Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: dannie hawkins: "LIFE DUTY DEATH"
• Previous message: Gord McFee: "Re: Lane the pin-head! (was: Why, you're welcome, Chuck!)"

In article <DDrBKA.J7q@udcf.gla.ac.uk>, Iain Coleman <iain> wrote:
>roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote
>What a load of bollocks. The Hot Big Bang model is accepted by virtually
>all astronomers. It is special because it passes all observational tests.
>This is called "science".

No, when you use absolutes such as "all", then it is dogma, not science.
The BB explains more observations more simply than competing theories,
so most astronomers and physicists use it as their leading hypothesis.
IMHO the BB has more weak spots than other leading theories in other fields.
These could be fixed with more data, or lead to a substantially new theory like when
quantum replacing classical 80 years ago. Those of us with longer memories
will recall the BB was not the leading hypothesis until 40 years ago when
the background radiation discovery considerably strengthened it.
Cosmology could change its theory again with new data, but I dont have
a reason to suspect so now.

• Next message: dannie hawkins: "LIFE DUTY DEATH"
• Previous message: Gord McFee: "Re: Lane the pin-head! (was: Why, you're welcome, Chuck!)"