{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3850", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3850, "subject": "No Grand Gnab", "messages": 7, "voices": 3, "first": "2003-02-14T17:26:25+00:00", "last": "2003-02-14T20:16:30+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2003-02-14T17:26:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Unfortunately for those of us who like cyclic universe\ntheories, it appears that \"The universe will expand=20\nforever. It will not turn back on itself and collapse=20\nin a great crunch,\" according to evidence just being\nreleased from the anisotropic microwave mapping project.\n\nFull story at:\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/11/cosmic.portrait/index.html\n\nI presume the relevance to things Wolfean is obvious..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-02-14T18:24:25+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This has actually been theorized for quite some time. IIRC some scientists \nwere holding on to the idea that there may be enough dark matter in the \nuniverse to account for the difference in mass needed to bring everything \nback together.\n\nWhat confuses me about this article is that they seem (or claim) to know \njust how much dark matter there is in the universe - I'm not sure how \nthey're coming up with those numbers.\n\nChris" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Unfortunately for those of us who like cyclic universe\ntheories, it appears that \"The universe will expand\nforever. It will not turn back on itself and collapse\nin a great crunch,\" according to evidence just being\nreleased from the anisotropic microwave mapping project.\n\nFull story at:\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/11/cosmic.portrait/index.html\n\nI presume the relevance to things Wolfean is obvious...\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2003-02-14T18:31:37+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What confuses me about this article is that they seem (or \nclaim) to know just how much dark matter there is in the\nuniverse - I'm not sure how they're coming up with those\nnumbers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Probably reverse-engineering ... with data like this, I \nsuppose they have enough information to work out the higher-\norder differentials (i.e., the rate change of the rate of \nchange of ... ) of the expansion of the universe. Given\nthat, they could extrapolate _forward_ and determine\nwhether the slowing expansion will reverse into a collapse\nor just continue to expand at a rate that asymptotically\napproaches zero.\n\nOr something.\n\nHey, I just live in the universe, I don't run it..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-02-14T19:17:24+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, so Wolfe is now apparently out of date!\n I think 100 years from now, all our SF will be seriously out of \ndate. Conventional SF works in terms of theories about the universe that \nare just that: theories. Better: myths. Can anyone seriously believe that \nhumanity has done more than just scratch the surface of the reality of the \nuniverse? We cast out grids, paradigms, myths, that seem to make the most \nsense of the data we know. How much don't we know? We've not been at this \nvery long.\n That's why I like SF much more than I like PBS. SF is literary, \nfun, mythical. PBS always seems to think the latest word is also the last word!\n\nNutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2003-02-14T19:30:58+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, so Wolfe is now apparently out of date!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...which was hardly my point. I was just directing attention\nto a bit of current science that I figured would be of interest\nto Wolfe readers, because of his cosmological concerns." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I think 100 years from now, all our SF will be \nseriously out of date. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it better to say that the science in the SF will be\nout of date, which doesn't particularly make the SF out of\ndate. The current state of knowledge about, say, Mars, does\nnot detract from my pleasure in reading (to pick a relatively\nfew examples) \"A Rose for Ecclesiastes,\" \"A Martian Odyssey,\"\nMAN PLUS, LOST RACE OF MARS, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, etc.; \ndoes it do so for you? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Conventional SF works in terms of theories about the \nuniverse that are just that: theories. Better: myths." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the theories\nof modern science \"myths.\" I think though that _some_ SF (and\nparticularly the resurgent, literary space opera of people \nlike Zindell and Hamilton) uses them _in part_ the way \nclassical myths used their respective cosmologies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Can anyone seriously believe that humanity has done more\nthan just scratch the surface of the reality of the universe?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hey, I'm not sure we've even done that ... !\n\nWhich is just as well. After all, the most merciful thing in\nthe world, I think, is the inability of the human mind ...\noh, did someone already say that ... ?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's why I like SF much more than I like PBS." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This line had me lol in my office." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "PBS always seems to think the latest word is also the last word!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True for you, Patera!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-02-14T20:10:14+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 01:30 PM 2/14/2003, Blatted blasted:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think it better to say that the science in the SF will be\nout of date, which doesn't particularly make the SF out of\ndate. The current state of knowledge about, say, Mars, does\nnot detract from my pleasure in reading (to pick a relatively\nfew examples) \"A Rose for Ecclesiastes,\" \"A Martian Odyssey,\"\nMAN PLUS, LOST RACE OF MARS, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, etc.;\ndoes it do so for you?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, of course not. That was my point. But I like the way you rephrased it.\n\nPATERA Nutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-02-14T20:16:30+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) No Grand Gnab", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "At 01:30 PM 2/14/2003, you wrote:\nWell, so Wolfe is now apparently out of date!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...which was hardly my point. I was just directing attention\nto a bit of current science that I figured would be of interest\nto Wolfe readers, because of his cosmological concerns." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Apologies for making two posts when one would have been better.\n Also, I ask forgiveness if my statement appeared offensive. I \nshould have added ;)\n As for Wolfe's cosmological concerns, just in case someone wants \nthis tidbit: His expression to me about the Urth universe was that he had \ndecided to write \"in terms of one current view,\" or words to that effect. \nWhile I'm sure he's interested (as I suppose we all are), he obviously was \nnot invested in any particular scheme. (By that I don't mean, btw, that I \nthink he would regard young-earth creationism as a viable alternative.)\n\nFWIW\n\nNutria" } ] } ] }