let me play with your postulate (plain English) vs your text YOU wrote.
To be translated into plain language: Mass, energy, space-time, even
'matter'. (The last one SOUNDS like plain English, yet not in the context we
use it.)
Don't take it too hard. We are used to this lingo, after the 1000th level of
applying its consequences all assumptions sound real. We THINK we understand
them. (Did not write: believe, because Russell does not take it kindly if I
hint to 'religious science' beliefs.)

I like your idea to call the pre-inflational 'seed' of our universe a very
concentrated (massive?) central(?) point. I faced the problem in my
narrative-writing to eliminate the dreamed-up 'inflation' (dreamed up - just
to have a better fit of the equations applied by the physical(ist)
cosmology-narrative) and ended up with the pop-up 'seed' of some  complexity
(postulated in the spaceless-timeless plenitude of everything - for logical
reasons I do not go into now) and got assigned to form THIS universe - a
system WITH the ordinates "space and time" (whatever they are). Now the
transition from a spaceless construct into a 'spaced' one means the
emergence of (a huge) space from a zero one (= no space at all), which could
be mistaken by the cosmo-  physicists as inflation. Glory saved.
 Time ditto, when the originating concepts formed from a timeless into a
timed system, the forming occurrences happened in that VERY first instant
(introducing TIME into the timelessness), explaining the "calculated?" times
of the first BB-steps as "in the 1st - 1^-42th sec, or 1^-32th sec  froze
out this or that". Weird.
Then came the inflation (space).

All nicely calculated in the quantitative correlations deduced from our
observations in the 'expanded' (i.e. unconcentrated) physical system's
rules. And - propagated linearly (reversing as was linearly retrogaded) in
the nonlinear development we live in.

I don't think Brent and you are talking from the same platform. Nor do I.  I
don't know how 'densly matter-energy was packed in the early Universe' (it
was before my time) - I don't have to assign different characteristics to
some 'early' universe, if I accept that our ideas of the  material world are
fictive. (Some say: consciousness before matter and NO primitive material

The best

John M

On 3/24/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No.  I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive
> central point.  They generally assume zero mass-energy.
> Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so
> you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is
> not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with,
> but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare.
> Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that
> has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter'
> with and within it and indeed I think it is more correct to see
> matter as no more and no less than regions of concentrated,
> convoluted and self-referencing space-time. This still leaves me
> with the idea that our universe, at least prior to its
> 'inflation', WAS indescribably concentrated, and in some way
> very dense, even if we are not allowed to call this mass/energy.
> What was it?
> My understanding now of the Hubble red-shift is that the overall
> expansion of space-time, through which the ancient energy
> signals have been passing, is what has stretched the wave
> lengths to the extent that has been calculated. A corollary of
> this is that energy and matter were much more densely packed in
> the early universe.
> Regards
> Mark Peaty  CDES

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to