Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SCR article/Question

Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    I ve a question that I ve wondered about periodically and I thought maybe someone on the AT has read something about it. It has to do with cosmology. In the
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've a question that I've wondered about periodically and I thought
      maybe someone on the AT has read something about it. It has to do
      with cosmology.

      In the SCR article by Tom Radford on the work of James Lovelock it
      is said: "Cosmologists think, for instance, that they have the
      story of creation figured out except for the first 1,000th of a
      second"...ok, they're talking about some version of the "Big Bang"
      hypothesis. That hypothesis, I think, is the result of the
      observation that the known universe appears to be expanding. The
      observation rests on the assumption of the Doppler Effect or Red-
      Shift Effect...which says, more or less, that the color spectrum of
      a light source traveling away from you tends to be "shifted" toward
      the red end of the spectrum...so the more distant a particular
      galaxy, the faster it's moving away from us and the greater the "red-
      shift"...there's a "space dust" notion I've hear once or twice which
      says that the phenomena is the result of looking at light sources
      through space debris...so, the greater the distance of the light
      source, the greater the amount of dust one has to look through,
      the "redder" it will appear...something like that.
      Now these views, I understand, are predicated on Newtonian Color
      Theory which is accepted by the greatest part of the scientific
      community...There are some who say Newton is wrong and it is Goethe
      who has the correct theory of light and color....in which case there
      is no red-shift effect and therefore the theory of an expanding
      universe following a Big Bang is untenable. I know of nothing
      within Anthroposophical literature that supports current
      cosmological notions of an expanding universe.
      Has anyone read something that addresses the problem? I'd sure
      appreciate some additonal input....G.
    • Frank Smith
      ... First of all, I don t know if Goethe s theory contradicts the red shift idea, so I m not really answering your question. But let s just go to the big bang.
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@...> wrote:

        > I've a question that I've wondered about
        > periodically and I thought
        > maybe someone on the AT has read something about it.
        > It has to do
        > with cosmology.
        >
        > In the SCR article by Tom Radford on the work of
        > James Lovelock it
        > is said: "Cosmologists think, for instance, that
        > they have the
        > story of creation figured out except for the first
        > 1,000th of a
        > second"...ok, they're talking about some version of
        > the "Big Bang"
        > hypothesis. That hypothesis, I think, is the result
        > of the
        > observation that the known universe appears to be
        > expanding. The
        > observation rests on the assumption of the Doppler
        > Effect or Red-
        > Shift Effect...which says, more or less, that the
        > color spectrum of
        > a light source traveling away from you tends to be
        > "shifted" toward
        > the red end of the spectrum...so the more distant a
        > particular
        > galaxy, the faster it's moving away from us and the
        > greater the "red-
        > shift"...there's a "space dust" notion I've hear
        > once or twice which
        > says that the phenomena is the result of looking at
        > light sources
        > through space debris...so, the greater the distance
        > of the light
        > source, the greater the amount of dust one has to
        > look through,
        > the "redder" it will appear...something like that.
        > Now these views, I understand, are predicated on
        > Newtonian Color
        > Theory which is accepted by the greatest part of the
        > scientific
        > community...There are some who say Newton is wrong
        > and it is Goethe
        > who has the correct theory of light and color....in
        > which case there
        > is no red-shift effect and therefore the theory of
        > an expanding
        > universe following a Big Bang is untenable. I know
        > of nothing
        > within Anthroposophical literature that supports
        > current
        > cosmological notions of an expanding universe.
        > Has anyone read something that addresses the
        > problem? I'd sure
        > appreciate some additonal input....G.
        >

        First of all, I don't know if Goethe's theory
        contradicts the red shift idea, so I'm not really
        answering your question. But let's just go to the big
        bang. It certainly appears that the universe is
        expanding, and the big bang theory derives from simple
        logic: if it's expanding now, it must have always been
        expanding in order to get where it is. Therefore at
        the begining a physical mass of tremendous compressed
        energy must have existed with enough power to blast
        off. Maybe, maybe not. We will probably never know.
        But the more important question is (imo) what happened
        before the B.B.? I think it was Stephen Hawking who
        said the question is pointless because there is no
        phyical evidence so no way of knowing. Steiner doesn't
        mention how the universe started, only that it
        re-jump-started after previous incarnations. So there
        may have been one big Bang, or 4 - or none.
        Frank


