Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR

  1. #1 My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive. If it didn't have Hubble Redshift, and CMBR, how strong would the theory still be?

    In all my objections to the BB, I've found the need to come up with some kind of alternative explanation for the observations that lead to it. How correct would the basic idea behind this counter-theory be? Any glaring flaws?


    Redshift

    Perhaps the oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that occurs inside a photon are not a perfect exchange of energy.

    After a while, a third kind of charge begins to build up. When it becomes strong enough, this charge causes the photon to emit a second photon of much longer wavelenth.

    This causes the original photon to drop to a longer wavelenth as well.


    CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)

    This is just starlight from distant stars, so far out that all of the light has degraded down to the blackbody radiation wavelenths.

    Part of this rationalization becomes easier if we assume that blackbody radiation doesn't suffer as much from the effects that cause redshift.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    The thing is, BB does have Redshift and CMBR. So your point about how strong the theory is isn't really valid.


    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Yes, but the BB requires us to rearrange the whole universe. Then, even if we do that, we're left with predicted phenomena that are even more remarkable than the observed phenomena we're supposed to be giving an explanation to.

    Sort of like how if you explain existence by believing that God created the universe, you're left with an even bigger question: where did God come from?

    Here, if you explain the hubble redshift, and CMBR by believing in the Big Bang, you're left with a plethora of even bigger questions: Where did we get a big bang from? How did matter move faster than the speed of light during those first few seconds? And, then of course, there seems to be a number of mathematicians who think the current rate of expansion would require "dark energy" of some kind.

    It seems to me that concepts like Occam's razor would preclude us from accepting any explanation that creates more phenomena than it resolves, unless we had conclusive evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive. If it didn't have Hubble Redshift, and CMBR, how strong would the theory still be?
    If evolutionary theory didn't have the fossil record and comparative anatomy where would it be?
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Redshift Perhaps the oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that occurs inside a photon are not a perfect exchange of energy.
    After a while, a third kind of charge begins to build up. When it becomes strong enough, this charge causes the photon to emit a second photon of much longer wavelenth.
    This causes the original photon to drop to a longer wavelenth as well.
    What evidence do you have that the oscillation is imperfect?
    What theoretical grounding is there for postulating this imperfection?
    What evidence is there for this third kind of charge - another force, to add to the four fundamental forces?

    The proposition seems not merely weak, but emaciated.?
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)This is just starlight from distant stars, so far out that all of the light has degraded down to the blackbody radiation wavelenths.
    Part of this rationalization becomes easier if we assume that blackbody radiation doesn't suffer as much from the effects that cause redshift.
    You offer absolutely no explanation for the deviations from uniformity of the CMBR.
    I am puzzled as to why you think blackbody radiation differs in any way from other radiation. As far as I am aware it doesn't. You seem to have misunderstood what blackbody radiation is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive.
    as a rule of thumb, your likes or dislikes of any theory have absolutely nothing to do with whether these theories are true or not
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    Forum Freshman Inevitablelity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive.
    as a rule of thumb, your likes or dislikes of any theory have absolutely nothing to do with whether these theories are true or not
    Hmm,

    So can u explain how come this CMBR is constant in all directions even though universe is not spherical and nor are we in its center.
    - Insuperable Singularity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitablelity
    So can u explain how come this CMBR is constant in all directions even though universe is not spherical and nor are we in its center.
    Double hmm.
    The CMBR is not constant in all directions.
    The Universe may be spherical.
    All indications are that we (and everything else) are at its centre.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive. If it didn't have Hubble Redshift, and CMBR, how strong would the theory still be?

    In all my objections to the BB, I've found the need to come up with some kind of alternative explanation for the observations that lead to it. How correct would the basic idea behind this counter-theory be? Any glaring flaws?


    Redshift

    Perhaps the oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that occurs inside a photon are not a perfect exchange of energy.

    After a while, a third kind of charge begins to build up. When it becomes strong enough, this charge causes the photon to emit a second photon of much longer wavelenth.

    This causes the original photon to drop to a longer wavelenth as well.


    CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)

    This is just starlight from distant stars, so far out that all of the light has degraded down to the blackbody radiation wavelenths.

    Part of this rationalization becomes easier if we assume that blackbody radiation doesn't suffer as much from the effects that cause redshift.
    What you are suggesting is known as the "Tired Light" theory and it has its own problems:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    kojax wrote:
    Redshift Perhaps the oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that occurs inside a photon are not a perfect exchange of energy.
    After a while, a third kind of charge begins to build up. When it becomes strong enough, this charge causes the photon to emit a second photon of much longer wavelenth.
    This causes the original photon to drop to a longer wavelenth as well.
    What evidence do you have that the oscillation is imperfect?
    What theoretical grounding is there for postulating this imperfection?
    It's very likely that absolutely nothing anyone has ever observed in the history of the world has ever been perfect. All perfect ideals are born in the human imagination. There's no such thing in the real world.

    More particularly: No exchange of energy or transformation of energy from one type to another has ever been observed to be perfect. Light may be an exception to this, but it also might not be.

    I know that's just an appeal to logic, rather than observed science, but it's also hard to find a good counter example to that blanket claim. (And usually it's pretty easy to find counter examples to blanket claims)

    What evidence is there for this third kind of charge - another force, to add to the four fundamental forces?
    The proposition seems not merely weak, but emaciated.?
    Probably instead of a "charge" as I was suggesting, it's more like a probability driven thing. Every oscillation has a slight chance of generating a new photon. Of course, that might create a half life relationship between distance and redshift instead of a linear one, so I don't know for sure.....


    kojax wrote:
    CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)This is just starlight from distant stars, so far out that all of the light has degraded down to the blackbody radiation wavelenths.
    Part of this rationalization becomes easier if we assume that blackbody radiation doesn't suffer as much from the effects that cause redshift.
    You offer absolutely no explanation for the deviations from uniformity of the CMBR.
    As far as why CMBR isn't perfectly uniform...... well the emitting distant stars aren't perfectly uniform in their distribution. They're evenly distributed in the sense of being loosely even, but not perfectly even.

    It would actually be more of a surprise if the distribution were perfectly even.

    I am puzzled as to why you think blackbody radiation differs in any way from other radiation. As far as I am aware it doesn't. You seem to have misunderstood what blackbody radiation is.
    If the effect is based on the build up of a third kind of charge, then fewer oscillations per distance means less opportunity for any third kind of charge to build up. It still happens, just much more slowly.

    It would also make sense for it to degrade more slowly if the effect were driven by probability instead of a charge build up. Fewer oscillations per distance means fewer rolls of the dice.


    Janus wrote:
    What you are suggesting is known as the "Tired Light" theory and it has its own problems:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
    I'm still reading about "tired light", but I'm getting the impression that it isn't going to turn out to be the same theory. The author references a lot of things that I'll have to research separately. For example: I'm not all that familiar with the mathematics of light emitted by a supernova.

    One quote in particular makes me doubt this is the same theory: "Because the photons only lose energy but do not decrease their density..."

    That doesn't directly contradict what I'm suggesting, but I do want to be clear that I am suggesting the total number of photons increases. I'm not suggesting their density increases, but the article seems to suggest that the total mass does not increase at all under "tired light" theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    [quote="kojax"][quote="Ophiolite"]
    kojax wrote:
    Janus wrote:
    What you are suggesting is known as the "Tired Light" theory and it has its own problems:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
    I'm still reading about "tired light", but I'm getting the impression that it isn't going to turn out to be the same theory. The author references a lot of things that I'll have to research separately. For example: I'm not all that familiar with the mathematics of light emitted by a supernova.

    One quote in particular makes me doubt this is the same theory: "Because the photons only lose energy but do not decrease their density..."

    That doesn't directly contradict what I'm suggesting, but I do want to be clear that I am suggesting the total number of photons increases. I'm not suggesting their density increases, but the article seems to suggest that the total mass does not increase at all under "tired light" theory.
    "Tired Light" is a general term for any theory that suggests that light somehow loses energy via a mechaniism other than the expansion of space.

