Big Bang or Big Splat?

Joseph Lazio wrote:

In contrast, the spatial extent of the Universe could be infinite. If
so, it always has been infinite.

Another question, if I may. If the extent is infinite does
that imply that there are guaranteed to be other regions (an
inifinite number possibly) the size of our visible universe
that have the identical quantum state? I seem to remember a
Scientific American article that asserted this.

Further, does such a universe guarantee regions the size of
our visible universe which exhaust the possible quantum
states of such a region. You know where I'm going, I'm
sure. If this is true then the ultimate anthropic principle
seems to be that we are here seeing what we see simply
because it is possible. The only mystery that would be left
relative to our existence is the infinitude itself that
provides for it.

Further yet, can symmetries be broken differently in
different regions and if so does that say that all possible
tunings, including the fine one we find ourselves in, must
exist somewhere, somewhen?


Thanks,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Right, nothing can "become" infinite. It was a leading question. We are
left, it seems, with the idea that if the universe is infinite in extent,
it went spatially from nothing to infinite in the initial instant. That's
really hard to come to any kind of grips with.


No, the theory is the universe has always been infinite.

wrote:

[...]

Assuming our universe itself contains black holes, to
model this mathematically, one would presumably have
to start with a set of general relativity equations
for the outer black hole, and find some endomorphic
structure to these, i.e. express them in coordinates
which can be parametrized by other coordinates that
themselves in certain ranges satisfy the original
equations (or at least equations consistent with GR).

"endomorphism" isn't the right word here, because it
implies a composition rule that is carried over by the
mapping.

A better phrase might be "self-similar" transformation.
I believe these are part of the relativity theorists'
armoury, although from what I can gather they are used
currently only to exploit fairly obvious and large scale
symmetries such as overall spherical symmetry rather than
subtle bifurcation properties that would need exploring
to model the situation I described.

wrote:

A better phrase might be "self-similar" transformation.
I believe these are part of the relativity theorists'
armoury [...]

Me yet again (sorry). In case anyone is interested,
here's what looks like an excellent reference for this:


http://users.math.uni-potsdam.de/~oe...S/selfsim1.htm

"Self-similarity in general relativity";
B J Carr and A A Coley;
1999

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

The problem here is that many people (based in part on poor
descriptions from my learned colleagues) think that the initial
singularity in the Big Bang model was a point in space. It wasn't.
It was a point in time.

But what can be said about space at that time. If there was no time
before that point, was there no space either?

Correct. It went directly from "no space or time"
to "time is ticking and space is infinite" by some
process which is not yet understood. It did pass
GO but did not collect UKP 200.

George

George Dishman wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


But what can be said about space at that time. If there
was no time before that point, was there no space either?

Correct. It went directly from "no space or time"
to "time is ticking and space is infinite" by some
process which is not yet understood. It did pass
GO but did not collect UKP 200.

Referring to my posts on mass inflation below in this thread,
perhaps the "Get out of Jail" card would be a better analogy.

Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by
a force of gravity?
That question is what this article will answer.
..

SUMMARY OF PAST HISTORY:
The precise measurements of planetary motion by
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and observations by
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) were plotted by
Johann Kepler (1571-1630 ) resulting in Kepler's
Three laws:
1. The planets move about the sun in elliptical orbits
with the sun as one focus of the ellipse.
2. The straight line joining the sun and a given planet
sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the period of revolution of the planet
about the sun is proportional to the cube of the mean
distance from the sun. t^2 = K L^3
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1721 ) concluded that it was a
force F = mL/t^2 = k m_1 x m_2 /L^2 that caused the
orbital motion.

Allen C. Goodrich defined the cause as a conservation of
total energy.
The concentration of the Kinetic Energy of mass
increases as the Potential Energy of the universe
decreases with the expansion of the universe at
constant total energy.
Planets orbit the sun in a state of equiliurium,where
no change to total energy occurs.
At Equilibrium the sum of kinetic and potential energies
is a constant. A positive change of kinetic energy equals
a negative change of potential energy.
+ delta m (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - delta G (M-m)m / L .
or Delta e (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K e^2 / 4 pi E_o L.
if a charge is present.

