John M wrote:
> Well, Brent, this was a post that requires multiple replies (marked JM) 
> and a longer reflection (with my apologies).
> *
> "...individuals within that "belief system" will have a variety of 
> views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system."
> JM: right. Some are converted to Islam as well.
> *
> "...they may simply stop thinking about it and rely on faith ..."
> JM: my late brother in law did not 'dare' to die because he - catholic 
> and an excellent natural scientist - lived in sin (had a 2nd marriage) 
> and was afraid of Hell.
> In my wordset an atheist requires a god to deny and agnosticism may be 
> an irrelevant mindset 'who cares'.
> *
> About my 'opinion' "Big Bang": I wrote it several times, in varied 
> detail, that Hubble was a genius thinking of the redshift as an optical 
> equivalent to Dopler, marking an expanding universe, but it was not 
> scrutinized before the scientific establishment took it for granted. 
> Lookiong for 'other' explanations was seen as heretic and unscientific.
> Since 1922(Hubble) - 3 generations of scientists were brainwashed into 
> that, (including you and me) and literally millions of experiments were 
> carried out for *proving* it
> only. 

You are very much misinformed.  There have been plenty of alternative 
explanations put forth - dust absorption and re-emission, "tired" light, 
variable speed of light.  And they all failed one empirical test or another.  
So it is your opinion that is unsupported - not the Doppler shift explanation 
of the Hubble constant.

> If a result was 'not good' it was rejected (alternate 
> (oppositional) opinion of mine landed a quip in a friendly discussion  
> (1997) without any further word from an MIT cosmologist: "HOAX").

Professionals sometimes get testy in dealing with cranks.

> As I said: I owe myself the distinctions of  the extenf of
> a 'belief system'.  One may be a western natural scientist and have an 
> unusual 'belief' imbedded in it, what does not make one so 'obtuse'. The 
> applied math is so reassuring. The fact that the regression counted 
> backwards linearly and it was detected that the 'moves' in cosmology go 
> nonlinearly (call it chaotic?) (e.g. many body interactions) - but more 
> importantly: that the physical connotation was recognising in the vastly 
> different (concentrated into a  miniaturized?) universe quite similar 
> 'laws' to our present (expanded?) world, leading to hard to swallow 
> paradoxes - is a basis for my disbelief. Then marvellous ideas were 
> invented (assumed?) to solve the controversial math: inflation in the 
> first place, and others, what makes me call the cosmological Big Bang 
> view a scientific narrative. However: mathematically/theoretically 
> proven. Even new theories added and adjusted.
> The starting point still remains: did the spectra shift to a lower 
> frequency by receding lightsources, or (guessably) by passing 
> magnetic/electric/or else(??) fields that slow down the 
> (observable/registrable) 'frequency' in our model of light? 

Doesn't work: EM fields are light - they don't slow light down as is easily 
observed in the laboratory.

>Or by some 
> effects yet to be discovered, not fitting into our conventional 
> (historic) model of the 'physical wiorld'?

Well you could suppose God did it - that's yet to be discovered.  It's easy to 
claim a scientific theory may be overturned by something yet to be discovered; 
that's the essence of science.  But it's hardly a reason to libel scientists 
for maintaining a theory that has passed all the tests they've been able to 
think of.

> I consider Hubble of similar importance to the DeCusa-Copernicus duo in 
> their establishing (changing?) a geocentric physical worldview into a 
> heliocentric - for the coming generations - it was also temporary and 
> later on gave place to a wider informatics.
> That's all, not any denigration for people with a more conventional 
> 'scientific' basis. I even value the practical
> results of reductionist scientists (I am one of them).
> Trying to step out from the quantized reductionist model-view  and its 
> (beyond model) conclusions makes me a scientific agnostic and renders my 
> 'talk' vague. I feel we are not there (yet)  

But being "not there yet" doesn't imply that we need to reconsider the 
flat-earth theory or keep an open mind about the sin theory of disease.  
Newton's theory of gravity was wrong in the sense that it gives the wrong 
bending of light and wrong advance of the perihelion of Mercury.  But 
Einstein's theory didn't disprove Newton's, it just showed it to be an 
approximation.  And we already know Einstein's theory is wrong; it's 
inconsistent with quantum mechanics.  But that doesn't mean we should 
reconsider the theory that the Earth sucks.  Of course the Big Bang isn't the 
last word; but the next word is still going to include the Big Bang

>and I try a different path 
> from the UD or comp etc. ways, with less founding, eo ipso  struggling 
> in a "scientifically" (=math) not so convincing train of thoughts. The 
> quantized physical edifice of the world (in
> applied math) is very impressive, results in technology admirable at 
> today's level of our expectations. When it comes to fundamental 
> understanding (elimination of the paradoxes at least to our limited 
> mental capacity), lately,  new ideas emerged. One proof is this list. 
> Its present lines don't represent a monopoly. Academic tenure or a Nobel 
> prize do not mean the ultimate 'truth'. Science is not even a democratic 
> vote.

Nobody ever said they did.  You are attacking a straw man.

Brent Meeker
"The reason you can't go faster than the speed of light is that
*you can't go slower*.  There is only one speed.  Everything,
including you, is always moving at the speed of light."
         --- Lewis Carroll Epstein, Relativity Visualized

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