Kevin said: > I don't know why, but your statements look completely wrong. I'm sure > there are just as many scientists who work towards fitting new data in > with old theories to make the case for the big bang even better.
The thing is, it's not possible to prove the Big Bang. How would one even go about trying to prove it? Sure, there are scientists out there trying to measure the parameters of the Big Bang model (the Hubble parameter and mass density are the most important) more accurately, but this isn't making the case for the Big Bang better as such - it's just telling us more accurately which of the Big Bang models is the best one. There are others trying to test the limits of the model by looking at various other aspects of the universe. Many of these observations could in principle disprove the theory, and they only make the case for it better by failing to do so. I wish the likes of Scientific American would stop saying things like "More proof for the Big Bang" when they really mean "More evidence for the Big Bang"; and even then they'd be better off with "Big Bang passes more tests". Rich _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
