Why E=MC squared?

[Graeme]

hi all you light-beings,

i can't remember whether this is already in david's books, but i think
i just understood something...

if the aether exists, and 'particles' are really vortices in the
aether, and light is waves in the aether, i think i know why e=mc squared.

e = mc squared

where 'c' is the speed of light, is similar to a general equation for
kinetic energy...

ke = mv squared

where 'v' is velocity.

so, the energy contained in a given particle corresponds to the
kinetic energy it would have if it were moving at the speed of light.
obviously, however, particles other than photons don't appear to move
at the speed of light.

but how about internal motion? if particles are vortices, and the
motion in those vortices is at the speed of light, c, then...

e = mc squared

...is entirely accounted for! the energy equivalent of a particle is
merely the kinetic energy of its internal vorticular motion!

so, as i said earlier, particles are vortices in the aether, and light
is waves in the aether. the unifying notion is that they both move at
the speed of light, c! the difference is that light is external and
radiative motion, and matter is internal and vorticular motion.

this means that everything moves at the speed of light, whether it's
material or light itself. one constant speed for everything! we are
all constantly moving at light speed! it also provides support for
the notion of matter being condensed light. rather, light and matter
are both manifestations of the constant movement of the aether.

then i started thinking about the various 'densities' of aether that
are supposed to exist in the 'ascension' model. taking sound waves as
an example, their speed depends on the density of the media. thus
sound travels at about 300 m/s in air, 1000 m/s in water, and 6000 m/s
in steel (if i remember rightly).

similarly, a higher density of aether would presumably increase the
speed of light. this would also mean that particles would contain
more energy, as the vortices they consist of would move at the new
higher speed of light. e = mc squared would suddenly mean even more
than it did before. you wouldn't want to use a nuke in a
higher-density region of space! the increased energy of both light
and matter could help to explain the vastly increased power,
understanding and abilities that are meant to come with ascension.

also, this just occurred to me... could tachyons (supposed faster-than
light particles) be light from regions of the universe of higher
density than ours? of perhaps from micro-climates of higher density
within our own region? or both? could these micro-climates exist
inside our own bodies as part of our natural functioning? are there
ways to help create or amplify them? but there i'm going off on a big
tangent.

i'd like to know what anyone thinks of this.

love and light,

graeme

[pipul]

hi graeme, i think you are thinking along the right line. please
refer to the following discussion.

the dynamic ether vortex
in a universe of dynamic ether, a vortex would be formed of this
ether.

light would be a tranverse wave of accelerating ether caused by a
vortex (electron) moving first one way and then the opposite way in a
cyclic manner. a so-called photon would be a "package" of waves
moving outward like a ripple on a pond.

planck's constant would the quantum for the passage of one wave - the
accelerations of ether in two half-waves.

what we now call "mass" would be the amount of ether "mass" moving
into the vortex within a given length of time (such as one second).

the resultant inward acceleration of ether at any point would be at
45 degrees from a radial passing through that point.

a light half-wave would move straight outward at a velocity of "c"
and would be a tangential acceleration of ether equal to c/t where t
equals time.

the actual reaction speed of the ether is the resultant of the
maximum inward acceleration vector and the maximum tangential
acceleration vector. at any particular point in a vortex, the maximum
inward acceleration vector is equal to the maximum tangential
acceleration vector. when an electron is at rest relative to the
surrounding ether, these maximums occur at the point where the
inflowing medium turns at 90 degrees which is near the vortex center.
this is where the highest vortex energy exists.

both maximum accelerations are equal to c/t. the two maximums are at
90 degrees to one another. a right triangle is formed with the
maximums as the sides and the resultant as the hypotenuse. the
resultant is the maximum acceleration for the actual inward flow at
this point and is the actual maximum reaction speed of the ether.

the maximum reaction speed of the ether is also the maximum
instantaneous velocity that can be achieved by the ether flowing into
a matter vortex. so the right triangle can also be used for
instantaneous velocity which will allow us to calculate the maximum
kinetic energy of the inward flow.

using the pythagorean theorem, for a 90/45/45 degree triangle with
sides equal to c/t, the sum of the squares of the two sides is
2c2/t2. so the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of 2 multiplied
by c/t. this may be written as 2 to the 1/2 power times c/t, or
21/2c/t.

