Dear Stephen, thanks for the considerate reply and the basic consent. The facts you mentioned are indeed well known and at their onset I was also enthused (I am old enough for that) when I rethought all the gravitational discrepancies (galaxies would fall apart etc.) at that time. That was then, I was a complacent 'reductionist hero' in my field. All considerations you mention are WITHIN the reductionist model of cosmology now still reigning - including the linear retrogradicity for the Big Bang calculations vs a chaotic upscale evolution (as shown in some instances ) just to mention one.
It is hard to find proper predictions without knowing all circumstances. I cannot believe that those desultory snapshots of the cosmos allow a comprehensive knowledge of what is (was? will?) going on. Especially not, if the starting condition is "This is it, we know it all". And with imaginary (imaginative?) explanations based on concepts from a level with much less observational input than we think we have today. I am convinced that on strictly observational basis we cannot see clearly, (no matter how much and how sophisticated calculations have been done), since I am not sure whether we have observational access to everything that influences our existence. I am not talking about supernatural, just things existing beyond the circle of (instrumental?) observability at the present level of physical sciences. Some such features are showing in animals, (migrational capabilities etc.) and who knows how much in the cosmos. Even our own body is 'full of surprises', from the immunity topics to epidemiology, not to mention the brainfunctions (which most of us has). Best regards John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model > Dear John, > > It is instructive to look at the reasons why all this "phantom" > matter/energy was postulated to exist in the first place! IIRC, it started > when it was noticed that the radial (?) momentum distribution of galaxies > did not follow the predictions of a gravity only model. > Alternatives using plasma physics have been proposed but have received > little serious attention even though they predict distributions that fit > very well and do not require strange forms of matter. The con against them > is that they require the existence of magnetic fields at all cosmological > scales and an acknowledgement that all that "glowing stuff" out there is > electrically charged - not neutral as the gravitational models require. > From my own point of view, the predilection for gravity and fancy > particle based models is more of a political phenomenon than an attempt to > find a better predictive model. A lot of academic tenure is tied up in > gravity based models. > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:24 AM > Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model > > > > Just one question and one remark. > > Q: > > >>...a group of astrophysicists in the UK has found that this radiation - > > >>the microwave 'echo' of the big bang - may in fact have been modified > >>or > > `corrupted' as it passed through galaxy clusters on its way to > >>Earth....<< > > Where from? > > (and please, spare the Euclidean geometry in explaining cosmology) > > > > Rem.: > > >>the universe is dominated by cold 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - a > > >>view that has been confirmed by recent > > > > measurements on the cosmic background radiation.<< > > (At least assigned to it and believed so, supported by zillions of theory > > laden measurements and mathematical congruences). > > I assign those 'discrepancies' which led to the 'dark' content to our > > lack of omniscience: our 'not-omni' assigns ALL to the so far discovered > > cognitive inventory - and it is not enough. I like the 'dark', not because > > of its physical meaning as non-radiant, but because understanding it will > > require more 'enlightenment' in the topics of the wholeness. > > Cosmo-physicists don't like to confess to ignorance in explaining data. > > If the darkness is 'dominant', then so is our ignorance. We know little. > > > > Concerning the quote in the question: > > if radiation could be 'corrupted', changed, by passing features in the > > cosmos, a similar phenomenon could be assigned to the redshift as well and > > we can start re-thinking the science of our expanding universe. > > But what can be done with so many calculations, dissertations, awards, > > (incl. Nobels), theories and tenures - all based (and successfully > included) > > in all of these? Not to speak about the 2-3 generations of so brainwashed > > scientists who imbibed all that with the nursing milk of their Alma Mater. > > > > John Mikes > > > snip >