Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Read This

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on February 6, 2001 14:00:09 UTC

I have read it and I think you have been snookered in two ways.

1 The total number of photons in the universe is constant as admitted in the reading.
But the energy possessed by each photon decreases linearly as the universe expands, also admitted in the reading. It follows that the total energy in the light of the universe is decreasing.

2. No self-respecting scientist today thinks the background cosmic radiation contributes to omega. Not now, not ever. So the background cosmic radiation is not the solution to the omega problem.

Since we are here today, omega had to be one or very close during the lifetime of the universe. I have yet to see any physics that says why that is so. Inflation says it started that way. Astronomical observations say it is still that way. But particle physics as far as I can tell does not say why.

It's like the vacuum energy problem. Physics is off by 120 orders of magnitude there. So there is plenty of energy available for balancing the universe. But we do not, or at least I do not understand the physics that makes it happen.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins