Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Robert Roosen (
Tue, 2 May 1995 06:51:33 GMT

William S. Lawson ( wrote:

: In article <>, writes:
: |> My question is whether this "astronomical cosmology" can really
: |> exist without an underlying cultural basis.
: |> I studied cosmology an a part of anthropology and it made good
: |> sense. These hypotheses that are presently being advanced as "cosmology"
: |> by people who are not even astronomers (eg Einstein, Hawking, etc.) are
: |> not supported by astronomical observations. They contain speculations
: |> that go way beyond what the data can support.
: |> Apparently, this approach to cosmology has grown out of a joke by
: |> Eddington. He claimed that he and others were so brilliant that they
: |> could create a mathematical model of the universe that was more perfect
: |> than the observers could test. Lesser minds do not realize that the
: |> claim was a joke. There really are people that think some day "we" will
: |> explain everything.
: |> I am not one of those people.
: |> Robert

: This is beginning to look like a deliberate provocation, but assuming it isn't:
: You might try studying cosmology as part of astronomy or physics.

Oh, I did that thirty years ago. I took a one year course from Frank
Edmonds, who was a student of Chandrasekhar. Beatrice Tinsley was one of
my classmates, and she used some of my data for her own cosmological
studies. How do you think I know what nonsense people are talking? I
was there when they were just another group, and watched while Chandra
politicized his way to the Nobel Prize.
Do you remember when he forced out C. R. O'Dell as Director of
Yerkes Observatory, primarily because O'Dell was really good at poking
fun at Chandra. I remember. O'Dell was a friend of mine.

A poor
: anthropologist might well try to explain everything in terms of human culture
: and psychology, but there is more to reality than this. A good anthropologist
: would not make this mistake.

So have you studied cosmology as an anthropoligical subject?

: Specifically, "speculations beyond what the data can support", is usually
: termed, "formulating a hypothesis". It is followed by testing that hypothesis,
: and must always be consistent with the known data.

Claiming that others are too stupid to understand a theory is begging the
I am smart enough to understand the Big Bang theory
I am not dumb enough to swallow it.

: -- Bill Lawson