The mass of the human body, on the earrth's surface,
is not in an equilibrium orbit. If a force ,such as the
surface of the earth , was not present, the body would
not stay where it is. IT TRIES TO MOVE TO AN
EQUILIBRIUM ORBIT. No change of total energy.
This force is what is felt to rqual
gravitational force. A gravitational force is not needed
in a state of orbital equilibrium.

Galileo demonstrated the effect of gravitational force.
Newton assumed that a gravitational force between all
masses pulled them together. Was this a correct
assumption? Einstein and many other scientists felt
that there must be more to gravitation than an attraction
at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.A change of kinetic energy
is not always the result of a force.
In an equilibrium system at constant total
energy, kinetic energy can increase as potential energy
decreases, with the total energy remaining constant..

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then?

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy is the result of an
acceleration.
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
((total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant)).
m is any mass say that of the earth.
Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium
orbits where the total energy is constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+ X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 +
Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant.
(In the absence of a charge)
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are nearly equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.



GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)

1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon

1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997

CLICK BLACK AND BLUE PAGES BELOW )
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.

ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED
IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich
FORCE OF GRAVITATION DOES NOT EXIST.

If One calculates the kinetic and potential energies of the planets
relative to the rest of the effective universe, using the formulas
kinetic energy = m(2 pi L )^2/t^2 and potential energy = -G(M-m) m/L,
M is the gm mass of the sun and all planets; m ,L,and t are the gm
mass, mean radial cm. distance, and orbital time in sec, of one of the
planets. ( THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD, it explains the
T.R.Young-two slit interference pattern which involves the rest of the
universe ).
One will find that they are of nearly equal magnitude but opposite in
sign.
One will also find that their sum is a constant, the equilibrium energy
for the particular planet.This is the energy that remains constant as
the universe expands. its potintial energy continually decreasing and
its kinetic energy continually increasing. Only at the orbital distance
will a small change of kinetic energy equal an opposite change of
potential energy.This is the total energy that requires no force , with
its necessary acceleration and change of total energy, to maintain it
as a constant.No force of gravity is necessary to explain the motion of
the planets in the expanding universe. The planets motion around the
center of the rest of the universe at the specific distance L is the
equilibrium condition for constant total energy of the orbiting planet
in the expanding universe.

THE SOLAR SAIL
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich

The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States,
for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional
evidence
that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon
takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does
not have mass ( kinetic energy).
A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the
reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes
place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the
black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as
well as
direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is
evidence
that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does
not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass
of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density
(time ), no
potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding
universe, in the absence of a mass..

Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by
a force of gravity?
That question is what this article will answer.
..

SUMMARY OF PAST HISTORY:
The precise measurements of planetary motion by
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and observations by
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) were plotted by
Johann Kepler (1571-1630 ) resulting in Kepler's
Three laws:
1. The planets move about the sun in elliptical orbits
with the sun as one focus of the ellipse.
2. The straight line joining the sun and a given planet
sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the period of revolution of the planet
about the sun is proportional to the cube of the mean
distance from the sun. t^2 = K L^3
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1721 ) concluded that it was a
force F = mL/t^2 = k m_1 x m_2 /L^2 that caused the
orbital motion.

Allen C. Goodrich defined the cause as a conservation of
total energy.
The concentration of the Kinetic Energy of mass
increases as the Potential Energy of the universe
decreases with the expansion of the universe at
constant total energy.
Planets orbit the sun in a state of equiliurium,where
no change to total energy occurs.
At Equilibrium the sum of kinetic and potential energies
is a constant. A positive change of kinetic energy equals
a negative change of potential energy.
+ delta m (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - delta G (M-m)m / L .
or Delta e (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K e^2 / 4 pi E_o L.
if a charge is present.

