Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Andrew Cooke (ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk)
5 Sep 1995 09:50:14 GMT
i think you are arguing against a straw man here. i don't
understand how the gaia hypothesis contradicts the big bang
theories - they are talking about completely different things.
the big bang model - and i can't understand why you don't seem
to understand this while claiming to be an astronomer - is
the view that redshifts are due to the expansion of the
universe rather than tired light.
it doesn't have anything to do with the `origin of life'!
it's a model for a universe that appears to be expanding - not
a description of how life evolved on earth.
is this whole posting just some tedious troll? i'm dumping
the whole thing in my kill file.
andrew
In article <DEE9vu.L4G@crash.cts.com>,
Robert Roosen <roosen@crash.cts.com> wrote:
> This is due to the limiting assumptions that the high energy
>physicists use when they promote their own world view as a "universal" one.
> In fact, Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a much more popular view
>of the origin of life and is a far more satisfactory basis for a globally
>acceptable cosmology.
> About 30 years ago, astronomer Harlow Shapley was visiting the U
>of Texas. Bill Kunkel asked him his opinion about communicating with
>extraterrestrial life. Shapley responded,
> "If anyone in this room is serious about communicating with
>extraterrestrial life, I recommend that you go out into the garden and
>practice talking to the flowers."
> With what we now know about telepathy, Shapley's advice was right on.
> For physicists, the Big Bang may be good enough. For humans, it
>is sadly limited and crippling.
--
A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk work phone 0131 668 8357 home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
|