> 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" <everything-list@googlegroups.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: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to