The mass of the human body, on the earrth's surface,
is not in an equilibrium orbit. If a force ,such as the
surface of the earth , was not present, the body would
not stay where it is. IT TRIES TO MOVE TO AN
EQUILIBRIUM ORBIT. No change of total energy.
This force is what is felt to rqual
gravitational force. A gravitational force is not needed
in a state of orbital equilibrium.

Galileo demonstrated the effect of gravitational force.
Newton assumed that a gravitational force between all
masses pulled them together. Was this a correct
assumption? Einstein and many other scientists felt
that there must be more to gravitation than an attraction
at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.A change of kinetic energy
is not always the result of a force.
In an equilibrium system at constant total
energy, kinetic energy can increase as potential energy
decreases, with the total energy remaining constant..

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then?

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy is the result of an
acceleration.
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
((total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant)).
m is any mass say that of the earth.
Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium
orbits where the total energy is constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+ X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 +
Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant.
(In the absence of a charge)
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are nearly equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.



GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)

1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon

1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997

CLICK BLACK AND BLUE PAGES BELOW )
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.

ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED
IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich
FORCE OF GRAVITATION DOES NOT EXIST.

If One calculates the kinetic and potential energies of the planets
relative to the rest of the effective universe, using the formulas
kinetic energy = m(2 pi L )^2/t^2 and potential energy = -G(M-m) m/L,
M is the gm mass of the sun and all planets; m ,L,and t are the gm
mass, mean radial cm. distance, and orbital time in sec, of one of the
planets. ( THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD, it explains the
T.R.Young-two slit interference pattern which involves the rest of the
universe ).
One will find that they are of nearly equal magnitude but opposite in
sign.
One will also find that their sum is a constant, the equilibrium energy
for the particular planet.This is the energy that remains constant as
the universe expands. its potintial energy continually decreasing and
its kinetic energy continually increasing. Only at the orbital distance
will a small change of kinetic energy equal an opposite change of
potential energy.This is the total energy that requires no force , with
its necessary acceleration and change of total energy, to maintain it
as a constant.No force of gravity is necessary to explain the motion of
the planets in the expanding universe. The planets motion around the
center of the rest of the universe at the specific distance L is the
equilibrium condition for constant total energy of the orbiting planet
in the expanding universe.

THE SOLAR SAIL
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich

The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States,
for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional
evidence
that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon
takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does
not have mass ( kinetic energy).
A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the
reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes
place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the
black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as
well as
direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is
evidence
that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does
not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass
of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density
(time ), no
potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding
universe, in the absence of a mass..

"BC" == Bob Cain writes:

BC Joseph Lazio wrote:

This statement fails to distinguish between the observable
Universe, which did indeed once fit inside a space smaller than
the head of a pin, and the entire Universe, which may very well
be infinite in extent.

BC How long would it take such a universe to become infinite?

The Universe didn't "become" infinite in spatial extent (if in fact
it is).

BC Right, nothing can "become" infinite. It was a leading question.
BC We are left, it seems, with the idea that if the universe is
BC infinite in extent, it went spatially from nothing to infinite in
BC the initial instant.

Not really. As we currently understand physics, we cannot describe
the "initial instant." Rather we extrapolate backward in time. For
extrapolations beyond a certain point in time, our extrapolations
become increasingly less certain.

A simple naive extrapolation would indicate that at a finite time in
the past, the temperature and the density of the Universe became
infinitely large everywhere. That's the initial singularity or the
"instant" of the Big Bang. That's also what I mean by, if the
Universe is infinite, then it's always been infinite.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"BC" == Bob Cain writes:

BC Joseph Lazio wrote:

In contrast, the spatial extent of the Universe could be infinite.
If so, it always has been infinite.

BC Another question, if I may. If the extent is infinite does that
BC imply that there are guaranteed to be other regions (...) the size
BC of our visible universe that have the identical quantum state? I
BC seem to remember a Scientific American article that asserted this.

This is starting to veer more into the philosophical rather than
scientific, but I think so.

If the Universe really is spatially infinite, then I think one is
forced to the conclusion that there are infinite numbers of me typing
out this response right now.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html