the hypotenuse is the resultant. so the maximum ether acceleration
would be equal to 21/2c/t. numerically, this would also be the
maximum ether instantaneous velocity (21/2c) found at the vortex
center where the ether flow turns at 90 degrees.

when an electron and a positron meet, the inflow of ether into both
ceases and they are destroyed. the sudden cessation of ether flow
into these vortices causes the kinetic energy of the ether inflow to
be released. this *destruction of the electron vortex when the
electron is at rest releases ether kinetic energy, ek. the release of
this energy can be calculated as follows:

v = 21/2c = maximum instantaneous velocity of the inflowing ether
m = m/t = electron mass = total mass moving into the electron vortex
in one second
ek = (1/2)mv2
ek = (1/2)m(21/2c)2
ek = (1/2)m(2c2)
ek = mc2

[*this means for the destruction of the electron vortex only. for
both electron and positron destruction, the energy release is
doubled.]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
e=mc2 is the mass/energy equivalency now attributed to einstein.
however, according to a website by marcus coleman visited in about
1999, www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm, this equation was not
einstein's except by acceptance. in substance it was the work of
henri poincare' (1900) and was correctly derived by max planck in
1906. einstein gave credit to planck once in 1906 and never did do so
again. furthermore, the equation is not uniquely dependent upon
einstein's theory of relativity and was first formulated simply by
pauli in 1920. it can also be derived from the pressure of radiation.
therefore, the equation is not the exclusive result of the precepts
of general relativity and does not actually prove that einstein's
relativity is correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
i can vouch for the fact that the equation can be derived from the
pressure of radiation. as is shown above, it can also be derived as a
consequence of matter being composed of ether vortices. this
particular derivation is not a proof unto itself, but it is another
fact implying that matter has such a composition.


http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/vortex.htm

pipul
--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=yrbpmt-fqwb6dbwqhlqyefoy0cemkwjeo7azva6jkq18gimxegipey8gr 4mpv7-jtplxkcjkznm_vf4klrey), "graeme" <kimonokraken@y...> wrote:
>
>
> hi all you light-beings,
>
> i can't remember whether this is already in david's books, but i
think
> i just understood something...
>
> if the aether exists, and 'particles' are really vortices in the
> aether, and light is waves in the aether, i think i know why e=mc
squared.
>
> e = mc squared
>
> where 'c' is the speed of light, is similar to a general equation
for
> kinetic energy...
>
> ke = mv squared
>
> where 'v' is velocity.
>
> so, the energy contained in a given particle corresponds to the
> kinetic energy it would have if it were moving at the speed of
light.
> obviously, however, particles other than photons don't appear to
move
> at the speed of light.
>
> but how about internal motion? if particles are vortices, and the
> motion in those vortices is at the speed of light, c, then...
>
> e = mc squared
>
> ...is entirely accounted for! the energy equivalent of a particle
is
> merely the kinetic energy of its internal vorticular motion!
>
> so, as i said earlier, particles are vortices in the aether, and
light
> is waves in the aether. the unifying notion is that they both move
at
> the speed of light, c! the difference is that light is external and
> radiative motion, and matter is internal and vorticular motion.
>
> this means that everything moves at the speed of light, whether it's
> material or light itself. one constant speed for everything! we
are
> all constantly moving at light speed! it also provides support for
> the notion of matter being condensed light. rather, light and
matter
> are both manifestations of the constant movement of the aether.
>
> then i started thinking about the various 'densities' of aether that
> are supposed to exist in the 'ascension' model. taking sound waves
as
> an example, their speed depends on the density of the media. thus
> sound travels at about 300 m/s in air, 1000 m/s in water, and 6000
m/s
> in steel (if i remember rightly).
>
> similarly, a higher density of aether would presumably increase the
> speed of light. this would also mean that particles would contain
> more energy, as the vortices they consist of would move at the new
> higher speed of light. e = mc squared would suddenly mean even more
> than it did before. you wouldn't want to use a nuke in a
> higher-density region of space! the increased energy of both light
> and matter could help to explain the vastly increased power,
> understanding and abilities that are meant to come with ascension.
>
> also, this just occurred to me... could tachyons (supposed faster-
than
> light particles) be light from regions of the universe of higher
> density than ours? of perhaps from micro-climates of higher density
> within our own region? or both? could these micro-climates exist
> inside our own bodies as part of our natural functioning? are there
> ways to help create or amplify them? but there i'm going off on a
big
> tangent.
>
> i'd like to know what anyone thinks of this.
>
> love and light,
>
> graeme

