Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J Pekka Makela: "Afterlife in various religions?"
• Previous message: md islam: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"

Wesley Taylor (elwest@Teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <DDrBKA.J7q@udcf.gla.ac.uk> Iain Coleman <iain> writes:

: >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.

: 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.

• Next message: J Pekka Makela: "Afterlife in various religions?"
• Previous message: md islam: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"