Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@brl-vld
From: gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re:  The General Theory of Relativity and Cosmology
Message-ID: <2330@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jun-83 13:57:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2330
Posted: Sat Jun 18 13:57:40 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jun-83 02:55:15 EDT
Lines: 31

From:      Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) 

First, you need to realize that physicists are human beings with
their own prejudices and politics; the latter is aggravated by
the almost total reliance on government funding.  Therefore
there are many fads and camp followers...

It really shouldn't matter what theory feels comfortable; one
should arrange his value system so that the truth is emotionally
satisfying.  However, the truth is definitely not identical with
the ideas a majority of professionals happen to believe at any
given moment.  The history of science bears this out.

A majority of physicists in a position where they should know
currently believe in the Big Bang cosmology, although there are
others who think the evidence is inconclusive.  Astronomy in
general is based on extrapolation, since it is impossible to
perform controlled laboratory experiments on the subject matter.
Extrapolation is a risky business!  In the case of cosmology,
the red shift of distant objects is observable, but its
significance is a matter of conjecture; the common conjecture
is that it is a Doppler effect, and many cosmological models
take this for granted although alternative causes are possible.

Just because a technical paper was published some time ago
does not make it worthless (it does, however, tend to isolate
it from current fads).  The best discussion of cosmology I
ever saw was a little book "Expanding Universes" by Erwin
Schr"odinger.  It is eminently readable but a little hard to
find.  (If anyone with access to this book is willing to run
me off a copy, I would gladly cover expenses!)