Thanks, Peter John --- 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [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 protected]> > > 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: <[email protected]> > > > > 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
