RT> KK> I think astronomers would disagree with you.  The Hubble has already
RT> KK> showed us more about the deep universe than was known in all of 
history.
RT> KK> The next scopes will probably be able to look back all the way to the
RT> KK> time when the BB models presume the universe to have begun.  IOW I 
think
RT> KK> we are at the fron of the learning curve, not at the end of it.
RT>There is a limit to how far back in time we can look if the BB model is
RT>accurate due to the density of the Universe being such that it was opaque. 
We
RT>can never penetrate this opacity by direct observation.
Good point.  I guess what I was trying to say was that if the early
universe turns out to be extremely different from the present one,
that would support the BB model.
RT> KK> We always tend to unconsciously assume that we, as a culture, have a
RT> KK> pretty good picture of things, but the fact is that we really know 
very
RT> KK> little about the deep universe.
RT>Science is in its infancy. In 300 years from basically scratch, how much 
do y
RT>think you could learn about a 12-17 billion year old Universe? :)
As for me personally, if I'd had to use one of Galileo's extremely
primitive telescopes, I wouldn't have discovered _anything_!
RT> KK> Every time we build a better telescope, we point it up there and it
RT> KK> shows us some damned thing that nobody predicted.
RT>Yep. And we learn something more about our Universe. :)
Yeah, the next ten years are going to be fascinating.
 * SLMR 2.1a *    Chutzpah: Putting "Moderator" in your twit filter!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------