Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: universe expanding, not from any particular spot



John Denker wrote:

It should be obvious from symmetry that the universe has
no preferred spot from which the expansion emanates.

How can anybody disagree with this? I was not referring
to the universe, only to an expending bolloon. Newton's
"absulute" frame of references is only an approximation.
It is OK for balloons we can make on earth. A balloon
model (of George Gamow ?) is very useful but ...

Lisa, thanks for asking a good question. When I learned
about the "planetary nature" of atoms (at the age of 18 or
so) I was imagining a possibility that people like us may
live on tiny electrons. And that the entire universe may
be a gigantic "electron" on a much larger scale. I do not
think this was linked with what I knew about physics.

Many people are excited about astrophysical speculations
and it is our job to show that such speculations must be
based on physics. That is what teachers are for. Right?

Am I paraphrasing Brian Whatcott? who wrote:

I would not be overwhelmed if, in the long passage of
time, some fine mind captures a constructive view of the
universe that permits or demands some repetitious cycling
of the materials of the universal fabric, and even conceives
evidence to support that idea.

Evidence is the crucial component: without it one has merely
a belief system or religion - such as the believers in gravity
waves or quarks currently hold. (This is not quite fair - one
can easily argue that these constructs are supported by evidence
of the kind that Sherlock Holmes might call the 'dogs that do
not bark'.)

Ludwik Kowalski