Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
25 Aug 1995 22:02:17 GMT
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
|