The laughed at Bozo the Clown too. Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > >>Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>John M writes: >>> >>> >>> >>>>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing >>>>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? >>>>(I just wanted to tease members of this list. >>>>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and >>>>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) >>>> >>>>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put >>>>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. >>>>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try >>>>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new >>>>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we >>>>experience? >>> >>> >>>I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would >>>change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, >>>there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are >>>pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even >>>the basics of what they are criticizing, so it is understandable >>>that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by >>>people working in the field. It is also understandable that >>>scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories >>>on which they base their careers, so they may not change as >>>quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. >>> >>>Stathis Papaioannou >> >>In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no >>originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on > > a > >>model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a >>10-dimensional space. >> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020 >> >>The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them > > is > >>due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that > > this > >>can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion >>and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists > > may > >>consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist > > working > >>in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current >>theories are wrong. >> >>Brent Meeker >> > > Of course the "Big Bang" caught the attention. What I asked about > considering our 'visualization' of "a" reality-percept as provisional - to > work with, until a better one shows up : > >>>>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing >>>>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > > and mentioned the BB as a (side?) example. > BTW - speaking about 'the' Big Bang: Hubble (1922) detected a redshift in > the spectra of distant (and greater in even more distant) heavenly bodies > and was ingenious enough to connotate this with the Doppler effect, > concluding, that this shift into lower frequencies of distant bodies MAY > HAVE BEEN the result of a receding movement of the light-source, similar > to the 'lowering voice' in a Doppler - type auditive phenomenon. > Consequently: the universe MAY expand, producing those (alleged) receding > movements from us. > This is the 'provisionally(!)' accepted reality-percept as of the early > 1920s: > The idea was logical. - "IF" - this is a fact, we may apply a retrograde > line > backwards and arrive to the zero-point, when the universe was started - > gradually > collapsing into an extensionless point - from which it erose "in a big > bang". > > Then came the first (and biggest) mistake: "scientists" took our present > physical science circumstances and applied them (equationally) to all those > changing systems of concentration with incomparably higher density of > everything (energy? temperature? gravity? if someone ha an idea what these > are). They assigned the fractions of the hypothetical 1st sec (^-40 etc.) to > storytelling of features just "freezing out". It still did not make sense > with our equations derived in the present 'cool' and dilated physical > system, so an inflation was invented to correct 'some' of the compressed > state which made the equations fully paradoxical. > IF the Hubble proposal is right (and I give credit to assume it) the > calculations and their conclusions must be false - e.g. the age of the > universe. A linear retro-math > for a chaotic development cannot match, unknown intermittent events are all > neglected, the relationships of THIS system are applied for a totally > different one. > No experimental proof, not even asymptotically: those many orders of magn. > make speculation into science fiction. (This is why I composed my > narrative). > > After that - sorry, Brent - not those, who wanted to deny the theory, rather > those, who wanted to show 'experimental' simulations assignable to the > 'truth' > of the theory - designed and performed thousands and thousands of > experiments all slanted towards 'evidencing' the idea (E.g. Wilson's > background radiation, > presented as the 'remnant' of the Big Bang energy-level - earning him a > Nobel). > So the 'proving' became the way to grants, tenure, acceptance into the > science > establishment. Finding evidence against it? In who's acceptance? Disproving > it? > Dare swim against the flood? Become a scientific leper? > The shift in light-frequency can be altered in several other ways, but > attempts to > even mentioning such (e.g. compartmentalized universe, gravitational fields > changes) were rejected before any serious consideration as 'hoax' (sic). > (I have a personal experience to that by a prestigious New England > professor). > Expanding Universe with Big Bang Startup is the bible in conventional > science. > "Not one experiment to counter-evidence it!" also: "Not one penny to spend". > ...And of course there is Fred Hoyle's harmonic theory with no beginning, > etc. > So the (provisional?) reality-percept stays and generation after generation > it > gains more and more 'belief' as a real-reality-view. > * > This is a recent example, with a knowledge-base close to our present level > of the cognitive inventory in our epistemological enrichment. I did not go > further back into eras with much less information about the world and much > more speculation > "how it COULD be", like e.g. 2500 years ago and way before that. > That old ape must have been a genius to start thinking! > > John Mikes --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