    Also, you seem to be confused by what is meant by "photon density". It has nothing to do with the property of indivdual photons, but is a measure of how many photons there are in a given volume.

    This is what the quote refers to. As the universe expands, not only do the photons lose energy, but they are spread out over a larger volume. Fewer photons per volume means a decrease in photon density.

    If on the other hand, the universe does not expand, and the photons just lose energy, then the photons are not spread out over larger volumes, you don't get fwer photns per given volume and photon does not decrease. (or in the case where the number of photons increase, actual goes up.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    So, we've observed that photon density does decrease with distance?

    And it decreases by more than what might be expected from simple scattering/ dispersion that makes the light emitting object seem dimmer as the observer gets farther and farther away from the light source?


    In my theory of photons emitting photons, it's very possible that both photons (the original one and the new one) end up having a very long wavelength.

    In other words, the drop in wavelength of any individual photon may be very sudden, but the beam of light as a whole only drops very gradually because only so many photons drop at a time.

    Basically, the theory has two versions (for the sake of clarity):

    1) - build up of an internal charge due to an inefficiency in the transformation between an electric and magnetic field, which eventually results in the emission of a new photon.

    2) - a small chance per every oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that a new photon will be emitted and the old one will drop to a longer wavelength.


    I'm basically trying to decide whether it's worth the trouble to try and construct a full mathematical framework around it all. If the theory can easily be shot down by an observation someone has made, then it won't be worth the time, trouble, and headache to do all the math.

    I mean, before deciding to invest all that effort, I might as well check and see if it even has a chance of yielding fruit first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, we've observed that photon density does decrease with distance?

    And it decreases by more than what might be expected from simple scattering/ dispersion that makes the light emitting object seem dimmer as the observer gets farther and farther away from the light source?
    Yes on both points, It it weren't so, then the argument wouldn't have been raised against tired light theories.


    In my theory of photons emitting photons, it's very possible that both photons (the original one and the new one) end up having a very long wavelength.

    In other words, the drop in wavelength of any individual photon may be very sudden, but the beam of light as a whole only drops very gradually because only so many photons drop at a time.
    The problem with this is that in any given section of the beam you will have photons that have "dropped" and photons that haven't. This would screw up the spectrum from the given body. Spectral lines for elements wouldn't just shift red, but would be scattered across the spectrum. For example, if a particular element produced a set of lines in the certain part of the green part of the spectrum, as the photons leave the object, you will see the lines in just that part of the spectrum. As the light continues to travel, photons will "drop" and start producing the lines closer to the yellow part of the spectrum, but you will still have photons producing lines at the original part. Thus as the light travels, the original lines will slowly fade as the new lines brighten. So when we look at a spectrum from objects of varying distance we would see two sets of lines (or multiple lines if photons that have "dropped" drop a second or third time.) of varying brightness for each element, rather than the one set that slides slowly down the spectrum as we see now.

    The upshot being that this proposal can not produce the type of spectrums we observe from distant galaxies.

    Basically, the theory has two versions (for the sake of clarity):

    1) - build up of an internal charge due to an inefficiency in the transformation between an electric and magnetic field, which eventually results in the emission of a new photon.

    2) - a small chance per every oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that a new photon will be emitted and the old one will drop to a longer wavelength.
    Both of these versions have the problem that higher (bluer) frequencies of light oscillate at a higher rate than lower frequencies, Thus higher frequencies will drop to a lower frequencies at a faster rate than lower frequenices. This leads to the light "bunching" up at the lower end of the spectrum. Again, we don't see this, rather we see a uniform shift to the red of all frequencies, so neither version results in the the type of spectral lines we actually observe.




    I'm basically trying to decide whether it's worth the trouble to try and construct a full mathematical framework around it all. If the theory can easily be shot down by an observation someone has made, then it won't be worth the time, trouble, and headache to do all the math.

    I mean, before deciding to invest all that effort, I might as well check and see if it even has a chance of yielding fruit first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    You're right that my theory probably would result in a "bunching up" of light in the lower spectrum. That's an important observation to know. Also, I didn't know that the photon density from distant stars was observed to be lower even than what might be expected from the distance.


