RE: Lerner's hypothesis

[<rknowles@woh.rr.com>]

My bad, my fingers going faster than my brain.  The cone argument
is that objects nearer than say, 1m LY seen by us, statistically
represent a much smaller fraction of all objects existing from that point
on out towards "infinity and beyond", simply because the nearer objects are
on the
narrower end of the cone.

Not being an astrophysicist, and I'm still digesting a lot of this, but it
seemed to
be one of those aspects that a layman (such as I) would find as a revelation
after careful thought.  When I looked at your TN, it struck a similar chord.

Rich Knowles

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com [mailto:owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com]On
Behalf Of Stupendous Man
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:29 PM
To: tass@listserv.wwa.com
Subject: Re: Lerner's hypothesis



  Rich Knowles wrote:

> Something only slightly tangential, I'm reading "The Big Bang
> Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, ...
>  ... The point being that there is less area
> as you get closer to the observer, and conversely, as you drop
> away a couple LY, there is much more spatial area from which
> light emitters exist, therefore biasing measurements towards
> a particular spectral weighting.

  I know of no evidence for spatial curvature on scales of a few light
years.
There are measurements which are explained by spatial curvature, but only
on scales of hundreds of megaparcsecs or more.

                                             Michael Richmond