        Frank Thomas Smith
        http://SouthernCrossReview.org

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • gaelman58
        ... Thanks for the reply Frank...I m inclined to be of the opinion that nowhere is the opportunity to bring forward the notions of Anthroposophy into
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Frank Smith
          <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@...> wrote:
          >
          > > I've a question that I've wondered about
          > > periodically and I thought
          > > maybe someone on the AT has read something about it.
          > > It has to do
          > > with cosmology.
          > >
          > > In the SCR article by Tom Radford on the work of
          > > James Lovelock it
          > > is said: "Cosmologists think, for instance, that
          > > they have the
          > > story of creation figured out except for the first
          > > 1,000th of a
          > > second"...ok, they're talking about some version of
          > > the "Big Bang"
          > > hypothesis. That hypothesis, I think, is the result
          > > of the
          > > observation that the known universe appears to be
          > > expanding. The
          > > observation rests on the assumption of the Doppler
          > > Effect or Red-
          > > Shift Effect...which says, more or less, that the
          > > color spectrum of
          > > a light source traveling away from you tends to be
          > > "shifted" toward
          > > the red end of the spectrum...so the more distant a
          > > particular
          > > galaxy, the faster it's moving away from us and the
          > > greater the "red-
          > > shift"...there's a "space dust" notion I've hear
          > > once or twice which
          > > says that the phenomena is the result of looking at
          > > light sources
          > > through space debris...so, the greater the distance
          > > of the light
          > > source, the greater the amount of dust one has to
          > > look through,
          > > the "redder" it will appear...something like that.
          > > Now these views, I understand, are predicated on
          > > Newtonian Color
          > > Theory which is accepted by the greatest part of the
          > > scientific
          > > community...There are some who say Newton is wrong
          > > and it is Goethe
          > > who has the correct theory of light and color....in
          > > which case there
          > > is no red-shift effect and therefore the theory of
          > > an expanding
          > > universe following a Big Bang is untenable. I know
          > > of nothing
          > > within Anthroposophical literature that supports
          > > current
          > > cosmological notions of an expanding universe.
          > > Has anyone read something that addresses the
          > > problem? I'd sure
          > > appreciate some additonal input....G.
          > >
          >
          > First of all, I don't know if Goethe's theory
          > contradicts the red shift idea, so I'm not really
          > answering your question. But let's just go to the big
          > bang. It certainly appears that the universe is
          > expanding, and the big bang theory derives from simple
          > logic: if it's expanding now, it must have always been
          > expanding in order to get where it is. Therefore at
          > the begining a physical mass of tremendous compressed
          > energy must have existed with enough power to blast
          > off. Maybe, maybe not. We will probably never know.
          > But the more important question is (imo) what happened
          > before the B.B.? I think it was Stephen Hawking who
          > said the question is pointless because there is no
          > phyical evidence so no way of knowing. Steiner doesn't
          > mention how the universe started, only that it
          > re-jump-started after previous incarnations. So there
          > may have been one big Bang, or 4 - or none.
          > Frank
          >
          >
          > Frank Thomas Smith
          > http://SouthernCrossReview.org
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do You Yahoo!?
          > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          > http://mail.yahoo.com
          >
          Thanks for the reply Frank...I'm inclined to be of the opinion that
          nowhere is the opportunity to bring forward the notions of
          Anthroposophy into contemporary thought life more important than in
          the area of the natural sciences...after all that's where they've
          set up shop :)...who's set up shop?.....those beings, human or
          otherwise, that would like to keep contemporary mankind in thrall
          and in a materialistic stupor.
          They've got their icons, it seems to me...The Big Bang expanding
          universe hypothesis....the "rotating, condensing nebula" explanation
          for the formation of our solar system... the "life arising
          spontaneously on a dead planet" thesis...and of course "the human
          descent from animal life forms" notion....and so on.
          Sometimes important things are said here on the AT (at least in my
          judgment) and they go by unnoticed....a short time ago your
          Norwegian buddy spoke of his experiences on some cyber-site having
          to do with "origins"...to some "scientifically" inclined people he
          pointed out the obvious in a discussion...that is, it is an
          irrefutable fact that life comes from life...THAT'S ALL WE KNOW
          ABOUT WHERE LIFE COMES FROM...AND THERE IS NOT THE LEAST BIT OF
          EVIDENCE FOR A TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO LIFE ON EARTH....yet an icon
          of the contemporary scientific paradigm insists that this is so.

          Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on anything...just
          take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is this: Why do you
          believe in that part of the current scientiic paradigm that says the
          universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
          true?...regards, G.
        • gaelman58
          ... Thanks for the reply Frank...I m inclined to be of the opinion that nowhere is the opportunity to bring forward the notions of Anthroposophy into
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Frank Smith
            <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@...> wrote:
            >
            > > I've a question that I've wondered about
            > > periodically and I thought
            > > maybe someone on the AT has read something about it.
            > > It has to do
            > > with cosmology.
            > >
            > > In the SCR article by Tom Radford on the work of
            > > James Lovelock it
            > > is said: "Cosmologists think, for instance, that
            > > they have the
            > > story of creation figured out except for the first
            > > 1,000th of a
            > > second"...ok, they're talking about some version of
            > > the "Big Bang"
            > > hypothesis. That hypothesis, I think, is the result
            > > of the
            > > observation that the known universe appears to be
            > > expanding. The
            > > observation rests on the assumption of the Doppler
            > > Effect or Red-
            > > Shift Effect...which says, more or less, that the
            > > color spectrum of
            > > a light source traveling away from you tends to be
            > > "shifted" toward
            > > the red end of the spectrum...so the more distant a
            > > particular
            > > galaxy, the faster it's moving away from us and the
            > > greater the "red-
            > > shift"...there's a "space dust" notion I've hear
            > > once or twice which
            > > says that the phenomena is the result of looking at
            > > light sources
            > > through space debris...so, the greater the distance
            > > of the light
            > > source, the greater the amount of dust one has to
            > > look through,
            > > the "redder" it will appear...something like that.
            > > Now these views, I understand, are predicated on
            > > Newtonian Color
            > > Theory which is accepted by the greatest part of the
            > > scientific
            > > community...There are some who say Newton is wrong
            > > and it is Goethe
            > > who has the correct theory of light and color....in
            > > which case there
            > > is no red-shift effect and therefore the theory of
            > > an expanding
            > > universe following a Big Bang is untenable. I know
            > > of nothing
            > > within Anthroposophical literature that supports
            > > current
            > > cosmological notions of an expanding universe.
            > > Has anyone read something that addresses the
            > > problem? I'd sure
            > > appreciate some additonal input....G.
            > >
            >
            > First of all, I don't know if Goethe's theory
            > contradicts the red shift idea, so I'm not really
            > answering your question. But let's just go to the big
            > bang. It certainly appears that the universe is
            > expanding, and the big bang theory derives from simple
            > logic: if it's expanding now, it must have always been
            > expanding in order to get where it is. Therefore at
            > the begining a physical mass of tremendous compressed
            > energy must have existed with enough power to blast
            > off. Maybe, maybe not. We will probably never know.
            > But the more important question is (imo) what happened
            > before the B.B.? I think it was Stephen Hawking who
            > said the question is pointless because there is no
            > phyical evidence so no way of knowing. Steiner doesn't
            > mention how the universe started, only that it
            > re-jump-started after previous incarnations. So there
            > may have been one big Bang, or 4 - or none.
            > Frank
            >
            >
            > Frank Thomas Smith
            > http://SouthernCrossReview.org
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            > http://mail.yahoo.com
            >
            Thanks for the reply Frank...I'm inclined to be of the opinion that
            nowhere is the opportunity to bring forward the notions of
            Anthroposophy into contemporary thought life more important than in
            the area of the natural sciences...after all that's where they've
            set up shop :)...who's set up shop?.....those beings, human or
            otherwise, that would like to keep contemporary mankind in thrall
            and in a materialistic stupor.
            They've got their icons, it seems to me...The Big Bang expanding
            universe hypothesis....the "rotating, condensing nebula" explanation
            for the formation of our solar system... the "life arising
            spontaneously on a dead planet" thesis...and of course "the human
            descent from animal life forms" notion....and so on.
            Sometimes important things are said here on the AT (at least in my
            judgment) and they go by unnoticed....a short time ago your
            Norwegian buddy spoke of his experiences on some cyber-site having
            to do with "origins"...to some "scientifically" inclined people he
            pointed out the obvious in a discussion...that is, it is an
            irrefutable fact that life comes from life...THAT'S ALL WE KNOW
            ABOUT WHERE LIFE COMES FROM...AND THERE IS NOT THE LEAST BIT OF
            EVIDENCE FOR A TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO LIFE ON EARTH....yet an icon
            of the contemporary scientific paradigm insists that this is so.

            Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on anything...just
            take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is this: Why do you
            believe in that part of the current scientiic paradigm that says the
            universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
            true?...regards, G.
          • Frank Smith
            ... I think I wrote that it appears to be true. Since I m neither a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist, I have no was of really understanding what s
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@...> wrote:

              > Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on
              > anything...just
              > take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is
              > this: Why do you
              > believe in that part of the current scientiic
              > paradigm that says the
              > universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
              >
              > true?...regards, G.

              I think I wrote that it "appears" to be true. Since
              I'm neither a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist,
              I have no was of really understanding what's behind
              the scientists' affirmation that it is. And, frankly,
              I've yet to see anyone say it isn't true. So I'm
              neither convinced nor skeptical about it. Personally
              though I think the big bang theory may have one flaw:
              even if the universe is expanding, is it legitimate to
              assume that it was always expanding? It seems logical,
              but that's no proof.
              Frank


              Frank Thomas Smith
              http://SouthernCrossReview.org

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Joel Wendt
              The idea of an expanding universe comes about in a curious way. Basically light phenomena from the stars is compared to light phenomena produced in the
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                The idea of an "expanding universe" comes about in a curious way.
                Basically light phenomena from the "stars" is compared to light
                phenomena produced in the laboratory under the process called spectral
                analysis. The assumption is then made that the two "light" conditions"
                are identical, and we can then "know" about stellar phenomena because it
                is the same as what we have learned in the laboratory.

                A second analogy is made between sound phenomena and light phenomena.
                The "red shift" (a spectral analysis based light phenomena) is compared
                to (or thought analogous to) the Doppler shift in sound (the shift means
                velocity, the degree of shift means degree of velocity or speed of
                "expansion"). The "red shift" (I think, it could be another element)
                comes from the "hydrogen line". This line is a "degree" or frequency of
                light vibration.

                In the laboratory, hydrogen is burned and this produces a frequency of
                light. We look at the "stars" and assume that when we see that
                "frequency of light" we are seeing hydrogen burned in a "star". But
                these stars don't give us exactly the frequency we see in the
                laboratory, but something near to that frequency, and shifted slightly
                toward the red end of the spectrum (or toward the blue). So by
                reasoning by analogy to Doppler shift, the shift toward the red end of
                the spectrum is assumed to mean that the object from which we receive
                the light is moving away from us (just as the sound shifts upward in
                tone as a train whistle moves away from us). The greater the shift
                toward the red end, the greater the speed of moving away (or expansion).

                Since the scientific imagination already assumes space is a three
                dimensional endlessness, when you combine all these ideas in this
                "picture" (the scientific imagination), we get the "expanding
                universe". Couple that with the idea of gravity, weave in dark matter
                to account for the missing mass (for the gravity mathematics to work),
                and we get an expanding and then collapsing universe. Collapse the
                universe all the way in, and we get such an excess of concentrated mass
                (a singularity), that it all explodes again - the "big bang".

                In some cosmological theories, they don't buy the cyclic thing anymore,
                but what they do do is run backwards the imagined expansion
                mathematically (a "theoretical" collapse), and then get the big bang
                that way. Supposedly the only thing they don't know (such hubris!) is
                what happened in the first billionth of a billionth of a nanosecond (or
                some such small bit of "time").

                The above is no doubt a bit inexact, being combed from memory, but
                essentially correct I believe.