    What I meant about individual photons suddenly dropping, though, wasn't exactly that a photon might suddenly drop from blue to yellow, but more along the idea that a photon might emit a very low, infrared or lower frequency photon, then drop to a very low frequency itself, bypassing the rest of the visible spectrum.

    If this happened more frequently to bluish photons than reddish photons, then that would be why there are more red than blue observed. If it were spread out evenly enough, I'm not sure there would be any splotches from it, unless we're able to observe the photons at a very individual level.

    Still, I'm betting the math doesn't add up. Either the drop in frequency might not be evenly distributed enough, or it would fail because the relationship between distance and redshift wouldn't be linear, but follow more the pattern of a radioactive element's half life effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    kojax, your thoughts evoke one thing I just cant get in my head, how do we know the universe is not a gazillion-gazillion-gazillion times larger than what we can perceive? The energy/matter distribution out to the farthest reaches that I saw in a documentary makes it counter-intuitive that the universe we perceive with telescopes 'is it', it makes it look like the universe we detect/contemplate/calculate might be a tiny fraction of the whole (like a 1 grain of sand drifting in our solar system). And if the universe is a gazillion times larger then how can the age (and BB) the universe?

    It also makes me think of the missing neutrino thing, about the scientist that spent the better part of his life attempting to prove he was getting 1/3 the neutrino count that the then theory would expect, while most scientist dismissed his observation as experimental errors and instrumental limits, when it turned out that 1/3 readings would be expected according to a new theory that stated only about 1/3 of the neutrinos would remain in their initial state(the one that experiments were able to measure) while about 2/3 would change from their initial type to another type (or 2 other types out of 3), so between the time it got created and the time it was measured some of the neutrinos had changed in transit in some way (that initial accepted theory had not anticipated). Or something like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You're right that my theory probably would result in a "bunching up" of light in the lower spectrum. That's an important observation to know. Also, I didn't know that the photon density from distant stars was observed to be lower even than what might be expected from the distance.


    What I meant about individual photons suddenly dropping, though, wasn't exactly that a photon might suddenly drop from blue to yellow, but more along the idea that a photon might emit a very low, infrared or lower frequency photon, then drop to a very low frequency itself, bypassing the rest of the visible spectrum.

    If this happened more frequently to bluish photons than reddish photons, then that would be why there are more red than blue observed. If it were spread out evenly enough, I'm not sure there would be any splotches from it, unless we're able to observe the photons at a very individual level.
    Hmm, from the above it sounds like you don't quite grasp what "redshift" is all about. We don't observe more red than blue, rather we see spectral lines shifted in the red direction.

    To illustrate see the following image which shows two spectrum, one normal and the other red-shifted:



    Notice the bright lines in each spectrum. These are called emission lines. When atoms are heated to a certain point, they will emit light at given frequencies. These will show up as brighter than normal lines in the spectrum, how many lines and where in the spectrum they appear depends on the element, thus each element has its own particular pattern of lines.

    The lines shown in the image represent those of a particular element. The top spectrum shows where the lines normally appear. The bottom shows a red-shifted spectrum. Notice that the colors themselves haven't changed, the red section isn't any brighter than the blue. This because as orange shifts to red, red shift to infra-red and out of the visible spectrum, meanwhile, at the other end, as indigo shifts to violet, ultraviolet shifts to violet and into the visisble spectrum, replacing it. As each color shifts over, it carries any emission lines with it. Therefore, the emission lines shift with it maintaining their relative brightness and spacing. Thus, by looking at a spectrum and noting that the pattern of element X is there, but more to the red half the spectrum then expected, we know that the light has red-shifted.

    The mechanism that you suggest above would have the line at the blue end of the spectrum fade or disappear while the other two lines would just stay where they are. But this is not what we see in the spectrums we take of distant galaxies, instead we see what is shown in the image, where the patterns maintain their relative spacing, but shift towards the red.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Now I can see why the big bang is such an attractive explanation. Still, I can't help thinking that this tells us something more fundamental about the very nature of space time itself.

