jamikes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> To Stathis, Brent, and List:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> (not really!)
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
>
>
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John M writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing
> > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'?
> > >>(I just wanted to tease members of this list.
> > >>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and
> > >>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.)
> > >>
> > >>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put
> > >>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy.
> > >>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try
> > >>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new
> > >>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we
> > >>experience?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would
> > > change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course,
> > > there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are
> > > pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even
> > > the basics of what they are criticizing, so it is understandable
> > > that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by
> > > people working in the field. It is also understandable that
> > > scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories
> > > on which they base their careers, so they may not change as
> > > quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence.
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no
> > originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on
> a
> > model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a
> > 10-dimensional space.
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020
> >
> > The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them
> is
> > due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that
> this
> > can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion
> > and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists
> may
> > consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist
> working
> > in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current
> > theories are wrong.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
> >
> Of course the "Big Bang" caught the attention. What I asked about
> considering our 'visualization' of "a" reality-percept as provisional - to
> work with, until a better one shows up :
> > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing
> > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'?
> and mentioned the BB as a (side?) example.
> BTW - speaking about 'the' Big Bang: Hubble (1922) detected a redshift in
> the spectra of distant (and greater in even more distant) heavenly bodies
> and was ingenious enough to connotate this with the Doppler effect,
> concluding, that this shift into lower frequencies of distant bodies MAY
> HAVE BEEN the result of a receding movement of the light-source, similar
> to the 'lowering voice' in a Doppler - type auditive phenomenon.
> Consequently: the universe MAY expand, producing those (alleged) receding
> movements from us.
> This is the 'provisionally(!)' accepted reality-percept as of the early
> 1920s:
> The idea was logical. - "IF" - this is a fact, we may apply a retrograde
> line
> backwards and arrive to the zero-point, when the universe was started -
> gradually
> collapsing into an extensionless point - from which it erose "in a big
> bang".
Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current
circumstances.
> Then came the first (and biggest) mistake: "scientists" took our present
> physical science circumstances and applied them (equationally) to all those
> changing systems of concentration with incomparably higher density of
> everything (energy? temperature? gravity? if someone ha an idea what these
> are). They assigned the fractions of the hypothetical 1st sec (^-40 etc.) to
> storytelling of features just "freezing out". It still did not make sense
> with our equations derived in the present 'cool' and dilated physical
> system, so an inflation was invented to correct 'some' of the compressed
> state which made the equations fully paradoxical.
> IF the Hubble proposal is right (and I give credit to assume it) the
> calculations and their conclusions must be false - e.g. the age of the
> universe. A linear retro-math
> for a chaotic development cannot match, unknown intermittent events
You will find that unknown events are neglected in all
theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ?
> are all
> neglected, the relationships of THIS system are applied for a totally
> different one.
> No experimental proof, not even asymptotically: those many orders of magn.
> make speculation into science fiction. (This is why I composed my
> narrative).
That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory.
> After that - sorry, Brent - not those, who wanted to deny the theory, rather
> those, who wanted to show 'experimental' simulations assignable to the
> 'truth'
> of the theory - designed and performed thousands and thousands of
> experiments all slanted towards 'evidencing' the idea (E.g. Wilson's
> background radiation,
> presented as the 'remnant' of the Big Bang energy-level - earning him a
> Nobel).
> So the 'proving' became the way to grants, tenure, acceptance into the
> science
> establishment.
>Finding evidence against it? In who's acceptance? Disproving
> it?
> Dare swim against the flood? Become a scientific leper?
The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became
establishment by being able ot prove their case.
> The shift in light-frequency can be altered in several other ways, but
> attempts to
> even mentioning such (e.g. compartmentalized universe, gravitational fields
> changes) were rejected before any serious consideration as 'hoax' (sic).
Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ?
> (I have a personal experience to that by a prestigious New England
> professor).
> Expanding Universe with Big Bang Startup is the bible in conventional
> science.
> "Not one experiment to counter-evidence it!" also: "Not one penny to spend".
> ...And of course there is Fred Hoyle's harmonic theory with no beginning,
> etc.
Which was considered and rejected.
> So the (provisional?) reality-percept stays and generation after generation
> it
> gains more and more 'belief' as a real-reality-view.
> *
> This is a recent example, with a knowledge-base close to our present level
> of the cognitive inventory in our epistemological enrichment. I did not go
> further back into eras with much less information about the world and much
> more speculation
> "how it COULD be", like e.g. 2500 years ago and way before that.
> That old ape must have been a genius to start thinking!
>
> John Mikes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 15 2006 - 09:16:19 PDT