A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Looking into the past with a telescope



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 28th 07, 08:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Looking into the past with a telescope



On Jan 28, 8:37 pm, Greg Crinklaw
wrote:
Starboard wrote:
First I'd like to state that what I am going to describe will be
described from a perspective that did not exist. I state the obvious
only because earlier, Greg shot me down for my metaphor about a guy
watching the big bang expand. He quickly stated that such a condition
was impossible. Of course I knew that I was only trying to conduct
a little thought experiment. Much the same, the analogy of the
balloon. After all, people cannot exist as 2D creatures right? That's
the equivalent of starting a metaphor with, "assume a cow is
spherical."I think you need to stop being so stuck on your own view and instead try

to understand the one people are presenting you with. Please try to let
go of your preconceptions. A good popular book on cosmology might help
a lot. As you read it, come back here and ask questions to clarify things.

To answer your question above, the 2D world is an analogy. Don't
confuse this with a model of the universe--it isn't. It's just an
analogy meant to explain a concept. It is *not* the same as your cow
assumption!

As a 3D being you understand the world in 3 dimensions. But what if
there are more dimensions than you can perceive? What would that look
like? The answer is that you'd observe some odd things about the
universe--things that don't easily fit into your 3D view, like a
universe that expands away from any point within it, and has no center.


The guy can enjoy Albert's orginal 1920 explanation for 'warped
space' at a time before galaxies were observationally observed, -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html

Now Albert's idea for 'bending space' was the lament that light
leaving stars would go to waste hence if you bend space....,in any
case you can read the hilaroius reasons in the preceding chapter -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished. "

So you get to see Albert reject the possibility of stellar galactic
islands,you get to see his reasons for 'bending' a non geometric term
called 'space' and you get to see a bunch of people reach conclusions
that match a 1898 science diction novel by H.G. Well's

'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space." 1898 WELLS

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

As for Newton who started the mess,at least he never called for or
used an idea of a 'universal center',that was not his style and he is
actually explicit about things -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

If you can find a place in Newton's agenda,and he was an
opportunist,that states he requires a universal center then good luck
to you,the one thing about Newton that he was far cleverer than you or
any of those early 20th century fopes.






The 2D analogy is there merely as a means of investigating how more
dimensions than can be sensed can produce a universe with some of these
odd characteristics. You have to imagine a 2D being who knows nothing
beyond the surface of the balloon. The entire universe is the surface
only. So when the balloon is blown up, where is the center? The answer
is twofold: for the 2D being it has no center. But for you as a 3D
being you can see that the center lies in a dimension beyond that of the
surface of the balloon. What is obvious to the 3D being is not apparent
at all to the 2D being. Her only hope is to note some odd things about
her universe and postulate more dimensions to explain them.

Try to imagine this analogy from the point of view of the 2D being.
Think about questions like, what would they observe if someone from
outside blew up the balloon? If they started out in one direction and
traveled far enough, they would come back to where they started. That
would seem like magic. So how would they explain that scientifically?
But please keep in mind that the universe is NOT the surface of a
balloon. Again, it is the concept of what more dimensions than can be
perceived might look like that is important. Once that concept is
understood, then understand that in our own universe there are some
weird things that can't easily be explained in 3D. But postulating more
dimensions explains them neatly.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye


Ads
  #32  
Old January 28th 07, 09:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Looking into the past with a telescope



On Jan 28, 8:44 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in ...
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct.If the BB is correct, then every place in the 3D universe was

once co-located with the center. So there is no unique place
that one can call The Center, since every place equally
fulfills the role.


I love all this fuss.

"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as
a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to
us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is
infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter,
although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average
everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel
through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed
stars of approximately the same kind and density."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Does anybody realise that when that was written in 1920, the
observational /magnification guys still had to discover stellar
galactic islands.

The next paragraph makes the whole thing hilarious,as least for this
astronomer -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."

