BigBang 07

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

1/11

1

archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/BigBang_07.doc [pdf]

more of th is topic at http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotic

note: because important websites are fr equently " here today but gone tomorrow" , the foll owing was

archived from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.900-dark-flow-proof-of

another-universe.html on January 23, 2009. Thi s is NOT an attempt to diver t readers fr om the

aforementioned website. I ndeed, the reader shoul d only read this back-up copy if the updatedoriginal cannot be found at the original author' s site.

Dark Flow: proof of another universe?by Amanda Gefter

New Scientist / January 22, 2009

For most of us, the Universe is unimaginably vast. But not for cosmologists. They feel decidedly

hemmed in. No matter how big they build their telescopes, they can only see so far before hitting a wallApproximately 45 billion light years away lies the "cosmic horizon" -- the ultimate barrier because light

beyond it not has not had time to reach us.

So here we are, stuck inside our patch of Universe, wondering what lies beyond, and resigned to that

fact we may never know. The best we can hope for through some combination of luck and vigilance is

to spot a crack in the structure of things -- a possible window to that hidden place beyond the edge of the

Universe. Now Sasha Kashlinsky believes that he has stumbled upon such a window.

Kashlinsky (a senior staff scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland)

has been studying how rebellious clusters of galaxies move against the backdrop of expanding space.

He and colleagues have clocked galaxy clusters racing at up to 1,000 kilometer- per-second -- far fasterthan our best understanding of Cosmology allows. Stranger still, every cluster seems to be rushing

toward a small patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

Kashlinsky and his team claim that their observation represents the first clues to what lies beyond the

cosmic horizon. Finding out could tell us how the Universe looked immediately after the 'Big Bang' or

if our Universe is one of many.

Others aren't so sure. One rival interpretation is that it is nothing to do with alien universes but the

result of a flaw in one of the cornerstones of Cosmology -- the idea that the Universe should look the

same in all directions. That is, if the observations withstand close scrutiny.

All the same colleagues are sitting up and taking notice. "This discovery adds to our pile of puzzles

about Cosmology," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina, Chapel HillHeaped in that pile is 95 percent of the Universe's contents including the invisible "dark matter" thatappears to hold the galaxies together and the mysterious "dark energy" that is accelerating the

Universe's expansion. Accordingly, Kashlinsky named this new puzzle the "dark flow".

Kashlinsky measures how fast galaxy clusters up to 5 billion light-years away are travelling by

looking for signs of their motion in the cosmic microwave background (i.e., the heat left over from the

'Big Bang'). Photons in the CMB generally stream uninterrupted through billions of light-years ointerstellar space. But when they pass through a galaxy cluster, they encounter hot ionized gas in the

spaces between the galaxies. Photons scattered by this gas show up as a tiny distortion in the

http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotichttp://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotichttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.900-dark-flow-proof-of-another-universe.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.900-dark-flow-proof-of-another-universe.htmlhttp://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Alexander.Kashlinsky/http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Alexander.Kashlinsky/http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Alexander.Kashlinsky/http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9988-instant-expert-cosmology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9988-instant-expert-cosmology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726461.500-is-dark-matter-mystery-about-to-be-solved.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726461.500-is-dark-matter-mystery-about-to-be-solved.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726461.500-is-dark-matter-mystery-about-to-be-solved.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925364.100-dark-energy-enigma-just-wont-go-away.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925364.100-dark-energy-enigma-just-wont-go-away.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925364.100-dark-energy-enigma-just-wont-go-away.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925364.100-dark-energy-enigma-just-wont-go-away.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726461.500-is-dark-matter-mystery-about-to-be-solved.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9988-instant-expert-cosmology.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.htmlhttp://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Alexander.Kashlinsky/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.900-dark-flow-proof-of-another-universe.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.900-dark-flow-proof-of-another-universe.htmlhttp://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotic

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

2/11

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

3/11

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

4/11

4

Predictions of the motion of galaxy clusters based on the conventional model assume that matter isevenly distributed throughout space on very large scales. Pietronero and Sylos Labini claim analysis of

the distributions of galaxies and galaxy clusters throughout the sky shows that this is not true and that at

large scales matter is like a fractal.

If that is the case, the gravitational field throughout the Universe would also be irregular and could

lead to the effects Kashlinsky observed. New results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey -- which has

already mapped about a million galaxies -- will help give Pietronero and Sylos Labini a more precise picture of the spread of matter which they hope will confirm their ideas. " I think we will have

interesting news very soon," says Sylos Labini.

