Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Herb Huston: "Re: If god exists, what created god? :The answer"
• Previous message: Carl Fink: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"

In article <DEE9vu.L4G@crash.cts.com>, roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert
Roosen) writes:

>
>Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.darkside.com) wrote:
>: Dan Hughes <fbai@ionet.net> writes:
>
>: > The big bang is only the most popular view of the origin of the
>: > universe.
>
>: It is also presently the most successful at explaining observations.
>
> This is due to the limiting assumptions that the high energy
>physicists use when they promote their own world view as a "universal"
one.
> In fact, Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a much more popular view
>of the origin of life and is a far more satisfactory basis for a globally

>acceptable cosmology.

Robert is probably right if we were to take a world wide representative
poll. I would suspect that well over 90% of the population of the world
had never heard of the big bang, nor have the cosmological frame of
reference in which it could be explained.

But if we were to narrow the survey to those who know and understand what
it is we are talking about, i think you'll find a sizeable majority
accepting it.

And i'm not sure that the physicists and cosmologists involved really look
at this one peice of the cosmic puzzle as a "universal world view". A
quick review of some of the more prominant non-technical writings of these
men (Einstein's -Ideas and Opinions- is a good example) will show that
they believe the world to be a complex place indeed.

john celenza

• Next message: Herb Huston: "Re: If god exists, what created god? :The answer"
• Previous message: Carl Fink: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"