Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Steve Sohn (sasohn@netcom.com)
Sat, 2 Sep 1995 04:42:27 GMT
On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 09:19:44 +1000, elwest@Teleport.com (Wesley Taylor) wrote:
=> In article <DDrBKA.J7q@udcf.gla.ac.uk> 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
same.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Good company and good discourse | Steve Sohn - The Once and Future DWEM
are the very sinews of virtue. | finger: sasohn@netcom.com
-- Izaak Walton | ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/sa/sasohn
"The Compleat Angler" (1653) | http://www.webcom.com/~sasohn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|