Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Thu, 27 Apr 1995 02:52:19 GMT

In article <3njean$>, Richard A. Schumacher ( writes:
>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.

There has been no sniping from this end, Mr Schumacher. Since somebody
else entirely saw fit to x-post these discussions on your beliefs here
to sci.anthropology, we merely accept the implied invitation to do our
own thing on them.

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

Oh, *naive* common sense vis a vis your special astrolonomical common
sense, is that right?

Sorry, my error. It just sounds something too much like the old True
Scotsman argument to me.

>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.

We? You mean you astronomers, don't you? Ho hum . . .

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270