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 (we
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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
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
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, quite
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
decade
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
that
our
15 matches
Mail list logo
