Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
5 Sep 1995 17:06:50 GMT

In article <>, (Steve Sohn) writes:
==> 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.

Nope. Such "theorizing" made no falsifiable predictions. The Big Bang model
does. Of course, some folks (Steve Sohn, for example), don't seem capable of
understanding that distinction.

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.