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