|
|
Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Roelof Ruules (ruules@fys.ruu.nl)
Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:46:45 GMT
In <41sfe1$h8h@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes:
> what would you say if we found conclusive evidence that the
> big-bang model was incorrect?
If it were really conclusive evidence, I think the Big Bang simply would be
discarded. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to define `conclusive' ---
Popper notwithstanding. In practice, I think there is something like a
`communis opinio' that defines the success of a theory.
[deleted]
> i presume that people who study the anthropology of physics
> understand the language used - mathematics. is that the case
> here? i wouldn't presume to post statements to sci.anthropology
> saying that some model used in anthropology was a myth unless
> i had a reasonable understanding of the subject.
Well, I think I have enough understanding of the language used here,
which is mathematics and physics combined, to say something about cosmology.
I'm not very well versed in anthropology, but I think some contributions to
this discussion give a very wrong impression of the relations Big Bang versus
Steady State theory, and astronomy in relation to physics.
Roelof
|