Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.astro.expert
Subject: Re: paradox????
Message-ID: <2126@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 17-May-84 08:05:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2126
Posted: Thu May 17 08:05:14 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 18-May-84 02:14:45 EDT
References: <287@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 25

I don't have any specific model in mind to explain why the whole
universe doesn't turn into iron eventually, but I should note that
this question did not bother too many cosmologists before the Big
Bang Bandwagon either.  If I had ALL the answers to questions like
this I would go collect my Nobel prize rather than work as a civil
servant...

Maybe the answer lies in the fact that energy is not strictly
conserved.  Perhaps there is something to the steady-state theory
after all.  Why doesn't one of you establishment cosmologists work
up a clear disproof of this possibility; it would strengthen your
case.

There is a large list of commonly-accepted (these days) ideas in
physics and especially cosmology of which I am not convinced (after
graduate training in Physics and much reading of the technical
literature).  Maybe the discussion could be steered toward an
investigation of the evidence for:
	neutron stars
	black holes
	renormalization methodology
	quarks and other unobservable building blocks
	magnetic monopoles
	gravitational radiation
	gravitons