Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
25 Aug 1995 22:02:17 GMT

In article <41l057$>, (Andrew Cooke) writes:
= i don't know what `pure' means below, but astronomy hasn't
= `given up' on cosmology.

It means astronomy without physics, the sort of astronomy that Roosen seems to
want, since only by discarding all of physics can his pet superstitions be

= the next generation of surveys
= could give interesting limits on parameters in the standard
= models.

True, but by even mentioning the standard models, you've just dragged that evil
physics into the discussion. Now you'll have Roosen ranting at you.

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.