On 2 Nov 2003 at 14:16, Ron McFarland wrote:
> Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
>
> Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that
> our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially
> flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary
Hi, George. I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply; thankfully I've
been very busy.
I find your thoughts interesting in that they seem distantly relative
to fractional charges we attribute to some things, such as quarks,
although one might argue that they are only fractional because they
were
Ron,
I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosoper, however, the
idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago,
whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and
what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason
for
Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank
you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really
settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments
are but one view point, certainly not the most educated, and until
some time in the future i
On 9 Nov 2003 at 16:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
> In the intial relativistic models of the origin of the universe,
the
> matter began with very high energy so it expanded against the pull
of
> gravity. Taking the zero of energy to be when the matter is
> infinitely dispersed, as is usual, the net en
On 9 Nov 2003 at 11:20, Brent Meeker wrote:
>The theory of supersymmetry implied that all particles could decay
to
>photons. As the universe expands photons lose energy through
>redshift. So the universe would decay asymptotically to zero energy
>density. That's not exactly the same a decaying to
On 8 Nov 2003 at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote:
> A balloon model neglects inhomogeneties that allow gravity to
dominate
> locally.
> at short range the weak, electromagnetic, and
> strong force dominate.
> Of course almost anything is possible at the Planck scale. What
you
> are proposing are
Greetings, Brent. Thanks for joining the conversation!
On 8 Nov 2003 at 14:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I think you are misinterpreting inflation. The cosmological
>constant produces an inflationary pressure that's proportional to
>volume, so over large distances it dominates over gravity. But o
On 7 Nov 2003 at 10:25, Joao Leao wrote:
> OK. I get your point. That "supersolipsistic" situation is rendered
> somewhat unlikely by the fact that galaxies seem to be structuraly
> stable (the dark matter issue), in other words, they do not seem to
> berak apart with the accelerated expansion. The
Ron McFarland wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
redshift
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored
for
> > the purpose of conce
On 6 Nov 2003 at 21:20, James N Rose wrote:
> If we are now observing acceleration,
> that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
> and then a huge reduction in acceleration.
>
> So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
> momentum? Or countered it?
A mind bending question. Gree
If we are now observing acceleration,
that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
and then a huge reduction in acceleration.
So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
momentum? Or countered it?
Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which
is out there 'increasing acceleration
On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
redshift
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored
for
> > the purpose of concentrating only on the
Welcome to the list Ron.
Could someone please explain dark energy in simple terms : newtonian
terms + mass-energy equivalence for example using equations such as
F= Gm1m2/r^2, F=ma and E=mc^2 . Could such equations describe to a
first approximation the forces and accelerations involved whe
On 3 Nov 2003 at 10:18, Joao Leao wrote:
> Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
> I will have to split mine in two installments
> if you don't mind.
My apology for the length of the answer. The answer was for the most
part a restatement of something I wrote and was aired on radio over a
deca
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
I will have to split mine in two installments
if you don't mind.
Ron McFarland wrote:
> Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
> debates!
>
>
> >
> > I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
> > You state, quit
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
debates!
On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:05, Joao Leao wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:
>
> > Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
> >
> > Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now
tha
On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:
Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that
our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially
flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are
Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that
our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially
flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in a
continuing big bang state) after experienc
19 matches
Mail list logo
