Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

md islam (
10 Sep 1995 07:15:38 GMT

Iain Coleman (iain) wrote:
: (Robert Roosen) wrote
: > Anthropologists
: >study cosmology as the creation myths of each of the various cultures
: >inhaviting planet earth. The Big Bang is in the curious position of
: >being promoted as "the" cosmology by a group of physicists who have
: >wandered into astronomy.

: 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".

: > They claim it is a cosmology that is
: >independent of culture
: <snip>
: > So the Big Bang is generally accepted as a nice description of events.
: >As a cosmology, it is accepted by only a relative handful of scientists

: Nonsense. Practically all astronomers and physicists accept it, and I'm
: sure most scientists in other fields do as well.
: >living primarily in Western society

: Better tell that to all those cosmologists in Japan, India, etc. etc.

: > and working primarily in the field of
: >high energy physics.

: Rubbish. Big Bang cosmology is important in most of astronomy, if only
: to set timescales and primordial abundances.

: > It is also widely promoted as "the final answer" by
: >the media, and hence most people are only familiar with it and with no
: >other competing theories

: The media have little enough time for science as it is; how much time
: do you think they should spend discussing long-discredited theories?
: When they're talking about natural history they don't give much time
: to Lamarckism as an alternative to Darwinism - does this offend you
: as much?
: >or with the cosmologies accepted by societies
: >other than Western society.
: > The Hindus, for instance, would call it the "Great Flowering".

: The Hindus can call it whatever they like. How well do these other
: cosmologies explain

: (1) the cosmic microwave background radiation

: (2) the abundances of the light elements

: (3) the Hubble distance-redshift relation?
: >Robert
: >
: >: Joel Duman <> wrote:
: >
: >: >I'm writing a short article on the Big Bang theory, including
: >: >simulations. Much of the literature seems to imply that the theory is
: >: >almost universally accepted. Is this just Hawking's influence? I'd
: >: >like to hear from professionals who can talk to an amateur or amateurs
: >: >who are serious.
: >

: 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.