                We'll find a better idea (one more accurate) in the future, and it will
                shock a lot of people.

                joel



                Frank Smith wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@... <mailto:gaelman58%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
                >
                > > Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on
                > > anything...just
                > > take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is
                > > this: Why do you
                > > believe in that part of the current scientiic
                > > paradigm that says the
                > > universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
                > >
                > > true?...regards, G.
                >
                > I think I wrote that it "appears" to be true. Since
                > I'm neither a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist,
                > I have no was of really understanding what's behind
                > the scientists' affirmation that it is. And, frankly,
                > I've yet to see anyone say it isn't true. So I'm
                > neither convinced nor skeptical about it. Personally
                > though I think the big bang theory may have one flaw:
                > even if the universe is expanding, is it legitimate to
                > assume that it was always expanding? It seems logical,
                > but that's no proof.
                > Frank
                >
                > Frank Thomas Smith
                > http://SouthernCrossReview.org <http://SouthernCrossReview.org>
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!?
                > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
                >
                >
              • gaelman58
                Joel: I enjoyed reading what you had to say below and tried to work it this way and that in order to find correspondences (analogies) between the contemporary
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Joel: I enjoyed reading what you had to say below and tried to work
                  it this way and that in order to find correspondences (analogies)
                  between the contemporary scientific paradigm and indications given
                  by Steiner....who, in my view, implicitly endorsed the scientific
                  views of Goethe....I am not always terribly successful in that
                  enterprise but I am by no means ready to say that someone like
                  Steven Hawkings doesn't know what he's talking about.


                  -- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
                  <hermit@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The idea of an "expanding universe" comes about in a curious way.
                  > Basically light phenomena from the "stars" is compared to light
                  > phenomena produced in the laboratory under the process called
                  spectral
                  > analysis. The assumption is then made that the two "light"
                  conditions"
                  > are identical, and we can then "know" about stellar phenomena
                  because it
                  > is the same as what we have learned in the laboratory.

                  I find in interesting that you put the word "stars" in quotation
                  marks...are you, like me, inclined to be unwilling to accept the
                  standard scientific definition since we've seen that an analysis of
                  what that "stellar body" is at the subatomic level often ends in
                  paradox? By the same token I must say I'm not sure what Steiner is
                  talking about when he uses the word "star".

                  You allude to the two "light conditions"...the experimental "lab"
                  condition versus the actual phenomena as it occurs in nature...the
                  latter case just seems to me to be too bloody complex to be able to
                  be reproduced artifically. That's rather like going to the ape
                  house at the San Diego zoo and making observations...then writing a
                  book about primate behavior that you think would be predictive for
                  the ape's natural habitat.
                  >
                  > A second analogy is made between sound phenomena and light
                  phenomena.
                  > The "red shift" (a spectral analysis based light phenomena) is
                  compared
                  > to (or thought analogous to) the Doppler shift in sound (the shift
                  means
                  > velocity, the degree of shift means degree of velocity or speed of
                  > "expansion"). The "red shift" (I think, it could be another
                  element)
                  > comes from the "hydrogen line". This line is a "degree" or
                  frequency of
                  > light vibration.
                  >
                  > In the laboratory, hydrogen is burned and this produces a
                  frequency of
                  > light. We look at the "stars" and assume that when we see that
                  > "frequency of light" we are seeing hydrogen burned in a "star".
                  But
                  > these stars don't give us exactly the frequency we see in the
                  > laboratory, but something near to that frequency, and shifted
                  slightly
                  > toward the red end of the spectrum (or toward the blue). So by
                  > reasoning by analogy to Doppler shift, the shift toward the red
                  end of
                  > the spectrum is assumed to mean that the object from which we
                  receive
                  > the light is moving away from us (just as the sound shifts upward
                  in
                  > tone as a train whistle moves away from us). The greater the
                  shift
                  > toward the red end, the greater the speed of moving away (or
                  expansion).

                  Joel, when you say above that in the lab "hydrogen is burned" do you
                  mean oxidized or are you talking about nuclear fusion?...the latter
                  process generally indicated as the "stellar furnace"...as for the
                  analogy between sound and light (Doppler effect/ red shift) I've
                  never even got as far as understanding light as being "a wave in
                  absolutely nothing at all"...stream of photons maybe...photons have
                  mass or act like they do...in any event most of us understand that
                  particular analogy...but whether it has validity?...I dunno...sound
                  has a medium, light evidently doesn't.

