Re: FWD (SK) Re: Cosmology Question [fringe theories]

From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 07:40:03 MST

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Fuel Efficient Cars (was Oil Economics)"

    Stirling Westrup:
    >Now, AGAIN, I will reiterate that this DOES NOT MEAN that all of the fringe
    >theories are automatically correct. It means (deep breath) WE DO NOT
    >CURRENTLY HAVE A THEORY OF THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CONSISTENT
    >WITH *ALL* CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. That, pure and simple, is my point, and the
    >fact that it makes some folks uncomforatable, bothers me not one bit.

    I don't know how to read this.. the tone and attack and capital letters, etc.
    makes this message look like a rant or flamebait or maybe you had a
    polarizing experience that is not related to the topic at hand.
    That's what was going
    through my mind before I gave up reading it.

    >I know that that is the "myth" promoted by the sciences. You obviously don't
    >work with real scientists doing real research.

    Do you?

    Here are a few good links on the cosmology field: basics as well as
    research (especially where the observations do and do not fit) and how
    and where the cosmologists are studying the different facets of
    cosmology.

    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/
    http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/basics.html
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

    I'm not a cosmologist, but it never occurred to me to pick a technical field
    and formulate a rant against all people working in that field. That's rather
    bold.

    -- 
    Amara Graps, PhD
    Istituto di Fisica delle Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
    Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Roma, ITALIA
    Amara.Graps@ifsi.rm.cnr.it
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 08:43:20 MST