----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
> > On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM >>> To: Killer Bs Discussion >>> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model >>> >>> >>> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating >>>> any >>>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang." >>> >>> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big >>> Crunch. >> >> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the >> mechanism for >> going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it >> might best >> be described by waving one's hands and muttering. > > But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The > differences are lost on this non-physicist... > > Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they > could have said anything. > I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph: "At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe." In all the Big Bang/Big Crunch concepts that *I* have personally read about, the idea revolved around a single universe expanding, contracting, and reconstituting itself endlessly. Sort of an eternal reciprocating cycle. What makes this idea different is that it posits an eternal branching of new discrete entities. IMO the concept bears only a superficial resemblence to Bang/Crunch theories, but more closely resembles the theories where black holes generate universe entities. Well....not in the maths and physics areas of course, but in the sense of how one tries to visualize the bigger picture of extra-universal relation. The Bang/Crunch can be described as a simple circle, but this new theory (as far as I understand it) would resemble a branching tree or a sort of fractal sargassum. AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as we know it. Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of such to be entertaining. Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G> xponent Of Eshatological Importance To The Skrulls Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
