The laughed at Bozo the Clown too.

Brent Meeker

> To Stathis, Brent, and List:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!)
> To: <>
> 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
>>>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.
>>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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to