                  >
                  > Since the scientific imagination already assumes space is a three
                  > dimensional endlessness, when you combine all these ideas in this
                  > "picture" (the scientific imagination), we get the "expanding
                  > universe". Couple that with the idea of gravity, weave in dark
                  matter
                  > to account for the missing mass (for the gravity mathematics to
                  work),
                  > and we get an expanding and then collapsing universe. Collapse
                  the
                  > universe all the way in, and we get such an excess of concentrated
                  mass
                  > (a singularity), that it all explodes again - the "big bang".
                  >
                  > In some cosmological theories, they don't buy the cyclic thing
                  anymore,
                  > but what they do do is run backwards the imagined expansion
                  > mathematically (a "theoretical" collapse), and then get the big
                  bang
                  > that way. Supposedly the only thing they don't know (such
                  hubris!) is
                  > what happened in the first billionth of a billionth of a
                  nanosecond (or
                  > some such small bit of "time").

                  I liked your expression, "weave in dark matter"....that hypothesis
                  has always struck me as contrived...."gotta make the math work,
                  men"...similarly, the word "singularity" strikes one as substantive
                  until one tries to apply cognitive meaning to it...rather
                  like "ylem"...which is, I understand :), all the stuff that was
                  there before it became the stuff that was there.


                  >
                  > The above is no doubt a bit inexact, being combed from memory, but
                  > essentially correct I believe.
                  >
                  > We'll find a better idea (one more accurate) in the future, and it
                  will
                  > shock a lot of people.

                  Frank ,a bit earler, alluded to limits of knowledge with respect to
                  initial conditions...and he might well be right. Yet, the
                  impression I got from Steiner somewhere along the line was that
                  there were no limits to knowledge...he disagreed with Kant on that,
                  didn't he? Limits to knowledge seem to me to make sense if one is
                  speaking of ordinary consciousness...and it is on that level of
                  consciousness that one considers the contemporary scientific
                  paradigm.

                  But there are other levels of consciousness we know of...and not
                  from our reading of Steiner or anyone else but rather from our
                  experience...so I'm thinking there are probably no limits to
                  knowledge...
                  I wouldn't want to use the word "revelations" here...there are too
                  many connotations to it...I'm only saying that in another state of
                  consciousness outside (above) what we consider ordinary we might
                  have a thought that would not have occurred to us in ordinary
                  consciousness.

                  Perhaps something like the following (can't remember where I came
                  across it). "If you want to have some understanding of the dynamic
                  of the cosmos consider how an acorn explodes into an oak
                  tree"...regards, G.
                  >
                  > joel
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Frank Smith wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@... <mailto:gaelman58%40yahoo.com>>
                  wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on
                  > > > anything...just
                  > > > take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is
                  > > > this: Why do you
                  > > > believe in that part of the current scientiic
                  > > > paradigm that says the
                  > > > universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
                  > > >
                  > > > true?...regards, G.
                  > >
                  > > I think I wrote that it "appears" to be true. Since
                  > > I'm neither a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist,
                  > > I have no was of really understanding what's behind
                  > > the scientists' affirmation that it is. And, frankly,
                  > > I've yet to see anyone say it isn't true. So I'm
                  > > neither convinced nor skeptical about it. Personally
                  > > though I think the big bang theory may have one flaw:
                  > > even if the universe is expanding, is it legitimate to
                  > > assume that it was always expanding? It seems logical,
                  > > but that's no proof.
                  > > Frank
                  > >
                  > > Frank Thomas Smith
                  > > http://SouthernCrossReview.org <http://SouthernCrossReview.org>
                  > >
                  > > __________________________________________________
                  > > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Joel Wendt
                  Dear G., Let me add another small nuance, repeating a bit some of the previous ideas. With my eyes at night, free of city light, I observe a starry field.
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear G.,

                    Let me add another small nuance, repeating a bit some of the
                    previous ideas.

                    With my eyes at night, free of city light, I observe a starry
                    field. Naturally in the age of science, there is a desire to acquire
                    knowledge of what lies behind this sense experience.

                    All that the scientist can obtain in his researches of the heavens
                    is, however, quite little. Instruments are created that measure all the
                    kinds of "radiation" that fall inward toward the earth, whether from the
                    Sun or the fixed (an old appellation which distinguished the planets
                    from the rest of the stellar phenomena) Stars. To touch the "stuff" of
                    the fixed Stars or the Sun is not possible, for which reason George
                    Adams Kaufmann expressed the view that only about 1% of the facts
                    alleged in astronomical science are empirical.

                    The whole picture we have of the heavens, including the idea that
                    the Stars are the same as our Sun, is something that only exists in the
                    scientific imagination - it is in essence assumed to be so. That stars
                    are suns is not known empirically at all.

