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

[Tracy Longacre]

Herman,

 

I'd be very interested in reading your essay and the physicist's. Thanks for
sending.

 

   Tracy E. Longacre

   from Ashland, OR

   +1 (415) 944-0158

   SKYPE: tlongacre

 

   Run Blog:  http://revruns.blogspot.com <http://revruns.blogspot.com/> 

   Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tlongacre/

   Want to receive monthly updates on me and my work? send an e-mail to:
telupdates-subscribe at topica.com

 

"You don't have to take God to anyone.  God is already with everyone.  So,
rather than taking the approach that you need to take the truth out to
people who need it, adopt the approach that you need to go find the truth
that others have and you are missing.  Go be evangelized."
owlrainfeathers.blogspot.com

 

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Herman Greene
Sent: 08 December 2010 13:54
To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20101209/4d565608/attachment.html>