<Forget the idea that we live in a youthful universe.

If two American professors are correct, the cosmos is middle-aged.

And it has not got an old age to look forward to.



Whenever I see a cosmologist that ignores relativity - I see a cosmologist who hasn't a clue to what he is talking about.

Energy in motion is ageless. Time is a relative concept of disparate energy streams - not a universal constant.

Any cosmologist who tells you the age of the universe - is wrong.

Any cosmologist who tries to pinpoint a beginning of the universe - is wrong.

Any cosmologist who tries to pinpoint an end to the universe - is wrong.

The universe is energy.

Energy has always existed.
Time has always existed - since time is the comparitive motions of moving energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed but simply changes form.

If one simply must put an infantile beginning and ending vision upon the material universe we observe - then the best way to envision it is that it is ending right now....and beginning right now.

Lee is close to right in his assumption of the repetition - however to bve really accurate we must realize it is OSCILLATING.

Energy oscillates - each atom is an oscillating energy expression, dying and beginning again countless times in a nanosecond.

So the universe is constantly dying - and giving birth to itself!

The universe is infinite and you can always find "old" galaxies or "new" galaxies - however they are really not old or new, but rather are developed or undeveloped expressions in any given cycle of energy.

Time again is meaningless when we see it from this more complete perspective.

Once more cosmologists get a grasp on this - they will understand they are not looking back into time at a fixed rate or that objects further in space are further back in time - because they are viewing with a fixed expression light in a fixed environment. None of them imagined what the universe would look like if THEY were moving at light speed through the universe.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1