                    Once that assumption is forgotten, then all manner of strange
                    conclusions are allowed to arise as if the central (but assumed) matter
                    is true. When this idea is coupled with the idea that the light
                    spectra of hydrogen, which has been oxidized in a laboratory in earthly
                    space, means the same with respect to the light phenomena of cosmic
                    space (the starry heavens), we get that created picture which is
                    currently held by astronomy regarding what are the facts behind what the
                    senses observe at night.

                    This illusion making process has even become more intense, for
                    stellar pictures obtained by instruments are routinely computer
                    "enhanced" in accord with the existing assumptions, so as to give us
                    apparently photographic "evidence" which is not actually what the
                    instrument perceived.

                    The future will see this picture as not much more true than the idea
                    once commonly held that the earth was flat. The stars are not suns, and
                    the sun itself is not what the scientific imagination currently believes.

                    joel



                    gaelman58 wrote:
                    >
                    > Joel: I enjoyed reading what you had to say below and tried to work
                    > it this way and that in order to find correspondences (analogies)
                    > between the contemporary scientific paradigm and indications given
                    > by Steiner....who, in my view, implicitly endorsed the scientific
                    > views of Goethe....I am not always terribly successful in that
                    > enterprise but I am by no means ready to say that someone like
                    > Steven Hawkings doesn't know what he's talking about.
                    >
                    > -- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com>, Joel Wendt
                    > <hermit@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > The idea of an "expanding universe" comes about in a curious way.
                    > > Basically light phenomena from the "stars" is compared to light
                    > > phenomena produced in the laboratory under the process called
                    > spectral
                    > > analysis. The assumption is then made that the two "light"
                    > conditions"
                    > > are identical, and we can then "know" about stellar phenomena
                    > because it
                    > > is the same as what we have learned in the laboratory.
                    >
                    > I find in interesting that you put the word "stars" in quotation
                    > marks...are you, like me, inclined to be unwilling to accept the
                    > standard scientific definition since we've seen that an analysis of
                    > what that "stellar body" is at the subatomic level often ends in
                    > paradox? By the same token I must say I'm not sure what Steiner is
                    > talking about when he uses the word "star".
                    >
                    > You allude to the two "light conditions"...the experimental "lab"
                    > condition versus the actual phenomena as it occurs in nature...the
                    > latter case just seems to me to be too bloody complex to be able to
                    > be reproduced artifically. That's rather like going to the ape
                    > house at the San Diego zoo and making observations...then writing a
                    > book about primate behavior that you think would be predictive for
                    > the ape's natural habitat.
                    > >
                    > > A second analogy is made between sound phenomena and light
                    > phenomena.
                    > > The "red shift" (a spectral analysis based light phenomena) is
                    > compared
                    > > to (or thought analogous to) the Doppler shift in sound (the shift
                    > means
                    > > velocity, the degree of shift means degree of velocity or speed of
                    > > "expansion"). The "red shift" (I think, it could be another
                    > element)
                    > > comes from the "hydrogen line". This line is a "degree" or
                    > frequency of
                    > > light vibration.
                    > >
                    > > In the laboratory, hydrogen is burned and this produces a
                    > frequency of
                    > > light. We look at the "stars" and assume that when we see that
                    > > "frequency of light" we are seeing hydrogen burned in a "star".
                    > But
                    > > these stars don't give us exactly the frequency we see in the
                    > > laboratory, but something near to that frequency, and shifted
                    > slightly
                    > > toward the red end of the spectrum (or toward the blue). So by
                    > > reasoning by analogy to Doppler shift, the shift toward the red
                    > end of
                    > > the spectrum is assumed to mean that the object from which we
                    > receive
                    > > the light is moving away from us (just as the sound shifts upward
                    > in
                    > > tone as a train whistle moves away from us). The greater the
                    > shift
                    > > toward the red end, the greater the speed of moving away (or
                    > expansion).
                    >
                    > Joel, when you say above that in the lab "hydrogen is burned" do you
                    > mean oxidized or are you talking about nuclear fusion?...the latter
                    > process generally indicated as the "stellar furnace"...as for the
                    > analogy between sound and light (Doppler effect/ red shift) I've
                    > never even got as far as understanding light as being "a wave in
                    > absolutely nothing at all"...stream of photons maybe...photons have
                    > mass or act like they do...in any event most of us understand that
