Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Bruce FitzGerald (fitz@clark.net)
Sat, 26 Aug 1995 20:44:58 -0500
In article <41lh99$at6@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU wrote:
> In article <41l057$a0i@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (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
> supported.
>
> = 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.
Let him rant. The fact remains that the big bang theory requires and is
consistent with the black body radiation curve observed in the cosmic
microwave background. The results from COBE carry that several steps
further by showing the clumping necessary to begin galaxy formation. The
theory may be incomplete and there is still a problem with the correct
value of the Hubble Constant but the progress made thus far has not
uncovered anything which would indicate a better model. Astronomy or
cosmology without physics is another form of mysticism. When rev.roosen
can present a rational argument for an alternative that addresses those
phenomena and the observed increase in redshift with distance without
resorting to physics I'll kiss his rear end on the front steps of the Air
and Space Museum in Washington and give him a week to draw a crowd.
--
Mystics are those, baffled by the obvious yet possessing a complete understanding of the nonexistent.
Fitz
|