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.

• Re: Re: Read this - bruce - February 7, 2001 - 00:42 UTC
  • Re: Re: Re: Read this - yanniru - February 8, 2001 - 16:42 UTC
• Gravity. - alexander - February 7, 2001 - 21:02 UTC
  • Re: Gravity. - yanniru - February 8, 2001 - 16:35 UTC
    • Re: Re: Gravity. - alexander - February 8, 2001 - 18:17 UTC