[Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

Wed Dec 8 16:02:02 CST 2010

My article attached

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of James Wiegel
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:00 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

I would like to see . . .

Jim

It takes a lot of courage to show your dreams to someone else Erma Bombeck 

Jim Wiegel
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com

Upcoming public course opportunities from Partners in Participation:
ToP Facilitation Methods, Feb 15-16, May 17-18, Sept 20-21, 2011
Facilitation Graphics, Mar 15, 2011
ToP Strategic Planning, Nov 8-9, 2011
The AZ Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Jan 7, 2011
Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program
is available in Phoenix in 2011-12. Program begins on Oct 12-14, 2011. See
website for further details.

--- On Wed, 12/8/10, Herman Greene <hfgreene at mindspring.com> wrote:

From: Herman Greene <hfgreene at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 2:53 PM

I have written an essay about this. If anyone would care to receive it, let
me know. I also have a paper by a physicist that describes alternatives to
the Big Bang and how no theory fits all the data. I can send that to anyone
who requests a copy as well.

Herman

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Jack Gilles
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:26 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

Dear Laurel,

Just to share with you and others that there are other alternative
understandings.  There are many scientists who do not "buy" into the Big
Bang theory at all.  There is a highly respected group who have talked that
we live in a "steady state" universe with continuous creation and
destruction of galaxies.  The "red shift" that is one of the "proofs" cited
for the Big Bang theory can be explained in other ways that do not have the
distant galaxies receding at ever increasing speeds.  I know that this is
counter to the CW, but I, for one, am a follower of the steady state
universe.  This is a very complex and highly scientific argument, but just
to let you know that there are other explanations that do not require exotic
solutions.   For those who might be interested in this other view they can
contact me, but I don't think this is the forum for exploring theories, but
I do appreciate your reflection on the awesome mystery we are a part of.

Jack

On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:46 AM, LAURELCG at aol.com wrote:

Editorial

Before the Boom

Published: November 30, 2010

New York Times 

Astronomers and astrophysicists have given us insight into what happened in
the first trillionths-of-a-second after the Big Bang, nearly 14 billion
years ago. But the current cosmological hypothesis is that before the Big
Bang there was nothing. 

Now Roger Penrose, the eminent British mathematician, is arguing that there
is physical evidence that may predate the Big Bang. In a recent paper, he
and his co-author, the physicist V. G. Gurzadyan, describe a pattern of
concentric circles detected against the universal backdrop of cosmic
microwave radiation generated by the Big Bang. These circles, they say, may
be gravitational waves generated by collisions of superbig black holes
before the Big Bang. 

The two scientists go even further, claiming that the evidence also suggests
that our universe may "be but one aeon in a (perhaps unending) succession of
such aeons." What we think of as our "universe" may simply be one link in a
chain of universes, each beginning with a big bang and ending in a way that
sends detectable gravitational waves into the next universe. 

The argument is highly controversial. But if the circles the two scientists
have detected stand up to further examination - if they're not the result of
noise or instrumental error - it could radically change the way we think
about our universe. And the notion is no more radical than that of some
cosmologists who argue that our universe is only one in a multiverse - a
possibly infinite number of co-existing, but undetectable, universes. 

The question is: What do we do with these possibilities? Our answer is to
marvel at them and be reminded, once again, that we live in a universe -
however we define it - that contains more wonders than we can begin to
imagine. 

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3304 - Release Date: 12/08/10

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3304 - Release Date: 12/08/10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20101208/a74fb2dd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Universe in Universe Story.Final.2008-08-04.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20101208/a74fb2dd/attachment-0001.pdf>