I think you got it right John. When everyone is in agreement, a few years pass and then someone finds a problem with the theory. That is actually good since it keeps scientists interested and employed.
I believe it is safe to assume that new stars are being born all the time since we can observe large clouds of hydrogen in space. The Hubble has photographed several regions of star forming that is apparently occurring on a continuous basis. Who knows when the last star will form, but I imagine it will be a very long time into the future. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Berry <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Are we sure that new stars will not be born? If so then when could the last of those stop forming and burn out? This is of course all based on the Big bang theory,which is not the only theory nor the only possibility. If you decide to listen to the minority not the majority this theory too could be overturned Just because science is seldom ever settled on hardly anything to everyone's agreement does not mean we can't use sensible evidence based projections. Now if everyone does agree on something in science, it will probably be wrong. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: G is not a constant. It is entropic acceleration. It is dependent upon the concentration of entropy in that area of space. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde Moon gravitational field varies widely, much higher around some craters. Apollo missions had to take into account the varying gravitational acceleration as they orbited the moon else it would throw them off. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/grail/news/grail20121205.html See the ball would not bounce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY1ITVF6tfc In the end gravity is the collapse of baryonic matter due to dark matter passing though it. Time also collapses on the surface of dark matter. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: I wrote: His calculation was off by roughly factor of two, but our knowledge of the sun's distance has improved immeasurably since then, and we also know the mass of the earth more accurately. I should say we know the gravitational constant G more accurately. In the first approximation you ignore the mass of the planet. Strictly speaking the sun and planets orbit around their common centers of gravity, which must be very complicated indeed. - Jed
