Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

Steve Sohn (
Sat, 2 Sep 1995 04:42:27 GMT

On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 09:19:44 +1000, (Wesley Taylor) wrote:

=> In article <> Iain Coleman <iain> writes:
=> >The big bang _is_ almost universally accepted, as it fits the observational
=> >evidence. Unfortunately, it's hard to find good popular treatments of the
=> >theory (sure, there's plenty of books out there, but not many good ones).
=> >I strongly recommend you get hold of "The First Three Minutes" by Steven
=> >Weinberg - it's a bit old, but still a fine treatment.
=> You might try to read outside astronomy a little. Hannes Alfvens work in
=> Plasma Physics has done some real damage to Big Bang. The BB theory is NOT
=> almost universally accepted. There are some steady staters left and a whole
=> new crop of plasma cosmology theorists. Try Lerners "The Big Bang Never
=> Happened " as a start. He gives an excellent descripton of teh alternates
=> and the problems in publishing challenges to big bang.
Has anyone else noticed the tantalizing parallel of this Big Bang and general
advanced theorizing to a more medieval priesthood that pretended to understand
the secrets of its own day; like, the Trinity, or how many angels could dance on
the head of a pin.

One gets the idea that in the future all this cosmological bruhaha will be the

Good company and good discourse | Steve Sohn - The Once and Future DWEM
are the very sinews of virtue. | finger:
-- Izaak Walton |
"The Compleat Angler" (1653) |