[Ron Erickson]

ron: my comments below are mostly based on the body of knowledge that is current
physics. this does not mean that it is complete or even true, but i think it is
important to be aware of the distinction between physics and metaphysics.
today's metaphysics may become tomorrows physics, so speculation and creativity
are also important.


graeme: "if the aether exists, and 'particles' are really vortices in the
aether, and light is waves in the aether, i think i know why e=mc squared."

ron: "aether" is apparently some form of "background" (in the physics context).
general relativity is a background independent theory by definition, so keep
this in mind. string theory, curiously, is implicitly background dependent,
even though it does not explicitly define a medium for strings.


graeme: "so, the energy contained in a given particle corresponds to the kinetic
energy it would have if it were moving at the speed of light."

ron: not quite. e=mc2 simply relates energy to mass. it shows that it would
require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle (with mass) to the
speed of light. the special theory also accounts for the energy released
through nuclear fission, for example where a small portion of the mass of a
uranium atom is converted into nuclear energy through splitting of the nucleus.


graeme: "but how about internal motion? if particles are vortices, and the
motion in those vortices is at the speed of light, c, then..." "particles are
vortices in the aether"

ron: quantum particles are elemental entities, so they cannot have an internal
structure. the word "vortex" or "vortices" reminds me of some of the diagrams
shown in books on string theory. these images are not intended to be literal,
but just to convey some idea of the behavior of things that no physicist has
ever seen, and are only described in mathematical terms. it is important also
to note that the uncertainty principle of quantum theory suggests that all
particles, even in a "vacuum" at a temperature of 0k, must still have local
motion (at least when observed). this is so because otherwise particles would
be static and therefore the position and momentum could be known precisely.
this is known as "zero-point motion".


graeme: "light is waves in the aether."

ron: ok, but remember that quantum theory shows that light has both a wave and a
particle (dual) behavior.


graeme: "the unifying notion is that they both move at the speed of light, c!
the difference is that light is external and radiative motion, and matter is
internal and vorticular motion."

ron: no way! "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum, and even light travels
slower than c in glass, for example. again, the equation e=mc2 clearly shows
that matter moving less than c cannot be accelerated to c - it can only be
approached.


graeme: "this means that everything moves at the speed of light, whether it's
material or light itself. one constant speed for everything! we are all
constantly moving at light speed!"

ron: i don't think you'll find any credible physicist who would agree.


graeme: "it also provides support for the notion of matter being condensed
light. rather, light and matter are both manifestations of the constant
movement of the aether."

ron: we know that matter and energy are interchangeable and that energy can be
manifested in form of light/photons, but i don't agree that it is constant. at
the instance of the "big bang" there was only pure energy, and matter was
produced later. incidentally, note that space was not "clear" until
considerable expansion had occurred. the cosmic background radiation, although
statistically uniform in all directions, is not entirely uniform. those
relatively small regions of slightly greater concentration compacted into
matter, and this made a big difference to human life, for it formed all of the
matter of the known universe.


graeme: "thus sound travels at about 300 m/s in air, 1000 m/s in water, and 6000
m/s in steel (if i remember rightly). similarly, a higher density of aether
would presumably increase the speed of light. this would also mean that
particles would contain more energy, as the vortices they consist of would move
at the new higher speed of light."

ron: assuming that "density of aether" has any relationship at all to (current)
known physics, then i believe that "density of aether" refers to its degree of
energy (for example, zero-point energy). as i pointed out above, light travels
slower in more dense materials, unlike sound. i don't really see how the "mass
density of solids" relates to the density of aether, even metaphorically.


graeme: "you wouldn't want to use a nuke in a higher-density region of space!
the increased energy of both light
and matter could help to explain the vastly increased power, understanding and
abilities that are meant to come with ascension."

ron: compared to "zero-point energy", nuclear fission is a relatively minor
energy source. i think you might like this document on zpe:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm


graeme: "could tachyons (supposed faster-than light particles) be light from
regions of the universe of higher density than ours?"