    The big bang seems like an overly mechanical attempt to explain what we're observing without having to let go of any of our pre-concieved notions about the basic laws of physics. The big bang, and dark matter don't strike me as being any different than the ether. We see something. We can't justify it, so we make up whatever we have to.

    Anyway: I appreciate you showing me that. It does pretty much refute my theory in its entirety.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Now I can see why the big bang is such an attractive explanation. Still, I can't help thinking that this tells us something more fundamental about the very nature of space time itself.

    The big bang seems like an overly mechanical attempt to explain what we're observing without having to let go of any of our pre-concieved notions about the basic laws of physics. The big bang, and dark matter don't strike me as being any different than the ether. We see something. We can't justify it, so we make up whatever we have to.
    Odd, I always thought of the people that have trouble accepting things like the Big Bang and dark matter as the ones who can't let go of pre-conceived notions.
    Consider dark matter. What is it really? It is matter that does not interact with, or emit electromagnetic radiation. Why is this so hard to accept? After all, we already know of one specimen of this type of matter, the neutrino.
    I think what bugs people is the fact that about 90% of the mass of the universe is estimated to be in the form of dark matter. It irks them that that much of the universe is "invisible".
    But when it comes right down to it, the universe is not accountable to us. Just because we find the electromagnetic spectrum to be convenient for exploring the universe, doesn't mean that the universe must oblige us.

    Anyway: I appreciate you showing me that. It does pretty much refute my theory in its entirety.
    Don't mention it, glad to be of service.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Anyway: I appreciate you showing me that. It does pretty much refute my theory in its entirety.
    I really respect people who can say things like this. A lot of people can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Anyway: I appreciate you showing me that. It does pretty much refute my theory in its entirety.
    I really respect people who can say things like this. A lot of people can't.
    Her, here. [Insert icon of small person applauding wildly.]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Inevitablelity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    ...
    The big bang seems like an overly mechanical attempt to explain what we're observing without having to let go of any of our pre-concieved notions about the basic laws of physics. ...
    First they used to say , 'God created everything" , now they have pulled up to say, "everything was created in a Big Bang".

    Though its discovered that theres acceleration in expansion of universe - the basis of BB theory.
    - Insuperable Singularity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitablelity
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    ...
    The big bang seems like an overly mechanical attempt to explain what we're observing without having to let go of any of our pre-concieved notions about the basic laws of physics. ...
    First they used to say , 'God created everything" , now they have pulled up to say, "everything was created in a Big Bang".

    Though its discovered that theres acceleration in expansion of universe - the basis of BB theory.
    I don't think that's entirely accurate. The Big Bang is more a description of the early universe than an explanation for it. "t=0" isn't really within the scope of the Big Bang in and of itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    The big bang doesn't discribe why the expansion of the universe started. It only explains that it happened, (and is still happening). It is an attempt to wind back the clock and discover some of the implications of the idea that "The amount of space in the universe is bigger now than it was when I started writing this sentence."

    When you project the model (expanding universe) back in time, the logical conclusion is that the earlier you go back, the smaller the space in the universe is. So you can't go infinitley backwards with that tendancy, as at some point the universe will be at size = 0. The big bang explains what happens a few billionths of a second after the time that the universe went from size = 0 to size > 0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Though its discovered that theres acceleration in expansion of universe - the basis of BB theory.
    That's a part that's kind of troublesome about the theory. It actually claims space itself is expanding, so as objects are carried further away from us, the difference in their velocity from ours increases as well. They're not just moving away. They're accelerating away.

    That's kind of a difficult hole to patch very effectively. The BB basically requires us to ignore the conservation of energy, or argue that energy is magically appearing out of nowhere to create the needed accelerations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Inevitablelity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    17
    Since there is an acceleration in expansion of universe; if we start going back in time, we will see a deceleration in its contraction.

    Hence instead of a bigbang we will get a Big Lump of universe.

    What they miss is that origin of the theory simply dont exist anymore.
    - Insuperable Singularity
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •