[Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

[W. J.]

The latest version is the Fat Earth theory. Has something to do with super-sized 
Big Mac attacks. Are they a new kind of galaxy or what?
Marshall



________________________________
From: Jaime Vergara <svesjaime at aol.com>
To: oe at wedgeblade.net
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 5:35:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE

When it was that we decided science defined boundaries rather than point to the 
vast unknown of knowledge is itself a display of human folly. The Big Bang, like 
the Flat Earth theory, served its purpose in its time.  Now, new data expands 
our horizon and we are thankful, as our ancestors were, I am sure, in their 
time's breakthroughs. 


Thanks Laurel and Jack for your reminders of our continuing appropriation of our 
human faculty of thought.

Jaime

For all that was, thanks; for all that will be, yes; for all that is, amen!




-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Gilles <icabombay at igc.org>
To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 3:25 am
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] NY Times editorial - AWE


Dear Laurel, 

Just to share with you and others that there are other alternative 
understandings.  There are many scientists who do not "buy" into the Big Bang 
theory at all.  There is a highly respected group who have talked that we live 
in a "steady state" universe with continuous creation and destruction of 
galaxies.  The "red shift" that is one of the "proofs" cited for the Big Bang 
theory can be explained in other ways that do not have the distant galaxies 
receding at ever increasing speeds.  I know that this is counter to the CW, but 
I, for one, am a follower of the steady state universe.  This is a very complex 
and highly scientific argument, but just to let you know that there are other 
explanations that do not require exotic solutions.   For those who might be 
interested in this other view they can contact me, but I don't think this is the 
forum for exploring theories, but I do appreciate your reflection on the awesome 
mystery we are a part of.

Jack




On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:46 AM, LAURELCG at aol.com wrote:

Editorial
>Before the  Boom
>Published: November 30, 2010
>New York Times 
>Astronomers and astrophysicists have given us insight into what happened in  the 
>first trillionths-of-a-second after the Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years  ago. 
>But the current cosmological hypothesis is that before the Big Bang there  was 
>nothing. 
>
>Now Roger Penrose, the eminent British mathematician, is arguing that there  is 
>physical evidence that may predate the Big Bang. In a recent paper, he and  his 
>co-author, the physicist V. G. Gurzadyan, describe a pattern of  concentric 
>circles detected against the universal backdrop of cosmic microwave  radiation 
>generated by the Big Bang. These circles, they say, may be  gravitational waves 
>generated by collisions of superbig black holes before the  Big Bang. 
>
>The two scientists go even further, claiming that the evidence also suggests  
>that our universe may “be but one aeon in a (perhaps unending) succession of  
>such aeons.” What we think of as our “universe” may simply be one link in a  
>chain of universes, each beginning with a big bang and ending in a way that  
>sends detectable gravitational waves into the next universe. 
>
>The argument is highly controversial. But if the circles the two scientists  
>have detected stand up to further examination — if they’re not the result of  
>noise or instrumental error — it could radically change the way we think about  
>our universe. And the notion is no more radical than that of some cosmologists  
>who argue that our universe is only one in a multiverse — a possibly infinite  
>number of co-existing, but undetectable, universes. 
>
>The question is: What do we do with these possibilities? Our answer is to  
>marvel at them and be reminded, once again, that we live in a universe — however  
>we define it — that contains more wonders than we can begin to imagine. 
>
_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>

= 
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list 
OE at wedgeblade.net http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20101209/cca35a95/attachment.html>