|
|
Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Iain Coleman ((no email))
Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:01:07 GMT
stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) wrote:
>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.
>The BB explains more observations more simply than competing theories,
>so most astronomers and physicists use it as their leading hypothesis.
>IMHO the BB has more weak spots than other leading theories in other fields.
>These could be fixed with more data, or lead to a substantially new theory like when
>quantum replacing classical 80 years ago. Those of us with longer memories
>will recall the BB was not the leading hypothesis until 40 years ago when
>the background radiation discovery considerably strengthened it.
>Cosmology could change its theory again with new data, but I dont have
>a reason to suspect so now.
Well, OK, I probably came across as more dogmatic than I actually am.
There were two reasons for this;
(1) Roosen entirely ignored the issue of observational evidence, and made
some rather sneering insinuations which frankly got on my tits.
(2) I hadn't had my morning coffee yet.
If you're saying that big bang isn't in as strong a position as, say,
evolution then I agree with you. I'm well aware of just how far the
data goes, and of the problems that still exist. I'm also perfectly
happy (eager,even) to look at alternative cosmologies.
However I still stand by my use of "all", because I don't know of any
clear observational test which big bang has failed. If you can provide
an example I will, of course, eat my words.
cheers,
Iain
|