VERY GOOD!!! Yes, you are correct... unification of forces is now what is
being saught after. And I have to admit, I'm part of that chase :)
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
> The detection of the cosmic background radiation decided the choice between
> the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. However, the main impetus and
> interest in cosmology is its relationship with high energy physics and the
> physics of the unification of all the forces in nature. It seems that the
> very small is directly related to the very large. Also, at extremely high
> energies, the behavior of theories of particle structure may be applicable
> to the study of the very early universe.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: Keith B Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy
>
> >Hi Moorad:
> >
> >I beginning to enjoy you! Let me refer you to George Smoot's work on this
> >and the Cobe Satellite Team. Now... look in your dictionary... lookup the
> >word "Cosmology" -> many dictionaries defined it as philosophy.
> >
> >BUT it is now science. And it is growing faster due to technology that is
> >available to radio astronomers and even optical astronomers than was used
> >just a few years ago. It even is a pass time in Amateur Radio, where this
> >field of endeavor is one of my favorites.
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear William,
> >>
> >> The detection of the cosmic background radiation made cosmology more
> >> respectable. However, the Big Bang is still a unique event that cannot
> be
> >> repeated notwithstanding the excellent work of Penzias and Wilson. The
> >> remnant of the Big Bang was predicted by Gamow--but at 25K rather than
> the
> >> actual 3K.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> >> Cc: Keith B Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 11:20 AM
> >> Subject: Science & Philosophy
> >>
> >> >Moorad:
> >> >
> >> >Now that I have one of my cosmology books open...
> >> >
> >> >Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Telephone Laboratories brought
> the
> >> >Enstein et al's cosmology into the sphere of science by proving by
> repeat
> >> >experiments that the Big Bang actually took place: by background noise
> in
> >> >a horn antenna which was intended for communication use.
> >> >
> >> >Cosmology does start with philosophy, all theory does! But it is not
> till
> >> >it passes through the scientific method that it becomes science. And
> that
> >> >includes REPEATABLE RESULTS.
> >> >
> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >William - N6RKY
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear William,
> >> >>
> >> >> Repeatability is an essential ingredient in physics, for instance, but
> it
> >> is
> >> >> not in cosmology. The main aspect of cosmology is deductive rather
> than
> >> >> inductive. Accordingly, in cosmology we postulate mathematical models
> and
> >> >> compare its logical implications with the existing cosmological data.
> Of
> >> >> course, the same procedure is used in physics, witness the relativity
> >> work
> >> >> of Einstein. However, the greatest development in physics is
> generalizing
> >> >> into laws from repeatable, experimental evidence. The latter is
> lacking
> >> in
> >> >> any scientific theory relating unique events, e.g., questions of
> origins.
> >> >>
> >> >> Take care,
> >> >>
> >> >> Moorad
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> >> To: Keith B Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> >> >> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> >> Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 7:17 AM
> >> >> Subject: Re: Meta 103: Genes, Genesis, and God: Skyhooks and Cranes
> >> >>
> >> >> >Keith:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Very interesting points here... Question: Repeatability??? Can all of
> >> the
> >> >> >points be verified in the lab? If not -> it falls well outside the
> >> sphere
> >> >> >of science.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One has to be VERY careful with metaphysics my friend :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >> >William - N6RKY
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >William A. Wetzel
> >> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >> >
> >
> >--
> >William A. Wetzel
> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net