ron: if tachyons exist, then they are all around us right now. i can't see how
tachyons could have come from "regions of the universe" as such, for they could
only have been produced at the moment of the big bang. the reason why is that
they would always have had a velocity > c, as suggested by the tachyon energy
equation e = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2).

it's good to know that there are other people who have an interest in these
things.

take care, ron


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[fran.vincent@...>]

graeme and all:

graeme on 2/20 wrote:..." also, this just occurred to me... could
tachyons (supposed faster-than
light particles) be light from regions of the universe of higher
density than ours? of perhaps from micro-climates of higher density
within our own region? or both? could these micro-climates exist
inside our own bodies as part of our natural functioning? are there
ways to help create or amplify them? but there i'm going off on a big
tangent. "


fran writes: graeme i have thought of the possibility that there are
different mathematical laws in physics as the densities and structures
raise (and or lower) in their hierarchy. perhaps the 6th or 7th density
of our universe, the light travels faster than our 3rd density light
travels! for example, light traveling faster, tachyons, from outside
our galaxy, and what about another side added or subtracted from the
structures of the atoms, planets, suns and galaxies i or vice versa,
the newer creations becoming smaller with less sides to their
structures, and the light traveling (slower or faster??).

and the micro-climates of higher density in our bodies, e.i., our
chakras--perhaps the root traveling slower than the crown and the crown
traveling faster than light? you may have already answered you own
question. i think it is a high probability when we/entities reach a
certain point in our initiations/ascension, we change the speed of our
chakras.

to add another thought: the number 8 or is it 9, to be the completion
number for our galaxy. perhaps for another, older, or newer galaxy or
universe, it is 7 or 10?

i think it is a high possibility that our known mathematical laws may be
different for other galaxies and universes.

your analysis on e=mc squared makes sense to me! thank for sharing.

in love and light,

the lucky unicorn,

fran


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Graeme]

hi ron, thanks for you lengthy and considered reply. at some points
i'm a little blunt here, i hope it doesn't annoy you, for that isn't
my intention. i'm just leveling with you. :-)

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=_7v1fhre9xeygp4xfszebw7v0ixmm6noionon7 0kz_izftxrgfml9cghujsu0agwvvdofpolfi1t1dcm), "ron erickson" <ronerick@i...> wrote:
>
> ron: my comments below are mostly based on the body of knowledge
that is current physics. this does not mean that it is complete or
even true, but i think it is important to be aware of the distinction
between physics and metaphysics. today's metaphysics may become
tomorrows physics, so speculation and creativity are also important.
>
**thankyou for the disclaimer, it's almost inevitably the case that
today's paradigms are ridiculed tomorrow**

> graeme: "if the aether exists, and 'particles' are really vortices
in the aether, and light is waves in the aether, i think i know why
e=mc squared."
>
> ron: "aether" is apparently some form of "background" (in the
physics context). general relativity is a background independent
theory by definition, so keep this in mind. string theory, curiously,
is implicitly background dependent, even though it does not explicitly
define a medium for strings.

