On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 06:04:35 GMT, Stryger1 wrote:

Pardon the top posting but my comments are pretty general here. First
of all, I am new to the group so I would like to establish my credentials so
you know how much weight to put to my words.

I have no academic credentials to speak of. I'm a failed mechanical
engineering student who never made it past first semester calculus. I have
a BS degree in Television/Radio Production and at age 36, I am now in the
finance industry (go figure). I am interested in this subject matter,
however, and try to follow it from time to time.


You do have common sense, don't you?
Astronomers do not invent things they only discover stuff that is already
there,
for all of us to see.


My point/question is does thermodynamics really have a role here or is it a
tool for analysis?

It is supposed to be the basis of our Universe.
W/o these laws nothing in the flow of energies makes any sense.
Indeed even the Perpetuum Mobile would be a possibility.

It is my understanding that the CURRENT belief is that
the Universe is expanding and it will continue to expand.

"Believe" is not supposed to be a part in this.
We talk about knowing or not knowing, theory or fact.
Believe is something for Churches.


"Everything we know about chemistry is
wrong, but it works so we use it."
The same seems true for physics.

My Prof. told me that the main difference between Chemistry and Physics is
that
the later one can be explored by reasoning, while the first one has to be
traversed
via blowing stuff up all the time :-)


We continue to make observations and refine our theories.

Agree with that.

Does the expansion of the
Universe actually have to have it's causes rooted in the Newtonian and
Einsteinian physics we currently understand?

For Newton the Universe was constant.
It had to be as he had no understanding of 4th+ dimensions or space time
curvatures. In Newton's Universe objects can accellerate w/o limitations,
time is always constant, and the mass of an object never changes.

Einstein's Universe has to be dynamic (the old guy first didn't want to
accept
that one himself), as the very characteristics of an object depend on that
object's
location within the space time continuum.
For Newton, gravity was a constant force.
For Einstein, gravity itself doesn't even exist.
It is an illusion. It is the mass of an object that curves space and the
curved space
dictates to the object how it has to move.
Where Newton saw the Apple fall straight to the ground, Einstein saw the
Apple
follow the space that had been curved by the mass of Earth.

By the way, I'm unable to find my original posting. Has it been removed or is
my
News Reader at fault here?

Greetings
Morenga