A fractal universe would, however, raise big problems of its own. For one thing, a fracta

distribution of matter is incompatible with Cosmic Inflation. So theorists would be left to figure out

how it arose in the first place ( New Scientist , March 10, 2007, p 30).

Physicist Douglas Scott of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada is also

skeptical that "dark flow" is evidence of anything outside our observable universe. " There is no reason

at all to expect it to come from structures beyond the horizon," he says.

Scott notes that so far, "dark flow" has only been observed out to distances that are only a few

percent of the total distance to the horizon. "If the effect is real," he says, "then the likely explanation

would be some very large-scale structure but still within the horizon." Such a structure, though, wouldstill present a major challenge to Cosmology's standard model.

The most important thing now is to confirm that "dark flow" is real and that it continues all the wayout to the cosmic horizon. 2 other teams have made measurements consistent with Kashlinsky's results

But only on scales less than 200 million light-years -- just a short step compared to the distance out to

the horizon.

To confirm their finding, Kashlinsky's team will be analyzing more recent WMAP data and workingwith researchers at the University of Hawaii on data from an all-sky X-ray catalog. The tiny Doppler

effect that Kashlinsky uses to measure the clusters' velocities is only observable in bulk. Which meansthe more galaxy clusters he can look at, the better.

"If confirmed, this will be an exciting way of probing the ultimate structure of the universe and

perhaps even the Multiverse," Kashlinsky says. "But you have to check and recheck."

"If this thing is confirmed and it is real, it will be incredibly important," says Aguirre. "On the same

order of discovery as the realization that those little smudges on the sky are other galaxies. The mosimportant thing it would tell us is that the standard picture is broken in some way. And the most

exciting thing it could tell us is that there are other universes."

If it does, space and time will open up to reveal a reality that is so much bigger than we know.When that happens, those claustrophobia-stricken cosmologists will finally be able to breathe easy.

Just how big is the Universe?

It is 13.7 billion years since the 'Big Bang'. So light now reaching us cannot have started its journey

longer ago than that. Yet the most distant object we could conceivably see today lies further away than13.7 billion light-years. That's because throughout the life of the Universe, space has been expanding

http://www.sdss.org/http://www.sdss.org/http://www.sdss.org/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325941.600-is-the-universe-a-fractal.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325941.600-is-the-universe-a-fractal.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325941.600-is-the-universe-a-fractal.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325941.600-is-the-universe-a-fractal.htmlhttp://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cosmology.htmlhttp://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cosmology.htmlhttp://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cosmology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325941.600-is-the-universe-a-fractal.htmlhttp://www.sdss.org/

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

5/11

5

Taking this into account, cosmologists calculate that the edge of our observable Universe is now

approximately 45 billion light-years away.

Beyond that, who knows? The Inflation theory of Cosmology predicts that the Universe grew from

a bubble. Just how big that bubble has now become depends on how long Inflation lasted. If it

continued for a very long time -- in this context, "very long" is still only a fraction-of-a-second -- thenthe edge of our Universe might lie far beyond the 45-billion-light-year limit of our vision.

That could also rule out the possibility of observing the influence of other universes on our own. As physicist Matthew Kleban of New York University puts it: "It's totally possible that we live in a

Multiverse and we'll never know because there's been so much inflation."

Readers' Comments

1. It Depends On Your Perspective

by John Scanlan / Thu Jan 22, 2009 15:22:32 GMTThe Universe only appears to be expanding. It can be actually collapsing. We may be rushing

back to the point of origin.

And both can be happening at the same time. Which applies to you depends on your perspective.

2. by Slobodan / Thu Jan 22, 2009 20:25:24 GMT

Good point. With described anomaly, it is not out of mind to get such a clue.

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

6/11

6

This is very interesting article. It reminds me again on Steinhardt-Turok "Brain Universe"

theory (http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/).

The Steinhardt-Turok model is based on the idea that hot 'Big Bang' Universe was created from

the collision of two 3-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The two 3

dimensional worlds collide and "stick". The kinetic energy in the collision is converted the quarkselectrons, photons, etc. that are confined to move along 3 dimensions. [StealthSkater note

possibly referring to the Ekpyrotic model which is based on string/M-brane theory => doc pdf

URL ]

The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot 'Big Bangi phase begins without a singularity. The

Universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the 'Big Bang' phase occurs nearly

simultaneously everywhere.

