🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "T" == Thanatos  <dgahan@europe.com> writes:

T> and the way scientists insist on "cooking the books" to prop it up
T> if observations don't quite fit...

I note the absence of any specifics in your accusation.

T> and how scientists who are open-minded enough to persue
T> alternatives are ridiculed.

You mean like all those astronomers and physicists considering the
ekpyrotic models who have been published in Phys. Rev., Phys. Lett.,
and Class. Quant. Grav. and have been invited to speak at major
international meetings?

T> BBT is at best a "best-fit" theory to some early observations, but
T> the way it has influenced interpretations of subsequent
T> observations has reduced current theory to a tenuous "stack of
T> cards" where the destruction of a fundamental idea will bring the
T> whole lot crashing down.

This seems like a funny criticism.  Every scientific theory will come
"crashing down" if observations show that a fundamental part of the
theory is not supported.  That's a good thing.  Indeed, people have
even listed a number of different ways that the Big Bang model could
be "destroyed."  The reason astronomers continue to work with the Big
Bang model is that no such "destructive" observation has ever been
produced.

-- 
Lt. Lazio, HTML police   | e-mail: jlazio@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape.  | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html