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 > > > >
