Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Richard A. Schumacher (
25 Apr 1995 13:16:55 -0500

>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.

Exactly. Big Bang theories are now pretty obviously correct,
to within some adjustable parameters, so they help us _now_
to understand the true nature of the universe. Sniping at them
while presenting no alternative theory was a helpful tactic
40 years ago, but is not helpful now. To anyone familiar with
the observational evidence it's pretty clear that the universe
was in a state of high density, temperature, and uniformity at
some finite time in the past, and has evolved from that state.

>The first criterion is common sense, isn't it? Such that none of this

No. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics violate naive common

>What is the matter with just waiting until more facts come to light?

We're at the point where theory helps make sense of what we already
know as well as providing a fruitful guide for further looking. We
are gathering more facts as fast as we can.