Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 24 Apr 1995 03:46:45 GMT
In article <email@example.com>, Erik Max Francis (firstname.lastname@example.org) writes:
>email@example.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>> But not everything we know about physics. Quantum mechanics permits
>> temporary violations of the conservation laws. The visible universe
>> may be one such.
Well, sure, we all know that we can have rules, and when something
comes up they fail to explain we are at liberty just as easily to
dispense with them.
But all that tells us much about is the behaviour of physicists, yes?
>Besides, calling the Big Bang an "explosion" does not do it justice,
>because it wasn't anything like an explosion.
If it wasn't anything like an explosion why would you all insist so
that it made such a big bang? If the event occurred in space, seems
to me it must have been more like one big " "! But that doesn't
seem to impress young minds so forcefully, does it.
I had some mail from somebody else supporting the theory because his
company manufactures and sells the instruments which measure whatever
it is said to have happened.
OK, anyone is entitled to make a living, but what does it have to do
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270