Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
23 Apr 1995 04:14:33 GMT

In article <>, (Gil Hardwick) writes:
=In article <3n1jkg$>, Richard A. Schumacher ( 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.

In other words, in Gil's worldview, "Who gives a damn whether something makes
sense. As long a Gil can understand it without applying any thought to the
matter,e he'lle gladly ignore any and all evidence which conflicts with his
own preconceived notions."

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.