Dear John and Friends,
An online version of the Economist article can be found here:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>; "CMR"
<jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>; <InfoPhysics.domain.name.hidden.com>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model
> I just received this week's Economist and found in its "Science"
> chapter a very informative (moderately scientific) description
> with the topic I touched. FYI
>
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>; "CMR"
> <jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>; <InfoPhysics.domain.name.hidden.com>
> Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model
>
>
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> > thanks for the considerate reply and the basic consent. The facts you
> > mentioned are indeed well known and at their onset I was also enthused
> > (I am old enough for that) when I rethought all the gravitational
> > discrepancies (galaxies would fall apart etc.) at that time.
> > That was then, I was a complacent 'reductionist hero' in my field.
> > All considerations you mention are WITHIN the reductionist model of
> > cosmology now still reigning - including the linear retrogradicity for
the
> > Big Bang calculations vs a chaotic upscale evolution (as shown in some
> > instances ) just to mention one.
> >
> > It is hard to find proper predictions without knowing all circumstances.
> > I cannot believe that those desultory snapshots of the cosmos allow a
> > comprehensive knowledge of what is (was? will?) going on. Especially
> > not, if the starting condition is "This is it, we know it all". And with
> > imaginary (imaginative?) explanations based on concepts from a level
> > with much less observational input than we think we have today. I am
> > convinced that on strictly observational basis we cannot see clearly,
(no
> > matter how much and how sophisticated calculations have been done),
> > since I am not sure whether we have observational access to everything
> that
> > influences our existence. I am not talking about supernatural, just
things
> > existing beyond the circle of (instrumental?) observability at the
present
> > level of physical sciences. Some such features are showing in animals,
> > (migrational capabilities etc.) and who knows how much in the cosmos.
Even
> > our own body is 'full of surprises', from the immunity topics to
> > epidemiology, not to mention the brainfunctions (which most of us has).
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > John
> >
snip
Received on Sun Feb 08 2004 - 15:50:34 PST