I beginning to enjoy you! Let me refer you to George Smoot's work on this
and the Cobe Satellite Team. Now... look in your dictionary... lookup the
word "Cosmology" -> many dictionaries defined it as philosophy.
BUT it is now science. And it is growing faster due to technology that is
available to radio astronomers and even optical astronomers than was used
just a few years ago. It even is a pass time in Amateur Radio, where this
field of endeavor is one of my favorites.
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
> The detection of the cosmic background radiation made cosmology more
> respectable. However, the Big Bang is still a unique event that cannot be
> repeated notwithstanding the excellent work of Penzias and Wilson. The
> remnant of the Big Bang was predicted by Gamow--but at 25K rather than the
> actual 3K.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: Keith B Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 11:20 AM
> Subject: Science & Philosophy
>
> >Moorad:
> >
> >Now that I have one of my cosmology books open...
> >
> >Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Telephone Laboratories brought the
> >Enstein et al's cosmology into the sphere of science by proving by repeat
> >experiments that the Big Bang actually took place: by background noise in
> >a horn antenna which was intended for communication use.
> >
> >Cosmology does start with philosophy, all theory does! But it is not till
> >it passes through the scientific method that it becomes science. And that
> >includes REPEATABLE RESULTS.
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear William,
> >>
> >> Repeatability is an essential ingredient in physics, for instance, but it
> is
> >> not in cosmology. The main aspect of cosmology is deductive rather than
> >> inductive. Accordingly, in cosmology we postulate mathematical models and
> >> compare its logical implications with the existing cosmological data. Of
> >> course, the same procedure is used in physics, witness the relativity
> work
> >> of Einstein. However, the greatest development in physics is generalizing
> >> into laws from repeatable, experimental evidence. The latter is lacking
> in
> >> any scientific theory relating unique events, e.g., questions of origins.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> To: Keith B Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> >> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 7:17 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Meta 103: Genes, Genesis, and God: Skyhooks and Cranes
> >>
> >> >Keith:
> >> >
> >> >Very interesting points here... Question: Repeatability??? Can all of
> the
> >> >points be verified in the lab? If not -> it falls well outside the
> sphere
> >> >of science.
> >> >
> >> >One has to be VERY careful with metaphysics my friend :)
> >> >
> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >--
> >William A. Wetzel
> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net