Professor Steinhardt predicted that whenever the 4th

spatial dimension fluctuate to its minimum

the extra dimensional distance between two "branes" cause ripples in our 4-D Universe due to the

different gravitational pulls between branes.

Such ripples could "drag" space-time in our Universe (more on certain hot spots), causing strong

gravitational pull which should drag galaxy clusters in one particular direction just as S. Kashlinskydescribed in his research.

It is another anomaly in the light of the classical 'Big Bang' theory and another evidence that

some other models should be considered and evaluated more thoroughly.

3. by Polemos / Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:31:13 GMT"Collapsing" is a misnomer here.

Collapse implies that the periphery is getting closer to the center (i.e., the center stays put)

Implosion implies that the periphery stays put while the center is becoming smaller.

Observations show that the periphery is receding. Therefore the Universe is imploding -- no

collapsing.

4. by Dan / Fri Jan 23, 2009 14:36:18 GMTThis is one good hypothesis that is testable. If the observable Universe is imploding, unless the

Earth is at the exact center of the implosion, the peripheral stars in one hemisphere should recede

faster and the other more slowly.

I see 3 other possibilities. (1) The historical effect of something now outside the observableUniverse because of Inflation. (2) The current effect of a huge clump of dark matter inside the

visible Universe. Or (3) a huge mass of ordinary matter hiding in the region just within the

observable Universe but outside the visible Universe.

In the last case, the motion of visible objects could be affected by the gravity of the hidden mass

even though any light it produced would have been blocked by the curtain of unionized particles thatshrouded the origin of Time from sight.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater/Science.doc#Ekpyrotichttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater/Science.doc#Ekpyrotichttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater/Science.doc#Ekpyrotichttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater_PDF/Science.pdf#Ekpyrotichttp://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotichttp://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotichttp://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Ekpyrotichttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater_PDF/Science.pdf#Ekpyrotichttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/Stealthskater/Science.doc#Ekpyrotichttp://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

7/11

7

5. by Polemos / Fri Jan 23, 2009 15:04:01 GMT

Dan, even if the observer is located halfway between the imploding Universe's center and its periphery, it will seem to him that both the center and the periphery of the Universe are receding

from him.

Moreover, even objects positioned at the same distance from the Universe's center will beapparently receding from each other (because the Universe is gravitationally imploding both globally

and locally, and the acceleration of the local implosion is higher than the acceleration of the global

implosion).

6. Towards The Centre Of The Gravitational Toroid by Polemos / Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:25:21 GMT

The Universe is a black hole. Black holes are cardioidal (http://haegar.fh-

swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdf ).

This means that the Universe is a toroidal current of Time (=universal gravity, dark energy)

flowing within the spheroid of Space and turning the latter into a cardioid.

The "dark flow" is heading towards the narrow-most point of the toroidal gravity current

7. by George / Fri Jan 23, 2009 13:20:04 GMTPolemos, I've read this and the linked paper. This is meaningless.

With respect -- and given your repeated postings of similar material in various topics - WHATare you on about? Please restate in either English or mathematics.


If you do not understand something, it may also mean a lack of general knowledge on your part.Just ask politely what exactly is incomprehensible.

Gravitational contraction + angular momentum conservation = toroidal current. See this paper

"On the Evolution and Gravitational Collapse of a Toroidal Vortex" (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro

ph/0407320 ).

9. by George / Fri Jan 23, 2009 14:55:03 GMT

Polemos, my general knowledge is pretty OK ;)

One point is that angular momentum is only definable from an external frame. If the wholeUniverse is spinning, what is it spinning in relation to? There doesn't seem to be any detectable

favored direction/axis in the Universe as we understand it.

All the papers that you refer to seem to be making valid points that are irrelevant to your

arguments. With respect, I'm not alone in my incomprehension. You even managed to make anappearance in the end-of-year print edition for similar reasons.

10. by Julian / Fri Jan 23, 2009 14:58:44 GMT

http://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdfhttp://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdfhttp://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdfhttp://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407320http://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdfhttp://haegar.fh-swf.de/publikationen/pascal.pdf

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

8/11

8

In the referenced paper which describes "black Hole Shadows" (not black holes per sunt), it says

"for B = A, it [the curve of Pascal's limacon] is a cardioid".