                    > particular analogy...but whether it has validity?...I dunno...sound
                    > has a medium, light evidently doesn't.
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Since the scientific imagination already assumes space is a three
                    > > dimensional endlessness, when you combine all these ideas in this
                    > > "picture" (the scientific imagination), we get the "expanding
                    > > universe". Couple that with the idea of gravity, weave in dark
                    > matter
                    > > to account for the missing mass (for the gravity mathematics to
                    > work),
                    > > and we get an expanding and then collapsing universe. Collapse
                    > the
                    > > universe all the way in, and we get such an excess of concentrated
                    > mass
                    > > (a singularity), that it all explodes again - the "big bang".
                    > >
                    > > In some cosmological theories, they don't buy the cyclic thing
                    > anymore,
                    > > but what they do do is run backwards the imagined expansion
                    > > mathematically (a "theoretical" collapse), and then get the big
                    > bang
                    > > that way. Supposedly the only thing they don't know (such
                    > hubris!) is
                    > > what happened in the first billionth of a billionth of a
                    > nanosecond (or
                    > > some such small bit of "time").
                    >
                    > I liked your expression, "weave in dark matter"....that hypothesis
                    > has always struck me as contrived...."gotta make the math work,
                    > men"...similarly, the word "singularity" strikes one as substantive
                    > until one tries to apply cognitive meaning to it...rather
                    > like "ylem"...which is, I understand :), all the stuff that was
                    > there before it became the stuff that was there.
                    >
                    > >
                    > > The above is no doubt a bit inexact, being combed from memory, but
                    > > essentially correct I believe.
                    > >
                    > > We'll find a better idea (one more accurate) in the future, and it
                    > will
                    > > shock a lot of people.
                    >
                    > Frank ,a bit earler, alluded to limits of knowledge with respect to
                    > initial conditions...and he might well be right. Yet, the
                    > impression I got from Steiner somewhere along the line was that
                    > there were no limits to knowledge...he disagreed with Kant on that,
                    > didn't he? Limits to knowledge seem to me to make sense if one is
                    > speaking of ordinary consciousness...and it is on that level of
                    > consciousness that one considers the contemporary scientific
                    > paradigm.
                    >
                    > But there are other levels of consciousness we know of...and not
                    > from our reading of Steiner or anyone else but rather from our
                    > experience...so I'm thinking there are probably no limits to
                    > knowledge...
                    > I wouldn't want to use the word "revelations" here...there are too
                    > many connotations to it...I'm only saying that in another state of
                    > consciousness outside (above) what we consider ordinary we might
                    > have a thought that would not have occurred to us in ordinary
                    > consciousness.
                    >
                    > Perhaps something like the following (can't remember where I came
                    > across it). "If you want to have some understanding of the dynamic
                    > of the cosmos consider how an acorn explodes into an oak
                    > tree"...regards, G.
                    > >
                    > > joel
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Frank Smith wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@... <mailto:gaelman58%40yahoo.com>>
                    > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > > Frank, I'm not looking to take issue with you on
                    > > > > anything...just
                    > > > > take my word for that, eh? What I wonder about is
                    > > > > this: Why do you
                    > > > > believe in that part of the current scientiic
                    > > > > paradigm that says the
                    > > > > universe is expanding. What convinces you that it's
                    > > > >
                    > > > > true?...regards, G.
                    > > >
                    > > > I think I wrote that it "appears" to be true. Since
                    > > > I'm neither a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist,
                    > > > I have no was of really understanding what's behind
                    > > > the scientists' affirmation that it is. And, frankly,
                    > > > I've yet to see anyone say it isn't true. So I'm
                    > > > neither convinced nor skeptical about it. Personally
                    > > > though I think the big bang theory may have one flaw:
                    > > > even if the universe is expanding, is it legitimate to
                    > > > assume that it was always expanding? It seems logical,
                    > > > but that's no proof.
                    > > > Frank
                    > > >
                    > > > Frank Thomas Smith
                    > > > http://SouthernCrossReview.org <http://SouthernCrossReview.org>
                    > <http://SouthernCrossReview.org <http://SouthernCrossReview.org>>
                    > > >
                    > > > __________________________________________________
                    > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    > > > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
                    > <http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>>
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.