Even now it is still just too funny and that all this fuss about
expanding balloons and whatnot,the theoretical freaks and the
magnification guys just turned swarm of stars to swarm of galaxies and
kept right on going as if nothing happened.

Keep on talking,I love this stuff

  #33  
Old January 28th 07, 09:20 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Looking into the past with a telescope



On Jan 28, 7:04 pm, (Brian Tung) wrote:
Steve Paul wrote:
Uh oh... I'm getting in way over my head here..


What is "stuff", if not matter and energy?Space-time.



"There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three
planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to
draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the
latter, "

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

That statement could be found in any science fiction section of a
bookstore in 1898.

This following statement is found on a Nasa website and a billion
dollar satellite sent to prove it -

"What does the word 'spacetime' mean? (Question 42) -


It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a
single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All
physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and
time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity
theories
were all about. "

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Now how a science fiction novel morphed into a cheerfully believable
concept promoted as a 'supreme human achievement should frighten the
life out of genuine people into taking action but unfortunately that
has not happened yet.

If you really want to believe that if you travel real fast that the
universe will change for you then go for it but does there really need
to be so many people who believe this exotic fantasy.




--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html


  #34  
Old January 28th 07, 09:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

Davoud:
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct.


Greg Neill:
If the BB is correct, then every place in the 3D universe was
once co-located with the center. So there is no unique place
that one can call The Center, since every place equally
fulfills the role.


I have seen this argument in various guises. In /my/ /mind/ it breaks
down because of mixed verb tenses. "Every place /was/ /once/ co-located
in the center." OK, but "every place" departed the center when
space-time expanded, leaving the center behind. These "places" did not
all carry the center with them so that each one is now a center of its
own. Such a place -- a region that was denser than average due to a
quantum fluctuation and later became the core of a galaxy -- may be a
local center, but it is not the Universal center -- in /my/ /mind/ .

Simple common sense says that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere
has no center -- I figured that out for myself while playing with a
solid-color, featureless rubber ball as a child -- but if you look
beyond the surface, inside the sphere, you will find a center.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
  #35  
Old January 28th 07, 09:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

"Davoud" wrote in message ...
Davoud:
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct.


Greg Neill:
If the BB is correct, then every place in the 3D universe was
once co-located with the center. So there is no unique place
that one can call The Center, since every place equally
fulfills the role.


I have seen this argument in various guises. In /my/ /mind/ it breaks
down because of mixed verb tenses. "Every place /was/ /once/ co-located
in the center." OK, but "every place" departed the center when
space-time expanded, leaving the center behind. These "places" did not
all carry the center with them so that each one is now a center of its
own. Such a place -- a region that was denser than average due to a
quantum fluctuation and later became the core of a galaxy -- may be a
local center, but it is not the Universal center -- in /my/ /mind/ .


Your difficulty with this seems to stem from your adhering to
a model where things exploded out from a center into a
pre-existing space or void. This is not the case in the BB
model where space itself expanded. There was nothing at
all (not even space) "outside".


Simple common sense says that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere
has no center -- I figured that out for myself while playing with a
solid-color, featureless rubber ball as a child -- but if you look
beyond the surface, inside the sphere, you will find a center.


That's fine if you have the ability to look beyond the surface.
If you can't, then you're confined to looking on the surface.
The same thing holds for us, who can only point to things inside
the universe. There is no direction in all of space that we can
point to that is in the direction of a unique center in 3D space,
yet every direction points to the Big Bang (since we look back
in time as we look further out).


  #36  
Old January 28th 07, 10:02 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,189
Default Looking into the past with a telescope



On Jan 28, 9:51 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in ...
Davoud:
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct.


Greg Neill:
If the BB is correct, then every place in the 3D universe was
once co-located with the center. So there is no unique place
that one can call The Center, since every place equally
fulfills the role.


