Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sri-unix!SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA From: SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Re: Bang! or whot? Message-ID: <460@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 13:23:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.460 Posted: Fri Aug 2 13:23:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 08:31:40 EDT Lines: 67 Received: FROM SRI-UNIX.ARPA BY USC-ISIB.ARPA WITH TCP ; 30 Jul 85 21:49:27 PDT by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16) id AA18854; Tue, 30 Jul 85 21:39:26 pdt from BRL-VLD.ARPA (brl-vld.arpa.ARPA) by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16) id AA18846; Tue, 30 Jul 85 21:39:10 pdt Date: Wed, 31 Jul 85 0:38:05 EDT From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) To: art Cc: physics@sri-unix.ARPA Subject: Re: Re: Bang! or whot? Return-Path: Message-ID: <8507310439.AA18846@sri-unix.ARPA> > The difference between ancient Greek or medieval argumentation > about cosmological issues and current cosmology as discussed by > astronomers and physicists is: Today we use specific well-based > theories of physics and precise mathematical models. This makes > it possible to obtain definite answers to questions of age, size, > periodicity, and so forth (for any given model cosmology). Many > proposals can be ruled out by comparison with known facts (such > as minimum age of the Earth, bounds on mass density of the > visible universe, Hubble effect, etc.). This is a different > situation than that of the ancient scholastics. -------------------- When it comes to the "What or Who" of our beginnings, it matters not what FACTS one has. The difference is what one's philisophical or religious position is. It is possible to argue the who side equally well as the what side using the same FACTS to support the apology. (Is this any different than the Greeks?) The difference is how one INTERPRETS the FACTS. Let me give you a couple of examples. The first involves the first manned flight to the moon. Using the predictions of the age of the moon and earth and their time together, scientists predicted that Armstrong would step out into eight feet of moon dust. He stepped into two inches of dust. Using this true answer and recalculating the figures, the age of the moon is approximately 8,000 years. The second example is about two biblical accounts of the sun's motion being disturbed. In one account, the sun sttod still for about a day. In the other, the sun moved backwards three steps on the temple, which equates to approximately 10 degrees (1/36) of the sun's daily orbit. Now, using orbital calculations to determine the sun's position at any point in time (future or past) it is possible to determine where the sun should be or should have been for any given date. There was a published article some years ago which reported that there are almost exactly 24 hours "missing" from the sun's position. Hmmm. One can verify this by doing the calculations on a computer (the mathematical modeling you referred to). The point of all this is that one can use facts to support variuos view points, especially in the are of philosophy and religion. It becomes pointless to prove one side or the other to those opposing sides. This is the reason we have so many varying theories in science. However, if one reaches the point where one is intollerant of other views, much of your ability to discover new ideas has just left. One must remain open to at least hear other views (in anything, really) if one is to have the most resources available intellectually. I would strongly suggest those of opposing views try to work together in search of truth (= ture science + facts). 'Nuff said (I hope).