|
|
Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Phil A. Willems (paw@cco.caltech.edu)
29 Apr 1995 22:02:00 GMT
>In article <D7tBBH.EK5@crash.cts.com>, roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) 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.
>
The more of this thread I read, the more it becomes clear
to me that people are arguing from different sets of assumptions.
Scientific cosmology is still in its golden age, as I see it, because
of the wealth of new data that continues to pour into the field, and
because the field is beginning to merge with particle physics in a
way that complements both fields.
Because of this, "Big Bang cosmology" is really a collection
of competing theories that share as a basic principle the early
compressed universe and subsequent expansion. This part of these
theories has considerable evidence in its favor, although there are
loose ends to be tied up, no doubt.
Current hypotheses are more speculative, to be sure, and
have varying degrees of connection to observations, and some make
speculations the are currently untestable. But this is no reason
to ignore those basic aspects that have been tested.
Nothing exists without an underlying set of assumptions
which are untestable. But to continually draw attention to that
fact is boring, leads nowhere, and ignores important differences
between opposing viewpoints.
-Phil
|