Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
5 Sep 1995 17:13:25 GMT

In article <42a2f8$>, (WAYNE JOHNSON) writes:
=(Robert Roosen) writes:
=> Correct. The H-bomb calculations are quite similar to the Big
=>Bang stuff. Funding for both areas of study comes from the same
=Now wait a minute. Are you saying that Los Alamos is funding
=astronomers? Maybe the particle physics is partially derived from
=nuclear research, but the observations that the theory derives from?
=As I recall, the microwave background radiation detection and calcs
=came originally from Bell Labs, which did do AEC/DOE research (and
=still does), but the scientists who worked on it (what's his name? I'm
=so ashamed) came up with the measurement doing something entirely
=unrelated to weapons research.

Not to mention that Roosen, in his usual abject ignorance, seems to believe
that the temperatures/pressure during the Big Bang are comparable to those in
an H bomb. As usual, he's completely wrong.

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.