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!)