From: Bradley Graham Weslake (bgw03@uow.edu.au)
Date: Mon Nov 24 1997 - 23:18:46 MST
> At 06:41 PM 11/24/97 +1100, Bradley Graham Weslake <bgw03@uow.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >While I agree that current observations tend to suggest an open universe,
>
> OK.
>
> >I disagree that this is any less intuitively pleasing than a closed universe,
>
> OK.
>
> >and that this is why cosmologists search for missing mass.
>
> I would qualify that with "..._some or most_ cosmologists..."
>
> >There are a
> >multitude of other observed phenomena which align well with the theory of a
> >closed universe, as well as theoretical reasons for believing that such a
> >case is probable.
>
> OK, let's go over these -- knowing full well most of us -- including me --
> are not
> experts.:)
I am by no means an expert, the most I can claim is to have studied first or
second year university level cosmology for the majority of last year. Most
learnings of which have drained into the undercurrent of my mind...
> Doesn't this contradict your initial statement?
No it does not. In the first instance I said that *observations* tend at this
stage to support an open universe. In the second instance I said that there
are many *theoretical* reasons for believing a closed universe is probable.
> >An open universe is just as intuitively pleasing - if only
> >to suggest that our notion of time is in some way accurate - that it does in
> >fact have some degree of linearity.
>
> On that last point, yes.
>
> Daniel Ust
>
>
-- transient@mindless.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:09 MST