Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OT Probably controversial, Off line

Subject: [OM] Re: OT Probably controversial, Off line
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:52:16 -0800
Hi, Donald.

Off line to keep my pledge.

These things are probably not far from speculation or a parlor game  
for very smart guys, the reason for my smiley face.  I have my own  
problems with the concept of dark energy and dark matter. I find it  
easier to accept the speculation from a cosmologist in London that  
the speed of light is only constant now and was very different at the  
beginning of the universe. It would explain a lot of puzzling things  
like the apparent acceleration of the universe and would not need the  
dark matter and dark energy suppositions to explain things.

Big bang is science. It is just the hypothesis stage, not a theory or  
a law,  and a way to focus the attention on whether it is or it  
isn't. It will be instantly discarded the second something explains  
things better. My astronomy club gets a few of these guys as speakers  
from Cal Tech and they have given up the idea of a reversal of  
expansion and what they called the Big Crunch, repeating forever. Now  
they seem to think things will just expand forever and if anyone was  
around(there wouldn't be because old Sol would have gone supernova by  
that time) they would see the stars and constellations wink out one  
by one as they get farther away. Cold dead universe running down.  
Apparently some recent Hubble Telescope experiments confirm the idea  
of dark matter. Pah. I say.  But what do I know. My formal physics  
education ended in 1961 and I really did not understand quantum  
mechanics very well then, I confess.

But I think we will pin down climatology a lot sooner than the  
origins of the universe. All indications are that we had better.



Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA




On Feb 26, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Donald wrote:

>
> Big Bang ain't science. Since when was dividing by zero scientific, or
> even mathematical? Reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Even Hubble didn't think Redshift was a Doppler effect, which is how
> this whole farce began. Ever heard of the Fingers of God..?



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz