Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as
concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *not* the
linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and
*not*the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon partial input (as a
total one at
the end), it is the underlying physical thought of explaining (mostly
mathematically) a totality of which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?)
plays into the changes. We learn new details continually and forge them
into the obsolescence to make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our image
does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most of which is
still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model of our present
model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects (mostly: make them up
for explanation) and fit them into our conventional sciences. These,
however, started way before "The Big Bear" and still include origins of the
ancient obsolescence galore. Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a
constant can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers
etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")

Agnostically yours

John Mikes



On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>     What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity
> that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from
> supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating
> away from us.... Do we give such "entities" the status of existing on so
> frail a foundation? The same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark
> matter. Until we actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to
> keep them firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
>     My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed up
> by empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not an easy
> task as many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the realm of
> experience but we can still reason consistently about them...
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012  Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> " How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong
>> "believer" in the Big Bang?"
>
>
> If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the Big Bang
> did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop the Big Bang like a
> hot potato and embrace that new theory with every fiber of my being, until
> the instant a even better theory came along. I have absolutely no loyalty
> toward theories.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>>
>
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to