Klaus wrote: > Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.
Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work without it. That type 1A su > > As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All > we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came up > with a fishy theory about "gravity". We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that things fall to the ground. D'oh! Yup, this model helps us to > explain why things fall to the ground, but there is no way to find out the > real truth. And there will never be. Why not? Never is way to absolute for me. Especially on an SF list! > Meanwhile, cosmology and particle physics make darn intersting subjects to > discuss! ;-) Now _that_ we can agree on. -- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
