|
|
Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.darkside.com)
Mon, 04 Sep 95 21:33:09 PDT
roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) writes:
> Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.darkside.com) wrote:
>
> : It is also presently the most successful at explaining observations.
>
> 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.
Strange, but I notice you don't say, "No, the big bang is poor at
explaining observations."
Whether it's applicable to the average person (which you later appear
to tout) is irrelevant, because (right or wrong) that's not what
science is about.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE // uuwest!alcyone!max, max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA, USA // 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W // GIGO, Omega, Psi // the 4th R!
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- // 1love // folasade
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ // mc2? oo? Nah. // http://www.spies.com/max/
|