In the table in Section 5 where approximations are given for Black Hole parameters, B is greater

than A throughout. Which is not the cardioid case. Even if it were, the author says just above this

that "a closer analysis shows that the shadows are not exact limacons" so there is precisely zerosupport for the assertion that "Black Holes are cardioidal". And even if what "this means" means

anything at all (what is a "current of time"???), it cannot possibly be a consequence of cardioidality

of Black Holes.

Really, Polemos, give us a break! If you're going to dribble all over the comments pages, please

try not to spit out your last half-digested meal with it.

11. Going At The Speed Of Gravity

by Pelotard / Fri Jan 23, 2009 13:11:42 GMTIf light hasn't had the time to travel that far, how can Gravity have travelled that far? Last I

heard, it was suspected to be mediated by massless gravitons and not instantaneously appear on the

other side of the Multiverse.


Gravitons are quanta of gravitational field (also called "gravitational radiation"). Gravitationaradiation propagates at the speed-of-light. The gravitational potential (the "Coulomb component" of

a gravitational field( propagates instantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Background :

"General Relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at

the speed-of-light. To avoid confusion, we should point out that a slowly evolving source for a weak

gravitational field will produce -- according to General Relativity -- similar effects to those we might

expect from Newtonian gravitation. In particular, a slowly evolving Coulomb component of agravitational field should not be confused with a possible additional radiation component (see Petrov

classification).

"Nonetheless, any of the Petrov-type gravitational field obeys the Principle of Causality so that

the slowly evolving 'Coulomb component' of the gravitational field cannot transfer information

about position of the source of the gravitational field faster than the speed-of-light."

13. Observing Beyond The Observable Universe by Nick Hamilton / Fri Jan 23, 2009 13:15:31 GMT

Much is made of the idea that 'dark flow' may be a "window to that hidden place beyond theedge of the Universe". If so, then we are observing effects from beyond the edge of the observable

Universe. Thus whatever is creating those effects is observable. Or is this perhaps an observableeffect of grant-writing season?

14. A Bit Premature?

by Mark_S / Fri Jan 23, 2009 13:41:46 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Backgroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Backgroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Background

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

9/11

9

I find this fascinating from the point-of-view of the psychology of science. Broadly speaking

researchers working in fields as diverse as Earth sciences, Biology, Chemistry, and most fields ofPhysics tend to be quite careful to report their results in a limited, focused manner along the lines of

(1) accepted theory & existing data; (2) new data and/or model; (3) revised interpretation &

implications. It is a highly conservative, almost clichéd format that may be boring … but works.

Oddly though, certain disciplinary subsets within high-energy particle physics and astrophysics

seem to attract a greatly disproportionate number of theorists ready to charge madly off in wholly

speculative directions long before enough hard data is collected to make a sensible appraisal (darkmatter! no, dark energy!! no, multiple universes!!! NO, multiple universes with 11-dimensional

space-time -- none of them observable by mortals!!!!).

Sometimes I wonder if the reason for this may be as mundane as drumming up funding for

expensive telescopes and particle accelerators. And the salaries of those who use them.

The long-term effect of these wild, premature and often stillborn claims -- at least from my pointof view -- is to bring the fields involved into disrepute.

15. Is Our Unibubble A Cube? by Boozer / Fri Jan 23 15:25:02 GMT 2009

A single soap bubble floating on the breeze is fairly spherical. But foam bubbles are all kinds of

shapes, aren't they?

For instance, stuffing many balloons in a box will produce cube balloons. If we can detect a

gravitational hotspot on one side of our uni-bubble, then maybe a similar hotspot can be found in theopposite direction and above and below. Assuming that uni-bubbles are of similar size, in theory a

hotspot should be surrounded by 4 cold-spots.

16. Dark Flow: Proof Of Another Universe? by Klar Stempien / Fri Jan 23, 2009 16:21:18 GMT

Dark flow? Groping for answers, are they? Now we're to ponder neighboring universes as patches to help explain the bewilderment in ours!

This is all conjecture as are all their theories. Yet, I must admit, serves as a wealth of fodder for

science-fiction movies. The mathematics make as much sense as minus time. Yet, the answer is inthe article "ionized gas". All one need do is realize that ionized gas is a plasma and is everywhere

in the Cosmos (its far reaching effects only dominate gravity by 1036

to 1039

times) and behaves

quite differently than -- and independently of -- gravity.

Perhaps you could assist in the re-education of the current realm of comatose "scientists".

This site highlights a theory that predicts events without resorting to any patches whatsoever, --i.e., it works: (summary's a good place to start)

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

17. Dark Energy

by Stephen Tash / Fri Jan 23, 2009 16:22:12 GMT

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htmhttp://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htmhttp://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

10/11

10

Once again, "dark energy" is given this mysterious quality (though it is not the main topic of the

article). Dark energy is simply explained by equal amounts of matter and antimatter which affect thefabric of spacetime in equal-but -opposite manner. One could simply say that matter creates gravity

and anti-matter creates anti-gravity.

A small bit of anti-matter creating an anti-gravity well amidst a large gravity well dominated bymatter will slide down (or perhaps up if you want to see it more visually) the gravity well to create

the least resistance to its opposite manipulation of space-time. The reverse (but conceptually the

same) would be true of a small gravity well created by a particle of matter in a larger anti-gravitywell of anti-matter. Visually, it would slide down the anti-gravity well.

Now if you have a gravity well created from a matter-based galaxy or galaxy cluster and an anti-gravity well created from an antimatter-based galaxy or galaxy cluster, they are going to repel to

reduce stress on space-time.

This principle was evidenced by the recent experiment (long URL - here) where anti-matter was proven to deflect off of matter, not simply annihilate. It theoretically should take a very

powerful and precise collision to cause the anti-gravity well and gravity well to overlap one another

and annihilate.

The repulsive force of alternating blotches of matter and anti-matter (perhaps a fairly minimal

statistical anomaly of the original distribution of matter and anti-matter in the 'Big Bang', perhaps the

resulting energy from annihilation fueled inflation?) would create a positive repulsive force betweenthose blotches. Because there would be more and more repulsion happening constantly, the force of

the resulting energy should accelerate.

So far, this matches observations of dark energy. Perhaps the easiest test (beyond the bouncing

results earlier recorded) is that dark energy should accelerate less-and-less over time because the

continuous pushing between the gravity wells and anti-gravity wells should grow weaker as distance

increases.

Ultimately, this is just the application of Occam's Razor. If every action has an equal and

opposite reaction, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter that would follow this law. And equaand opposite effects on space-time -- which would also follow this law -- would be expected.

18. Speculation by Greg / Fri Jan 23, 2009 16:52:10 GMT

While these attempts to explain "dark flow" are all good, it is still too early to say with any

certainty what is causing this. I do think it is time for proponents of various theories to lay their predictions on the line as to what the data will show in order to gain or lose credibility.

First, this finding must be confirmed by further scrutiny of WMAP data as it comes in and by

tracing the signal to the visible horizon. Most likely the data will hold this discovery up as this workappears to be solid. We will be able to tell the location and mass of the anomaly responsible for dark

flow in the same way we can determine the location and mass of a supermassive black hole in a

galaxy by observing the motion of the stars revolving around it. I think what we will find is amassive relic leftover from the Inflation period. In any event, the standard 'Big Bang' model will be

in need of revision.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926674.600-antimatter-plus-matter-doesnt-always-equal-bang.html)http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926674.600-antimatter-plus-matter-doesnt-always-equal-bang.html)

8/9/2019 BigBang 07

11/11

11

Also this finding would reveal fundamental truths regarding the structure of our Universe. Very

exciting news indeed if it holds up.

As for Polemos, you needs to simplify into plain English whatever abstractions you are referring

to so that people outside a very narrow circle can consider what you are proposing. Not doing so is a

misuse of a public forum. As a result, you are coming off as an elitist at best and really quite mad aworst.

(For the record, I did pursue your references supporting one of your posts and found your logicincoherent and unsubstantiated. In that particular case, you were posting suppositions about

quantum gravity as if they were known fact when in actuality this area of Cosmology is highly

speculative and theoretical.)

19. Speed of Light And Gravity

Fri Jan 23 17:24:19 GMT 2009 by ianIF gravity also travels at lightspeed, then we should not be able to see the effects of anything

beyond the light horizon any more than we can see beyond it ourselves. If there is an observable

effect, then some fundamental physics needs re-thinking.

if on the Internet, Press on your browser to return to

the previous page (or go to www.stealthskater.com)

else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply this

file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'

BigBang 07

Documents

Transcript of BigBang 07