifestation of energy?

That is, the hotter something is the more energy it has?  

The question comes up when we look at the map of cosmic 
background radiation.  The map writes out the radiation 
levels that existed a very long time ago and apparently 
exist now as well as somewhat of a mathematical continuum 
for convenience to mathematicians.

Like light or gravitation, heat is a radiative dissipating 
event, that is the further we are away from the heat source 
the weaker it seems to get.  Is it true that the cosmic 
background raditation seems to be quite low because it is 
very far away?

Well, the scientific answer is no, it is the same all over 
with no apparent source...

That is an answer that doesn't appeal to a joe.

So let's halve the distance to the sources of the measured 
cosmic background radiation.

Now what?

The radiation and temperature should go up by a squared 
value of the originally measured value for the radiation at 
the longer distance.  It is the old "inversely proportional 
to the square" ration again.

But lets halve the distance to the sources of the cosmic 
background radiation once again.  Now what happens?  The 
radiation and temperature should go up by a squared value of 
the currently measured value.

But lets halve the distance to the sources of the cosmic 
background radiation once again.  Now what happens?  The 
radiation and temperature should go up by a squared value of 
the currently measured value.

But lets halve the distance to the sources of the cosmic 
background radiation once again.  Now what happens?  The 
radiation and temperature should go up by a squared value of 
the currently measured value.

But lets halve the distance to the sources of the cosmic 
background radiation once again.  Now what happens?  The 
radiation and temperature should go up by a squared value of 
the currently measured value.

and on and on, It is joe's hypothesis that the measured 
radiation keeps getting higher and higher due to our closing 
distances and is not the same value cosmoswide.

If the above process is accurate, it is obvious that the 
real temperatures that we now associate with the cosmic 
background radiation are in fact much, much, higher and due 
only to our closing distance.

With more accurate resolution, just what would be the best 
guess of the actual temperatures of the radiation that we 
presume to be at the approximate beginning of the universe 
and do they have unique sources for distribution?

The issue is that:  Is the CBR is about the same no matter 
in which direction we measure.

Does that mean that the universe started in almost every 
direction from the earth?  Or does that mean that in almost 
every direction we look there are, as we draw closer to 
them, very, very, unimaginably hot elements at the edge of 
our ability to see the universe?



Well, Joe has been told that the BGR is somewhat of a 
continuum.  That is, it is everywhere at once and pretty 
much the same.

But radiation is subject to propagation, that is, when the 
radiator stops, the radiation stops.  It doesn't hang around 
forever.  For example, turn on a flashlight.  The radiation 
starts.  That is, the visible radiation from the light bulb 
starts shooting off into space at VC.  Turn the 
flashlight off the the radiation stops.  So the hypothesis 
exists in joe's mind that somewhere, there are radiators all 
over the universe, radiating away, hence a somewhat steady 
"background" radiation is wont to exist currently and is not 
the result of something that happened a gazillion years ago.

Of course, this is a Joseph_Sixpackian mechanistic 
hypothesis, and one that may not be, ummm... correct at all 
with respect to physical reality.  But, what is further from 
reality in joe's mind is the fact that radiation exists 
without any source and is something just "leftover" from 
some theoretical "big bang".

So anyhow, the fact remains that when you turn a flashlight 
off, the light stops propagating at c.  Where there is no 
heat there is no radiation.

Which brings up the question: Does space itself contain heat 
enough to start the buzz?  And what would be the mechanisms 
of thet?  That is, space is still hot so it radiates at the 
level of its ambient heat content which appears to be a few 
degrees above absolute zero.

So is what we have here is really just placing our hand at 
the side of an oven and feeling a remnant of processes that 
are either occuring now, or have occured many, many millieu 
ago?

Alas, a question and answer session is in order with the 
professional BGR boys...

Now if the BGR is from a "hot singularity" occuring at the 
"beginning of time" and has since "turned off" then when the 
last straggling bit of BGR ambles by from the "Big Bang", 
the whole BGR event should "turn off" and then our local 
area turns into a quiet zone.

Now, as yet another hypothesis from joe, maybe the BGR is 
simply the "hair" from the many theoretical Supermassive 
Black Holes described in the Universe+ hypothesis, if so, 
BGR is, and will be, a constant companion to the cosmos.

And what about all the existing galaxies and stars within 
that are generating "heat"?  Are they responsible for the 
BGR?

And again, is the accelerating expansion of the universe 
fueling the ambient BGR?  If so, how?
                             Or
Is the alleged acceleration of the expansion of the universe 
just a smoke and mirrors trick of "tired light"?
                             Or
Are elements of the expansion being inexorably drawn to 
other ultra gravitational elements at station?

So, that is what we know so far.  Hmmm... this discussion is 
going no where fast...  And as you can see, there are always 
more questions than answers.



                           Notes

1.  Is there an upper limit to heat?

2.  How hot can hot get?

3.  How hot is hot?

4.  Imagine pressures and/or mass resonating within one
    angstrom, at a distance which, when unfolded, would
    equal c.

5.  What conditions might exist for a gravitational
    collapse?

6.  Let's assume some "black hole" "exploded".
     a)  shower of photons
     b)  but at what particle temperature?

7.  resonating at some near quantum distance d

8.  Theoretically, events suggest an upper limit of some
    sort (value).

9.  Now, what are the numbers?           

10.  Consider the temperature inside the minor earthborn
     temperature events of fission or fusion with no
     meaningful cubic pressures at all.

11.  Is a peek into space "looking for novadic "hot spots" a
     valid effort?

12.  What can we hope to see or measure?
     a)  what amplitude would any infrared event have over
         such distances?

13.  Would such "heat" indeed be limited to just that region
     for propagation?

14.  Assume a nava "exploded" three million years ago some-
     where cosmically close.

15.  What could we hope to see?
     a)  What could we hope to see with our instruments?

16.  Would highest resonance exemplify those heat bursts?

17.  Is there a duration of "ultra heat" propagation?

18.  In short, how hot is hot?

19.  How hot can hot get?

20.  And what does or can "hot" look like?

21.  Can mankind use "hot" for anything?

22.  Can mankind capture "hot" and use it for anything?

23.  How do these incredibly hot cubic particles/resonances
     propagate through space?

24.  If something is moving back and forth at one angstrom,
     what frequency is needed to achieve a velocity of c?

25.  What frequency at a quantum d?

26.  Light and Gravity and Heat all subject to inverse
     square of d.    

27.  True estimate of background radiation temperatures at
     source?

28.  If at distance d we have a weight of one hundred
     pounds, what weight at distance d/2?

29.