I have seen this argument in various guises. In /my/ /mind/ it breaks
down because of mixed verb tenses. "Every place /was/ /once/ co-located
in the center." OK, but "every place" departed the center when
space-time expanded, leaving the center behind. These "places" did not
all carry the center with them so that each one is now a center of its
own. Such a place -- a region that was denser than average due to a
quantum fluctuation and later became the core of a galaxy -- may be a
local center, but it is not the Universal center -- in /my/ /mind/ .Your difficulty with this seems to stem from your adhering to

a model where things exploded out from a center into a
pre-existing space or void. This is not the case in the BB
model where space itself expanded. There was nothing at
all (not even space) "outside".



Simple common sense says that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere
has no center -- I figured that out for myself while playing with a
solid-color, featureless rubber ball as a child -- but if you look
beyond the surface, inside the sphere, you will find a center.That's fine if you have the ability to look beyond the surface.

If you can't, then you're confined to looking on the surface.
The same thing holds for us, who can only point to things inside
the universe. There is no direction in all of space that we can
point to that is in the direction of a unique center in 3D space,
yet every direction points to the Big Bang (since we look back
in time as we look further out).- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -


Here is the answer you are looking for -



" 'Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively
overlooked,' continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of
cheerfulness. 'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension,
though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know
they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no
difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space
except that our consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people
have got hold of the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what
they have to say about this Fourth Dimension?'"

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

This is what you get when axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry
morphs into orbital motion to an aether,remove the aether and bingo -
you get bare celestial sphere geometry.

I think the fiction which created the early 20th century concepts far
surpasses the narrative neccessities which Wells used to create a
wonderful science fiction story.

Want to know what Newton thought of aether -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of
space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the
motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means
of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores
of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would
actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is
no
solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." NEWTON

The fiction of the early 20th century was to dump 'aether' on Newton
as 'absolute space' and then reject it all over again.

I love this fiction stuff,carry on and we will take the whole thing
apart and expose where you are getting the anti-astronomical every-
point-is-the-center-of-an-expanding- universe.



  #37  
Old January 28th 07, 11:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

Davoud:
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct.


Greg Neill:
If the BB is correct, then every place in the 3D universe was
once co-located with the center. So there is no unique place
that one can call The Center, since every place equally
fulfills the role.


David:
I have seen this argument in various guises. In /my/ /mind/ it breaks
down because of mixed verb tenses. "Every place /was/ /once/ co-located
in the center." OK, but "every place" departed the center when
space-time expanded, leaving the center behind. These "places" did not
all carry the center with them so that each one is now a center of its
own. Such a place -- a region that was denser than average due to a
quantum fluctuation and later became the core of a galaxy -- may be a
local center, but it is not the Universal center -- in /my/ /mind/ .


Greg Neill:
Your difficulty with this seems to stem from your adhering to
a model where things exploded out from a center into a
pre-existing space or void. This is not the case in the BB
model where space itself expanded. There was nothing at
all (not even space) "outside".


Ah, well, you didn't read my post in its entirety. I adhere to no such
model. I conceded that the standard model is difficult for me to grasp,
as I wrote "But I can't get my mind around an immaterial edge
beyond which is nothing whatsoever, not even empty space. One
cosmologist, half joking, said 'It could be a brick wall, for all we
know.' " The latter statement eases my frustration a bit; I've heard
plenty of learned scientists say that they can't make sense out of it,
either.

Simple common sense says that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere
has no center -- I figured that out for myself while playing with a
solid-color, featureless rubber ball as a child -- but if you look
beyond the surface, inside the sphere, you will find a center.


That's fine if you have the ability to look beyond the surface.
If you can't, then you're confined to looking on the surface.
The same thing holds for us, who can only point to things inside
the universe. There is no direction in all of space that we can
point to that is in the direction of a unique center in 3D space,
yet every direction points to the Big Bang (since we look back
in time as we look further out).


Perhaps we have not yet seen far enough?

I understand that what you raise is a possibility, even if it flies in
the face of reason. Reason says that, unless the Universe is infinite
in time and extent it has a center. Among other possibilities are that
the expanding Universe left in place a point from which that expansion
began, and that the Universe (also) has a center of mass. In addition
to the balloon analogy, I envision the similar raisin bread analogy;
the raisin bread begins as a ball of dough unaffected by any outside
influence (because there is no outside.) As it expands due to internal
forces (because there is no outside) it remains a ball, and what was
the center remains the center as every single place in the bread down
to the smallest possible place (is that called the Planck distance?)
moves away from the center.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
  #38  
Old January 28th 07, 11:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:28:41 -0500, Davoud wrote:

I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct. If the
Universe exhibits perfect radial symmetry, then the center is a simple
point in three-dimensional space...


No reason except that this is inconsistent with GR, the concept of
space-time, and just about everything else theory tells us about the
Universe (much of which has held up very well to experimental
verification).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #39  
Old January 29th 07, 04:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

"Davoud" wrote in message ...


Greg Neill:
Your difficulty with this seems to stem from your adhering to
a model where things exploded out from a center into a
pre-existing space or void. This is not the case in the BB
model where space itself expanded. There was nothing at
all (not even space) "outside".


Ah, well, you didn't read my post in its entirety. I adhere to no such
model. I conceded that the standard model is difficult for me to grasp,
as I wrote "But I can't get my mind around an immaterial edge
beyond which is nothing whatsoever, not even empty space. One
cosmologist, half joking, said 'It could be a brick wall, for all we
know.' " The latter statement eases my frustration a bit; I've heard
plenty of learned scientists say that they can't make sense out of it,
either.


No, I read your post. It still appears to me that your model includes
some outside that we can point to. The BB model does not have
any edge or boundary that is reachable from within our universe
by travelling in any direction in space.


Simple common sense says that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere
has no center -- I figured that out for myself while playing with a
solid-color, featureless rubber ball as a child -- but if you look
beyond the surface, inside the sphere, you will find a center.


That's fine if you have the ability to look beyond the surface.
If you can't, then you're confined to looking on the surface.
The same thing holds for us, who can only point to things inside
the universe. There is no direction in all of space that we can
point to that is in the direction of a unique center in 3D space,
yet every direction points to the Big Bang (since we look back
in time as we look further out).


Perhaps we have not yet seen far enough?


The BB model says that there is no "far enough", as there
is no boundary in 3D space.


I understand that what you raise is a possibility, even if it flies in
the face of reason. Reason says that, unless the Universe is infinite
in time and extent it has a center.


There is no center just as there is no center on the surface of
a balloon. The center of expansion of a balloon lies outside
of the surface, and is not accessible in any way to a 2D
being living on it -- he couldn't even point to it.

Among other possibilities are that
the expanding Universe left in place a point from which that expansion
began, and that the Universe (also) has a center of mass.


For the balloon analogy, that center would lie outside of space and
time. There would be no place on the surface of the balloon that
would correspond to a center of mass.

In addition
to the balloon analogy, I envision the similar raisin bread analogy;
the raisin bread begins as a ball of dough unaffected by any outside
influence (because there is no outside.) As it expands due to internal
forces (because there is no outside) it remains a ball, and what was
the center remains the center as every single place in the bread down
to the smallest possible place (is that called the Planck distance?)
moves away from the center.


The raisin bread analogy fails to capture the essence of the BB
geometry precisely because of the fact that it presupposes that the
bread is expanding into an existing 3D space. The balloon analogy
(although itslef rather limited) does a slightly better job here, although
it requires one to extrapolate the situation from 2D to 3D.


  #40  
Old January 29th 07, 06:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brian Tung[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 755
Default Looking into the past with a telescope

Davoud wrote:
I can think of no reason why the Universe can't have a central region
in three-dimensional space if the Big Bang theory is correct. If the
Universe exhibits perfect radial symmetry, then the center is a simple
point in three-dimensional space; if, due to quantum fluctuations, the
Universe has minor bumps at its edge, like the surface of a rocky
planet, then the center in three-dimensional space would need to be
spread out; a central /region/ rather than a point.


I think you have a notion of the universe's expansion which is at
variance with the actual Big Bang theory. In the simplest case, the
universe is a 3-sphere--what you might think of geometrically as the
usual four-dimensional hypersphere. (The '3' refers to the dimension of
the hypersphere's "surface," not its interior.) By referring to the
"center" of the universe, we assume the existence of a "metric"--a
consistent ruler by which distances *not* within the actual universe
may be measured. Even so, that center is not on the hypersurface of the
hypersphere--it is in the interior. Its location cannot therefore be
specified by the three coordinates that span the universe; a fourth is
needed.

There are more complex cases, but they all involve the center not lying
on the universe itself, but somewhere else, and invariably requiring a
fourth coordinate (if in fact it exists and it is possible to specify
its location in such a way).

The problem is the edge. I can at least grasp the /concept/ of a
center. In my version of the balloon analogy the balloon is perfectly
spherical (or very nearly so, considering the above-mentioned quantum
fluctuations it doesn't need a stem because it is self-inflating.
Every point is moving away from a common center, which is where those
points started out (wrapped in a single dimension?) when the balloon
was infinitely small. But the /edge/ of the Universe? From inside the
balloon I can move to the edge and encounter a material substance that
I cannot penetrate. My balloon is transparent, and I can see what is
outside that object. But I can't get my mind around an immaterial edge
beyond which is nothing whatsoever, not even empty space. One
cosmologist, half joking, said "It could be a brick wall, for all we
know."


In the case of the balloon, the edge *is* the two-dimensional universe.
Beings in that universe cannot see "through" their universe the way you
or I can; that is a benefit conferred by our three-dimensional nature.
They are confined to looking at objects on the surface.

In the same way, we don't see a boundary to our universe, because the
things we can see are confined to the three-dimensional surface of the
four-dimensional hypersphere (in the simplest case). Our eyes don't
work perpendicular to all three familiar spatial directions, so we can't
see through our universe the way that four-dimensional beings could.

Physicists used to say that, ultimately, the Universe could and would
be explained by a few simple laws that everyone could understand at
least in a rudimentary way. I think that all hope for such an
explanation has been abandoned.


I don't think any *physicist* has seriously believed this in the last
century or so. Quantum theory pretty much defies intuitive
understanding; the best that most can hope for is to be able to perform
the mathematical manipulations well enough to get the right answer at
the end. So I suspect physicists abandoned this idea a long time ago;
probably by the time of Poincare.

String theory, Inflation, the notion
that gravity is so weak because it is Not of This World, but is just
leaking in from another dimension; the Universe may be a hologram; the
Universe may not exist at all except in our minds; the physicists
themselves don't agree on or understand this stuff.


They don't agree on the speculative stuff. The basic tenets of the
Big Bang are agreed upon by nearly all practicing cosmologists. There
is rather strong consensus on it. There are interesting phenomena that
people are trying to explain in a number of different ways, but this
divergence shouldn't be taken for fundamental disagreement on the basic
physics underlying the evolution of the universe.

Here is my one prediction, however: There will not be a Theory of
Everything that unifies gravity with the other forces. Gravity, it will
be decided, is distinct, and must be understood on its own terms.


What is the physical basis for your prediction? The reason I ask is
that it is not as though there is *no* unification between gravity and
the other three forces. There are incomplete unifications that make
some successful non-trivial predictions about high-energy particle
behavior. (These theories can be found through an assiduous Web
search.) What is lacking is a *comprehensive* unification. But the
fact that incomplete theories exist is encouraging, in my opinion.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saw it go past...... Justa Lurker Space Shuttle 9 December 11th 06 01:47 AM
Keck telescope captures Jupiter's Red Spot Jr. as it zips past planet's Great Red Spot (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 July 31st 06 02:13 AM
Blast from the past Pat Flannery History 9 August 21st 05 01:36 AM
looking to the past Mr Jherek Chamaeleo Misc 4 January 6th 04 05:13 AM
looking into the past??? download the whole internet Science 8 August 30th 03 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.