[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them > one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the list<G>. > John Mikes > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Everything List" <email@example.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > (ref.:) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > >>(ref#2): > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > > > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > > > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > ... > > > > Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current > > circumstances. > [JM]: > 1.Exactly what I was missing: why pick "ONE" and dogmatize it? > 2.Who said we are ready to formulate a "theory" for the 'origins'?
Who said we aren't ? We have theories good enough to make predictions like the 4K background radiation. > > > > You will find that unknown events are neglected in all > > theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ? > [JM]: > Consider it (or at least that there may be such) and realize the > insufficiency of data for writing a bible. The wisdom you quote (accepted) > does not make a 'theory' right. That's why I call 'my idea' a narrative, not > even a hypothesis. > I was not there. That is an argument against science in general,. Yet sciene works well in many areas. > > > > That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory. > [JM]: > So we should consider and use some humility. I pointed out ONE > (TWO?)definite mistakes among many (see: Eric Lerner's book: The BB never > happened - of course it was argued against by cosmophysicists - on 'their' > bases and against Lerner's own hype which he voluteered to construct. A > mistake. ). > > > ... > > > > The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became > > establishment by being able ot prove their case. > [JM]: > The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers all slanted to 'prove' > some details. This is just rhetoric. You desciber paper as "slanted" because you don't like them. Would you describe Hoyle's alternative as "slanted" ? > They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark on 'proof' > at 'evidence' below. > ... > > > > Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ? > [JM]: > Not more than just considering the redshift an optical Doppler effect, which > is a good idea. "Those"(?) mechanisms are also (based on? are?) valid > theses in conventional physics - my opinion is anecdotal. I don't see what you mean ? Are you saying redshift isn't Doppler, or that it is ? > LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as supportive (in)/directly. Of what ? > Popper > comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from the inside of a mindset. Huh ? > > Which was considered and rejected. > [JM]: > You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do you refer to all 'others' as > well in the "etc."? > ... I thought it was possible to fathom the mystery of comsogenesis -- that is what you say above. Are you saying that, or are you promoting an alternative. > > > John Mikes > The mindset - as I see it - in the BB-cosmology is 2500 year old. Not Plato, > but the Greek mythology, when P. Athenai sprang out from Zeuss' head in full > armor. It isn't. The BB is a testable, quantitative theory. > There is a 'seed' accountable for zillion degrees K, zillion gauss gravity, > zillion erg compressed work and pertinent energy and (almost) zero space. > Yet this - call it - "system" 'obeys' the complex rules in our conventional > physical system equations of VERY narrow limitations in charaacteristics at > its very birth. > In full armor and fervor. > They even calculated out in our time-units what happened at the 10^42 or^32 > sec > after the (timeless???) zero point of banging. The point of a theory is to be able to deal with hypothetical and counterfactual situations. > Which was the act of a > Quantum Tooth Fairy. Problems? never mind, we have a good term: inflation > and it will take care of the irregular behavior of that 'seed'. > And never mind how it happened, just use a linear history with linear > time-scale to arrive at 'now'. > Interesting. Religions are as well interesting. Rhetoric, again. > John > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---