> > http://www.netforward.com
> > v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
> >
> > > Changing from an open to a closed universe is, of course, a nice
> > > thought experiment but the most practically unlikely an
> > > engineering feat as has ever been dreamed up!
> >
> > We'll see about that; in a few billion years it may be quite
> > practical. It is also the biggest possible engineering feat, of
> > course.
> >
> > YOUR GONE IN THE HEAD MATE
>
> Futurologists (or any forecasters in the social or natural sciences)
> will tell you that prediction/forecasting beyond 20 years is folly.
> I think this is sort of like the extropian idea of the Singularity.
> Brilliant people like Stephen Hawking does talk about "Baby
> Universes" that could be pinched off from our own (possibly from
> wormholes) and the possibility of traveling to a prior point in time
> within this universe is also plausible. These notions are more
> likely to me than saving a part of the current cosmos we live in per
> se. Sincerely, Bill
The requirements for one method of opening a closed universe -- or
closing an open one -- are known, at least roughly.
All we need is the ability to shift very large masses of matter
arbitrarily through time.
If the universe is closed, and you wish it open -- throw a few
thousand galactic clusters a few billion years into the future,
decreasing the current mass of the universe. Repeat as necessary.
If it is open, and you wish it closed -- throw those same galaxies
equally far into the past, increasing the previous mass of the
universe. That same mass will by normal means then occur twice in
your time (or at least your immediate past).
Of course, the engineering problems in this proposal are somewhat
daunting. :-)
And if some people want an open universe, while others want a closed
universe...
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227