Salutatio Mark!
11-Mar-98, Mark Bloss wrote to Dennis Menard
          Subject: Time and Again
 RM>> I do not find this statement very accurate, because what has
 RM>> actually been happening is they observe, conclude, then look for
 RM>> support for their conclusion.  That is a far stretch form
 RM>> observing, theorizing,
 DM>> Forgive me for this brief interruption, Richard:
 DM>> Latest observations indicate expansion of the universe is
 DM>> `accelerating!' It is easy enough to check out; all major news
 DM>> sources carried the story.
 MB> That's indeed strange.  I hate to come to the point where I must
 MB> contradict you - but latest observations have indeed demonstrated
 MB> without reservation that the Universe's expansion has been slowing
 MB> down.  It does move pretty fast though.
Two separate groups, Mark.  Two separate conclusions.  Now if we include
"POINT 1" (as stated in my message to Dennis) there are three groups, 
three results.  So, I am forced to conclude that they really don't know 
JACK about any sort of expansion.  All the data seems to make sense on 
their own, but held up to each other they contradict each other.
 DM>> The first effect of this information is the resurrection, wholly
 DM>> intact, of Einstein's long deceased `cosmological constant' and
 DM>> the possibility of that `UNlooked for' and `UNexpected' spectre
 DM>> of the mythological `5th force.'
 MB> Hardly.  Einstein himself rejected this idea of his own, admitting
 MB> he was wrong - because the Universe was found not to be _static_
 MB> at all. If the universe is not static (and it isn't) then there is
 MB> no 5th force: a repellent to gravity keeping matter from falling
 MB> in on itself.  The only "5th force" needed to keep gravity in
 MB> check, is momentum, and it's hardly a 5th force, or "cosmological
 MB> constant" that we have _not_ observed.  It is the force of the
 MB> original blast.  
     
Correction:  assumed blast.  It is a theory, not fact and it should not 
be treated as fact.
 MB> This is very much accepted in the consensus, and
 MB> its discovery (the expansion) can be followed backwards -
 MB> demonstrating a point at which all matter in the universe was at a
 MB> singularity.  
 
How do they account for that huge chuck of the universe doing what it is
not supposed to according to their theory?  Is it ignored, and swept under
the rug in hopes that the problem will go away by itself?
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------