|
Judith, thanks for the list of incomprehensible
comprehensions. Since you did not invent those follies, this writing is not
arguing with you.
If the physicists detected a tetraneutron which
shouldn't exist, there are two solutions: an inappropriate instrument
application, maybe a reading mistake or interference of so far unkown
nature-facts, - or our model of the physical laws is "not quite accurate"
<G>.
If naloxone blocks the placebo, it can be an
effecting of those neuronal pathways in the connectivity which reactivate the
pain, rather than blocks the morphine-effect. Who knows?
If there are problems with dark matter and dark
energy, then the supposition "there MUST be something like that" is not "quite?"
correct, especially with the attached math to it.
In your listing line (6, - 5, - 9, - 7, -
12, and an unnumbered which I addressed already) the last one is rife with
speculative potentials. Light travels through all kinds of cosmic garbage until
our instruments tell us that everything is just dandy - the way we 'want' it.
Remember the name Hubble? not the telescope to retire, but the genius in the
early 20s, who saw a shift in the spectra of stellar light from far away towards
the red-end and - knowing nothing better - associated it with Dopler's shift of
sound-frequency shifts coming from approaching or receding sources and concluded
that those far-away light sources MUST recede from us if the complete spectrum skewed to the slower end. He was
really a bold genius and formulated the idea that the universe is EXPANDING! At
his time we knwew almost nothing about the universe, maybe not even so little as
today, so this idea picked up speed and thousands and thousands of ambitious
physicists started experiments to SUPPORT it. In millions and millions of data
from these experiments and millions of pages in calculations
many Nobel prizes were awarded and today such a
description as this one sounds - what?
anathema, heresy? or plain stupidity, because it
is in contrast with so many smart heads.
Now back to your #12: there was (maybe among
more) an Arizonean astronomer who postulated that the redshift is the result of
(electro?)magnetic fields online of the travel of the light which changes the
frequencey of the total (so the spectrum stays, only shifted to the red end). I
don't recall his name (could find it) there were internationa symposia in this
matter and I asked at a conference 1997 an MIT compatriot cosmology professor
about it.
She said: "Hoax". What it really was in terms of
her science. The total model of 85 years of cosmological narrative would have to
be changed. The Big Bang would be a lullaby. With all "consequences" and
"postulates", models and calculations, new terms/concepts etc.
Such ideas should be burnt at the stake. But
your #12 really stirred up the story in me.
(Of course this last point has its ramifications
into the 'dark' anything as well. Really dark!)
Cheerfully yours
John M
----- Original Message -----
|