In a message dated 2/14/01 7:09:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, palmer@SFU.CA
writes:
<< 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
>>
Leigh the fact that a theory can account for a previously unexplained
observation is often a partial verification of that theory. However I agree
with you strongly about the importance of MAP. Every real scientific theory
must be subject to the possibility of being falsified. After all we not
dealing with theology here. Nevertheless my money is on inflation, in one
form or another, surviving the further refinement of observational data.