Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
28 Aug 1995 23:26:01 GMT
In article <41t1ao$lgv@unogate.unocal.com>, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
=In article <DDrBKA.J7q@udcf.gla.ac.uk>, Iain Coleman <iain> wrote:
=>roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote
=>What a load of bollocks. The Hot Big Bang model is accepted by virtually
=>all astronomers. It is special because it passes all observational tests.
=>This is called "science".
=
=No, when you use absolutes such as "all", then it is dogma, not science.
What happened? You run across a word you didn't understand (virtually) and
decide to simply ignore it? Or were you referring to the other use of the word
"all"? If the latter, then surely you some particular observations in mind.
Why not present them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
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.
|