Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Sat, 22 Apr 1995 02:24:23 GMT
In article <3n1jkg$71k@starman.convex.com>, Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) writes:
>If you have a competing theory which is simpler than a Big Bang
>theory, and which explains cosmological redshifts, the cosmic
>background radiation (including temperature, spectrum and isotropy),
>primordial elemental abundances, and for which the Sagdeev-Ze'eldovich
>effect is not a problem, please describe it.
The difficulty here appears only when the urge in certain individuals
to regard observed phenomena as necessarily problematic overwhelms
them, and the further and probably unrelated urge to theorise grabs at
their intellectual processes.
The vast majority of us out here appear happy enough to simply accept
the common sense observation as reliable and unproblematic (i.e., as
is), and leave the theorising until sufficient further information
makes the intellectual leap into theory a valid and substantial one
which contributes in a generally meaningful way to our understanding
of our particular universe.
Nobody has to present a counter theory to your theory at all. We are
as free to simply ignore your theory altogether, without losing our
standing as scientists.
The first criterion is common sense, isn't it? Such that none of this
sort of endless competitive foot-stamping and confrontationist humbug
arising from such extremely poor levels of data is regarded necessary
in science in any event. Contradicting the point of our having agreed
to a systematic and uniformly applicable method of enquiry in the first
place, isn't it?
What is the matter with just waiting until more facts come to light?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|