Then I can jump in with my bias....

From: george <blighcapn.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:07:14 -0500

Ron,
 
It seems most logical, to me anyway, that the Universe is truly infinite
in time and space. Nothing
created it, it will never end, and that is more logical, to me, than
arising from nothingness.
 
The whole modern concept of big bang etc. is mostly based on Hubble's
red shift.
When I read articles about the cosmos' origins and recent astronomy
discoveries,
I keep imagining immense distances and all kinds of possible
ATTENUATIONS of light and gravity
from distances that we haven't seen. At least not yet Gravity from
further reaches of the same U slows
light photons and therefore RED SHIFTS the light. I know, the same
general gravity should act
the same everywhere and therefore not attenuate, but I can imagine a
relative kind of attenuation
because the light or gravity photon or wave does become affected by all
sorts of local gravities
on its way to us. Why not just like the way light is bent around Mercury
or gravity by Jupiter?
The immense distances would allow for multiple interactions and a
gradual slowing or red shift.
 
So we don't need the big bang. The church likes it because it allows for
a creator.
 
And the missing energy or mass or dark matter..
Why not just our parallel universe operating in a kind of 180 opposite
direction from ours.
Where else would those positrons and other fleeting particles have to
go? Into our sister Universe, I
would guess.
 
I have been looking for a forum to express these views....and since I
know of no one else..
Everything-list people might be it.
 
I now humbly wait for rebuttals and offers to go elsewhere.
 
George
Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 17:10:00 PDT