<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The answer to the question whether the Big-Bang theory is correct or not shouldn't really depend on observational results as the concept as such is logically inconsistent <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If there is one thing I've learned, it's that any decision as to what is inherently logical or illogical ... is always based on what the decider has taken as the "given" (i.e. postulates).
The other thing I've learned is that one obtains postulates by picking them off the nearest bush ... maybe they are right ... maybe not ... maybe they are in need of modification.
Herein lies the difficulty. We don't know what the correct postulates are ... else we should be able to deduce everything just a Tom says (although with great difficulty as one gets further on in the deduction). What a theorist must do is pick some postulates which seem to him to be most probably true ... then try to deduce from them the various observed aspects of the universe. If you can get from your postulates to observations, you can have some confidence. If not ... subtract some confidence.
We have a long way to go but I think the road is a finite one and must end certainly withing the next couple thousand years. I can't imagine people still trying to figure out the universe a million years from now. By then everything that could be said will have been said already and all conversation will be just a rehash. Nobody's theory should be written off at this juncture except those which postulate "fairies, gnomes, angels, leprchauns, etc." and that sort of thing which are now known to be inconsistent with scientific principles ... the body of which paint a much more detailed, consistent picture of reality than anything else.
We know enough to rule out (as logically inconsistent) the "mystical" but not a hell of a lot more.
