Question of timing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Does the Meta model or any modal of the Universe incorporate studies of the pace of Galactic development. Are the planets and the stars developing rate in numbers increasing, decreasing or at a steady rate? Are the number of new systems increasing or decreasing? Would the Meta Model say that on the aggragate it all is balanced and steady rate?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To advanced microbes, Earth's atmosphere or oceans are the entire visible universe. Our "visible universe" is of the same character -- a relatively minor and in some ways unique bit of an infinite universe. Just as for atmospheres and oceans, the visible large-scale surroundings might be increasing or decreasing in total content or extent in the long run. But in our short life spans, the largest scales around us appear relatively "steady state". -|Tom|-

&gt;&gt;Does the Meta model or any modal of the Universe incorporate studies of the pace of Galactic development.

Halton Arp advances the theory that Sayfert Galaxies are cosmic incubators, spewing forth matter into the heavens that then grows and becomes new stars and planets and galaxies. While this isn't a part of the Meta Model it does partly answer the question of the rate of galactic development, in that by counting Sayferts and characterizing their relative states of existance one could postulate a reasonable flux model for cosmological transformation.

I think there are issues of scale when analyzing this question that frankly could blow the mind. Our known universe could be in a matter creating zone, whose to say. Its the whole grain of sand thing. Anyway, I just thought I would pipe in.

Mark Vitrone