[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > To: <[email protected]> > 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".
Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current circumstances. > 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 You will find that unknown events are neglected in all theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ? > 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). That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory. > 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 Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became establishment by being able ot prove their case. > 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). Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ? > (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. Which was considered and rejected. > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
