rebel wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...


Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to
justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad
effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli


Hi Luigi,

There must be a lot of assumptions going into the current view that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Are the right
interpretations being made? I wonder how solid this current conclusion
really is?

Or is the Big Simulation not simulating distant objects realistically,
thus leading us astray?

Double-A
////////////////////////
Why consider there to be a giant blackhole surely there is no real evidence
to assume this.
The universe could have condensed out of material in the aether and formed
large enough bodies to allow for a violent explosion, so the big bang could
well have been a series of bangs, a continous renewal of the universe.
Does anyone really know the required size of a Blackhole before it becomes
unstable,


I've never heard anyone else propose that they will, except Bert.


we have plenty of huge examples, but surely the nature of the
Blackhole is keep the evidence to itself, and no doubt until one explodes
this will be the first and only sign.
Or is Hawkins correct when he says, Blackholes are depleted by radiation.


I would place my money on Hawkins at this point that black hole-like
objects radiate away.

Double-A