Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

19 Apr 1995 17:39 CDT

In article <>, (Robert Roosen) writes...
>Ferris ( wrote:
>: There are other predictions of the
>: big bang which have been confirmed by observation--chief among these is the
>: observation that the universe is expanding--and it is this power of
>: prediction that makes the big bang the most compelling model for creation of
>: the universe.
>I believe you've got the cart before the horse on this point. As
>Burbidge pointed out, "If you interpret the redshifts as expansion
>redshifts (subtly different from "explosion" redshifts), then the
>universe is expanding."
> Definitely, interpreting the redshifts in this way led to various
>expanding universe theories, including the big bang.
> This is an example of people discovering their assumptions and
>treating them as something new.

Just to correct a common misunderstanding. The Big Bang did not explode
"into" anything--there was no "space" to explode into. The Big Bang (it
is theorized) "created" the space as the expansion occurred. When we are
looking at quasars millions of light-years distant receding from us, they
are not receding "into" space, rather *the space between us is expanding*!
We are stationary and the quasar is stationary, but the space between us
is expanding!

I know this is mind boggling (which is why I love astronomy) so I will
direct any questions to Steven Weinberg's _The First Three Minutes_. But
for a skeptics view of redshifts in general, check out _Redshifts, Quasars,
and Controversies_ by Halton Arp. BTW, Dr. Arp will be a lecturer at this
years Texas Star Party in Ft. Davis, Tx. Anyone interested in going can
give me a personal e-mail.

Keep Looking Up!

James Benthall
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Houston
Houston, Texas 77004