Dear John and Friends, An online version of the Economist article can be found here:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626 Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model > 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 > > snip