**you may not be aware of this, but i have read that towards the end
of his life, einstein became sympathetic once again to the notion of
an aether. also if aether was frictionless (which it would have to be
in order for particles to be durable), it wouldn't necessarily provide
a physically meaningful frame of reference, since it would resist
nothing. i realise that this is speculation. this idea may not even
require aether. if you can have waves traveling through nothing at
all, why not vortices?**
>
> graeme: "so, the energy contained in a given particle corresponds to
the kinetic energy it would have if it were moving at the speed of light."
>
> ron: not quite. e=mc2 simply relates energy to mass. it shows that
it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle
(with mass) to the speed of light. the special theory also accounts
for the energy released through nuclear fission, for example where a
small portion of the mass of a uranium atom is converted into nuclear
energy through splitting of the nucleus.
>
**i just find the similarity to ke=mv2 somewhat striking. after all,
why should the speed of light be a factor in mass-energy equivalence?**
>
> graeme: "but how about internal motion? if particles are vortices,
and the
> motion in those vortices is at the speed of light, c, then..."
"particles are vortices in the aether"
>
> ron: quantum particles are elemental entities, so they cannot have
an internal structure. the word "vortex" or "vortices" reminds me of
some of the diagrams shown in books on string theory. these images
are not intended to be literal, but just to convey some idea of the
behavior of things that no physicist has ever seen, and are only
described in mathematical terms. it is important also to note that
the uncertainty principle of quantum theory suggests that all
particles, even in a "vacuum" at a temperature of 0k, must still have
local motion (at least when observed). this is so because otherwise
particles would be static and therefore the position and momentum
could be known precisely. this is known as "zero-point motion".
>
**exactly how do you know that they are elemental entities? people
used to think that of the atom, and they were also unaware of its
internal structure. to baldly assert that "they cannot have an
internal structure" is just spouting dogma, if you'll forgive me,
which i hope you will.**
>
> graeme: "light is waves in the aether."
>
> ron: ok, but remember that quantum theory shows that light has both
a wave and a particle (dual) behavior.
>
**yes, as a 'wave packet', because light is always emitted in discrete
bursts. these bursts are still of a wave nature, it seems.**
>
> graeme: "the unifying notion is that they both move at the speed of
light, c! the difference is that light is external and radiative
motion, and matter is internal and vorticular motion."
>
> ron: no way! "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum, and even light
travels slower than c in glass, for example. again, the equation
e=mc2 clearly shows that matter moving less than c cannot be
accelerated to c - it can only be approached.
>
**i'm not exactly saying that matter is moving at the speed of light,
rather that the energy that forms light also forms matter, and that
energy moves at c, whatever c may be in a given place. as for mass,
no one yet knows why mass exists, to my knowledge. it's an enigma.**
>
> graeme: "this means that everything moves at the speed of light,
whether it's material or light itself. one constant speed for
everything! we are all constantly moving at light speed!"
>
> ron: i don't think you'll find any credible physicist who would agree.
>
**and? so? i don't base my ideas on who might or might not agree
with me. having said that, a nuclear physicist on another forum has
approved of my ideas. but even if he hadn't, so what? and what
precisely does 'credible physicist' mean? credibility doesn't exist
in a vacuum, it's always credibility in the eyes of this or that
faction.**
>
> graeme: "it also provides support for the notion of matter being
condensed light. rather, light and matter are both manifestations of
the constant movement of the aether."
>
> ron: we know that matter and energy are interchangeable and that
energy can be manifested in form of light/photons, but i don't agree
that it is constant. at the instance of the "big bang" there was only
pure energy, and matter was produced later. incidentally, note that
space was not "clear" until considerable expansion had occurred. the
cosmic background radiation, although statistically uniform in all
directions, is not entirely uniform. those relatively small regions
of slightly greater concentration compacted into matter, and this made
a big difference to human life, for it formed all of the matter of the
known universe.
>
**i'm not even going to go there, because astrophysics in the ropiest
excuse for an 'exact science' around, so there is no point in arguing
over it. the big bang theory has supporters and detractors, it's just
that the detractors are the underdog right now. incidentally, i
should point out that i never said that matter was there from the
beginning, or light, or even aether! i advise against wording
cosmological theory as though it was the 'truth'. i rather suspect
that there are many different possible cosmologies, and that we have
picked the one most compatible with the underpinnings of our culture.**
>
> graeme: "thus sound travels at about 300 m/s in air, 1000 m/s in
water, and 6000 m/s in steel (if i remember rightly). similarly, a
higher density of aether would presumably increase the speed of light.
this would also mean that particles would contain more energy, as the
vortices they consist of would move at the new higher speed of light."
>
> ron: assuming that "density of aether" has any relationship at all
to (current) known physics, then i believe that "density of aether"
refers to its degree of energy (for example, zero-point energy). as i
pointed out above, light travels slower in more dense materials,
unlike sound. i don't really see how the "mass density of solids"
relates to the density of aether, even metaphorically.
>
**i never said aether was material, even though it would form
material, as it also would form light. i guess that in this model,
sound is a wave in matter, light is a wave in aether, with analogous
effects due to changes of density i.e. increased aetheric density
would have an opposite effect to increased material density (on
light). something highly speculative just occured to me... is it
possible that light travels just as fast in glass as in air, but
following a different path? don't take that last bit as having
anything to do with the rest of this discussion!**
>
> graeme: "you wouldn't want to use a nuke in a higher-density region
of space! the increased energy of both light
> and matter could help to explain the vastly increased power,
understanding and abilities that are meant to come with ascension."
>
> ron: compared to "zero-point energy", nuclear fission is a
relatively minor energy source. i think you might like this document
on zpe: http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm
>
**oh indeed so, i agree, i was merely pointing out that if higher
density aether increased the speed of light, then e=mc2 would yield
far more 'e'. i find it amusing that you reference the library of
halexandria, given that no 'credible' physicist would give most of it
it the time of day! don't get me wrong, i think it's a great website,
i've spent hours and hours there (days, actually). :)**
>
> graeme: "could tachyons (supposed faster-than light particles) be
light from regions of the universe of higher density than ours?"
>
> ron: if tachyons exist, then they are all around us right now. i
can't see how tachyons could have come from "regions of the universe"
as such, for they could only have been produced at the moment of the
big bang. the reason why is that they would always have had a
velocity > c, as suggested by the tachyon energy equation e =
mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2).
>
**i refer back to my earlier suspicions about cosmology. i'm not
saying the big bang didn't happen, i'm just saying 'maybe'. i'd also
cast a big 'maybe' at my own tachyon speculations. i suppose i just
have a gut feeling that all phenomena arise from one principle, so
that's where my speculations tend to lead.**

