Alan,

I’ve just lost track of an hour or more reading Langan. And I must I’m extremely disappointed that you don't see whose ideas Langan's resemble.

Of course Dick and Langan have models putatively better at describing (or, dare I say, defining) reality. But comparing Langan's brilliance to Stafford's idiocy is unjust!

Find that link to Yanniru’s article (on the paranormal-interest page, regarding axions), and you’ll see a whole lot more similarities in train-of-thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However, I’d like to pat my own back. No, I don’t have any “theory” to offer, but I have independently arrived at something Langan describes as conspansion. Without getting too far into it, let’s look at one quote from Langan:

>>>”conspansion consists of two alternating phases of matter and energy, inner expansion as an IED (Inner Expansional Domain) at the rate c, and requantization as an event-component. . . apparent “expansion” (from an interior vantage) is actually a relative shrinkage of content (from a global vantage).”

(from http://www.megasociety.net/Noesis2.2/CTMUDiscussionVI.asp )

This is an idea I pushed on Dick (and Alexander) on more than one occasion. Sure, my expression of this paradigm was non-mathematical, but here is an example:

>>>“In my view, time is composed of specific intervals somehow tied to the differential between an object's mass and its motion. . . in some, heretofore undefined way, the universe exerts an inward 'rule' (gravity) and an outward 'rule' (who knows -- expansion?) on everything. The matter/energy duality of matter is somehow commensurate with a differential between (1) a particle submitting to the inward rule, and (2) the particle approaching a sort of 'escape velocity' from the outward rule (c). Space-time intervals are the backdrop against which all matter maintains some sort of balance between these two extremes.”

(from http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/12325.shtml?base=600 )

Of course I shouldn’t have to tell you how stupid Dick said my idea was.

Now, I'm not saying I’m as perceptive as Langan, but I did arrive at my description (quoted above) independently of Langan’s defitnion of conspansion. And it makes me feel pretty darned good.

Thanks! :)

-LH