Re: Cosmology( Correction)

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> In a message dated 2/14/01 5:57:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, palmer@SFU.CA
> writes:
>
> <<
>  You have a short memory. Astronomers did not say the universe was
>  open. Observation says there is not enough visible matter to close
>  it. If we interpret "visible" to mean "detectable" then more matter
>  is being discovered all the time. I do not accept your contention
>  that flatness has been conclusively demonstrated.
>   >>
> Leigh while we can't yet say Omega equals one the fact that it is virtually
> one, (Well within .2 to 2 by best astronomical data) begs for an explanation.
> To be so close to 1 implies incredible fine tuning during the big bang or, as
> I believe is more likely, some mechanism which drives omega to 1. The only
> mechanism that we know of that may be the agent for this result in inflation.

You miss the point. Inflation is not predicting something
previously unknown here. To claim that a universe having
omega (sum of both flavors) = 1 is original with inflation
is contrary to the knowledge of anyone over the age of 20.
A critical universe has been the expectation of many for
as long as I can remember. The spatial character of the
CMBR anisotropy would be such a previously unknown result,
but the data in hand seem to be inconsistent with the
prediction of inflation. Wait for MAP. If MAP confirms
inflation like COBE confirmed the hot big bang I will sign
the pledge! (I signed on to the hot big bang long before
COBE, by the way.)

Leigh