> it's good to know that there are other people who have an interest
in these things.
>
indeed it is :-)

**i hope you realise all this is just speculation, and i am only
defending myself speculatively.... i'm a lousy physicist, but a good
daydreamer!**

love and light,

graeme

[Ron Erickson]

hi graeme,

ron: i have just a few things - 'cause i'll be in the dog house if i ramble on
too much. :)

graeme: exactly how do you know that they are elemental entities? .. to baldly
assert that "they cannot have an internal structure" is just spouting dogma..

ron: it's only dogma when no other ideas are being considered. if you have a
strong argument for vortexes, and can prove it, then go for it - you could
become famous and win a nobel prize.

graeme: ..particles are vortices in the aether, and light is waves in the
aether. the unifying notion is that they both move at the speed of light, c!
i'm not exactly saying that matter is moving at the speed of light, rather that
the energy that forms light also forms matter, and that energy moves at c,
whatever c may be in a given place.

ron: "it's an enigma" indeed.

graeme: i don't base my ideas on who might or might not agree with me.

ron: that's ok, but when doing physics you still need to apply scientific
rationalism (eventually).

graeme: i advise against wording cosmological theory as though it was the
'truth'.

ron: i don't consider scientific theories as 'truth' - but hopefully they are
the best guesses that have been put forward at any point in time.

graeme: i hope you realise all this is just speculation.. i'm a lousy physicist,
but a good daydreamer!

ron: we're perhaps not much different. i've never been a "professional
scientist", but i like to read. i'm an artist, a composer, an "armchair
philosopher" and i used to develop software for a living.

ron

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Graeme]

hey there ron!

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ab6dvk6ekqaojccjr4qm6dk8yu_7tr2bzobb8l r-qkdm9grybszz2iczkia0nq0n9zzj42ebs6ht6nzj6g), "ron erickson" <ronerick@i...> wrote:
>
> ron: it's only dogma when no other ideas are being considered. if
you have a strong argument for vortexes, and can prove it, then go for
it - you could become famous and win a nobel prize.
>
yes, i may have to go for that physics degree/phd combo after all!
interestingly lord kelvin, a champion of the vortex theory, did a
public demonstration where he used two boxes with holes in to collide
smoke-rings at each other. smoke rings are of course counter-rotating
vortices. the rings bounced right off each other, instead of mingling
as you would expect! this provides a possible reason for the perfect
elasticity of particles, which is not explained by the solid particle
model.
>
> ron: i don't consider scientific theories as 'truth' - but hopefully
they are the best guesses that have been put forward at any point in time.
>
hopefully is the word. of course there is more than just one major
cosmological theory, and more than one major theory of astrophysics,
but it is one that dominates in each case. in terms of popularity
that is.
>
> ron: we're perhaps not much different. i've never been a
"professional scientist", but i like to read. i'm an artist, a
composer, an "armchair philosopher" and i used to develop software for
a living.
>
funny, i'm big into philosophy too, and i'm a musician to boot!

love and light,

graeme