I just received this week's Economist and found in its "Science"
chapter a very informative (moderately scientific) description
with the topic I touched.  FYI

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "CMR"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model


> 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
> >
>
>


Reply via email to