|
|
Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Robert Roosen (roosen@crash.cts.com)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 00:47:56 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: There is quite a lot of opposition to the big bang, and the papers
: promoting alternatives are liberally sprinkled in the Astrophysical
: Journal. Look up Crawford, Arp, in addition to the two you mention, for
: starters.
: Those who cry conspiracy get ignored, and rather quickly. Thus, the
: cries of conspiracy, when they occur, tend to get shriller with time.
I agree. A lot of times people are simply busy with their own
efforts and do not have time to follow the leads they like much less
"reproduce" someone else's work. The idea that "scientific observations"
need to be reproduced by independent workers is a strange one in the
realm of finite time and resources.
My point is that the "public" seems to be fed only Big Bang
stuff. That could be because the news editors have chosen it as a good
story rather than that someone is "conspiring" to avoid other stories.
Part of successfully selling news is to stick to what people are familiar
with.
I was living under the volcano in Hawaii in January, 1983, when
the present eruption of Kilauea began. CBS and ABC both came to my
house. They had been sent to find people who were "frightened" because
of the volcano (a typical news approach). Instead, I told them about
Madame Pele' and sent them to see some of the locals who could enlighten
them. They changed their stories to include this interesting entity, and
I note that Madame Pele' is now part of "the news". No one was trying
to suppress the Pele' story. The editors in New York had simply never
heard of her. Once they knew about her, they marketed that story, too.
Sure would like to see someone tell those editors about other
cosmologies.
Robert
|