Re: The fundamendalist constant

[Brian Whatcott <betwys@DIRECTVINTERNET.COM>]

At 09:46 PM 9/7/02, Dave Bowman you wrote:

> Regarding Brian W.'s shameless request:
> >... let me ask what would be the effect
> >of a universal age of 1.2E13 years (i.e. about 1000X the age
> >currently estimated) and assuming other parameters which do
> >not place the present on an extremum of any kind.
>
> It is possible to find the answer to Brian's request.

/snip extremely interesting models, for which, thank you/

> >  If some parameter becomes evidently untenable for these conditions,
> >I would like to think that this parameter is one that needs further study!
>
> So are you hoping that only one such parameter becomes untenable?
> Why?  And why would you think it would require further study if
> having a 12 trillion year old universe makes such a parameter
> untenable?  Do you have some other prior reason for wanting the
> universe to be 12 trillion years old?  If so, what is that reason?
>
> Dave Bowman
> dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu


I may have mentioned before, that  when I look at successive
 historical estimates of the age of the universe, given as
6000 yrs,  6 million years, 6-12 billion years, I am hungry
to hear news of  the next model: a model which can give the
next factor of one thousand increase.
As you can see, I am supposing that the rate of increase
of such estimates is about X1000 per century.
So I am predisposed to look askance at the metaphysical
parameter(s) which would be said to preclude such an increase
 in age, though the next hop may take most of this century
 to mature, I suppose.....



Brian Whatcott
  Altus OK                      Eureka!