Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Julie Locascio: "Re: Life Duty Death"
• Previous message: Adam Felson: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"

In article <DDuCvx.LnF@crash.cts.com>,
roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:

> Sure would like to see someone tell those editors about other
> cosmologies.

I think that the problem with that, is that the Big Bang makes a kind of
simple sense. When I was a lad (ever so long ago) Steady State was big; I
remember reading a great deal from and about Hoyle. But Big Bang overtook
it by a series of coups- like microwave background- that fitted in nicely
to the existing evidence (for example red shift).

The anomalies and complications are *so* complicated that news editors only
run them after they have heard some kind of explanation like Inflation (is
inflation still necessary these days?).

The trouble is that all the alternative ideas I have heard of (in New
Scientist- I'm just a member of the public) are at least as complicated and
incomprehensible as the fixes to the Big Bang, and lack the central,
instantly aesthetically pleasing idea.

Peter

• Next message: Julie Locascio: "Re: Life Duty Death"
• Previous message: Adam Felson: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"