[xelasnave]

Well Steve I drop the word theory as well but its one of those words that can mean more to some than it means to others and seeing you had raised the level of input I felt duty bound to mention that aspect.
It is indeed a wonderful night outside unfortunate that I can not mount the camera on the new mount (or the binos) still I managed a bit of a session (mmm musos term an event less than a gig but more than a jam).
I started to wonder about the inside of a completely shielded box and that would be indeed a very strange place as I am convinced the pressure I seek to identify is simply an intergral part of everything. In seeking to find a way that our particle (I will use the term to encompass the item which we seek be it particle or energy) could loss energy when encountering mass I came up with the strangest possibility but one the more I think about seems to be worth thinking more about. I will at the risk of ridicule share it with you. Perhaps the gravity rain particle is what powers an electron and causes it to
"orbit" the "centre" of the atom. It is a tantalizing thought because if indeed we could absolutly shield an atom in a box this would raise the prospect that the exclussion of the gr particle passing thru would leave the electron without power and it is difficult to figure what may come next. Anyway dont dwell upon that it is almost a worry that my idea could reach to the heart of "ëverything"
I am not trying to go the opposite to the rest of the world but frankely I find if I think deeply about the prospect of there being a big bang or not I find it impossible to accept the theory. The bank of evidence for it does not worry me as humans have been wrong before and content to be so. However I doubt if we are expanding into anything I believe the universe is infinite and any conditions we interprete as expanssion are either local on the grander scale of infinity or even the evidence we interprete misleads us, there being an underlying desire by all reviewing the data to support current popular theory. I agree it all makes sence in the context of supporting "the big"bang but I consider there may well be other interpretations for such things as red shift and background radiation for example. I can not imagine that our Universe sits like a galaxy in an infinite void, and I can not imagine that before the seed of the Universe "äppeared" this infinite void exsisted with nothing within..then with nothing in it a seed formed that in a split second grew by a factor of 10 followed by 43 zeros. I am only a little human and I can not accept that we see logic all around us and that things within our grasp we can understand and make sence of and yet we happily except such a propostion. I ask you to wonder about accepting such a thing. If I told you I would invesst your money to grow at a rate of doubling each day you would be wondering how and if indeed such was possible. I see many rich men and have not met one that can do this. But if we live in a sphere we call our Universe and we note that what we see ,our observable Universe is expanding I must ask into what is it we expand into? a void so vast that the day will come that even electrons will be separated by billions upon billions of light years.. that is the suggestion one must grasp if we accept expansion I feel. Or will we colapse back to a seed and that seed hang in this infinite void containing all the energy in a space the size of a pin head? what pressure exsists that this void of nothing can exsert upon this seed to hold it in place awaitng a rebirth. I feel it is impossible to accept the big bang thoery... a term that was coined by Fred Hoyle when the idea was first put forward as a dig at the concept. It suits man and man's religions but it does not suit my logic.
Nevertheless I could seize upon the big bang as gravity rain will be well suited to it...because it would harbour gravity rain maybe better than an infinite Universe..the fundamental problem being faced is why did the expansion move at various rates, why are we expanding, why do objects seem move together in such an environment well if you see the gravity rain pressure thing it answers those questions and removes the dark energy and dark matter problem. Dark energy will forever be required to explain expansion.. a pushing gravity as they even call it solves this.
Well it is late and I want to get another look at Orion before I go to bed thank you for thinking about this. I welcome the prospect of someone convincing me I am on the wrong track as the idea wont let me be ..each time I say no more, another thing comes along that makes me start into it again.. the revival of the popularity of the cosmological constant for example.. it was nonsence only such a short time ago and now it is gaining interest again.. there is a link I feel between it and what I see.
Back to Orion and bino backbreak.
alex