Big bang (was government thread)
gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Tue Dec 25 02:55:57 EST 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Gorodenski" <stanlep at extremezone.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: Big bang (was government thread)
> First, my appologies to this group for sending this astronomy message,
> but I must respond. Press the delete key if you wish.
> Second, I just got back from a three day stay in the mountains, and just
> now saw this message.
Just because the butterflies disappear in the northern winter time, our
minds don't. So for me personally, I think some "off" topic scientific type
post are welcome. It passes the time. And as you said, we can all just
hit the delete key. Personally, again, I thought this post was very
interesting and I'm glad I had the opportunity to read it.
... This is not what I was saying, and if you read my original
> statements you will see that I was talking about two things, the big
> bang _and_ the acceleration. In my post I mentioned the 'acceleration
> feature' because Ron made some statements regarding the cyclical nature
> of the universe which was supposed to agree with religious beliefs
> regarding death and rebirth (if I read his post correctly).
No. I was saying the Bible's presentation of the cycles of the Universe
agree with science and vice versa.
Snips. The following especially interested me.. and, it is very relatinve
The quantity and quality of the credentials
> she possessed, as related by the person who introduced her, was
> incredible and EXTREMELY impressive. After her presentation she gave us
> the opportunity to ask questions. My question was about some recent
> research I had read which indicates that physical constants may have
> been different in the early universe than now, i.e., the value of these
> constants may have changed over time (or rather I should say
> space-time). She knew nothing about this (the differences in the fine
> structure constant), and I was really taken aback to be responded to as
> though I was ignorant or had read something faulty. In her mind,
> constants are constants, and they could not have changed - period! I
> consider her ignorance of this new research due to two things. First,
> this may be relatively new, and her other research demands may prevent
> her from being up to the latest developments in all aspects of astronomy
> in a timely manner. Second, her own specialty, the large scale
> structure of the universe (galaxies), may be in a completely different
> Consequently, based on all the foregoing, if the 'experts' you consult
> with should disagree with my last statement regarding the big bang not
> being in 'vogue' (which is not a precise term to begin with), I would
> not consider that definitive or settling the issue.
There are some very big names in Lepidoptera ( at places like the
Smithsonian too) who are absolutely ignorant about any number of aspects of
lepidopterology. Stan's relaying of the above does not impugn the
"expert" at all -- it simply manifests that most experts are also
"specialists" -- which is actually why they are experts. There have been
a couple of taxonomic positions published lately by, or endorsed by, some
"big name" US lepidoptrists that are absolutely ludicrous (refraining from
Stan, you were brave to name the name. I won't (at least not now). The
worst problem though is the way demigods (in any profession) react to
challenges. Not the least of which is censorship of the views and research
of others that differs from their own.
PS. Now to eat Santa's snack and off to bed.
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l