🚀 go-pugleaf

"Indestructible Truth Holder" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b23nh8$b2i$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:v4832trrnuau49@corp.supernews.com...
> > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b20oq3$1q4$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message
> > > news:v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > > The basic idea of the big bang seems entirely bullet-proof--a hot,
> > > > high-density beginning with subsequent expansion is in perfect accord
> > > > with a large number of very careful observations.  It's very unlikely
> to be
> > > > overthrown completely, and with good reason.
> > >
> > > What you say is correct, but there is a popular view that
> > > the "Big Bang" is supposed continue that model right back
> > > to t=0 and in fact explain what happened at t=0.
> >
> > It's a perfectly valid enterprise for theorists to speculate beyond what's
> > firmly known and try to find empirical tests that bear on those
> > speculations. If the popular media and the public can't distinguish the
> > speculative fringe from the solid science, they need to get some
> education.
>
> It's not the popular media nor the public's fault that educational textbooks
> and instructors present the speculative fringe and solid science side by
> side with little or no differentiation.

I tend to agree and have posted in the past about poorly worded
press releases that compound that problem, but you are just
supporting my point, you must take care not to through out the
part of the Big Bang model that is solidly grounded in observation
by confusing it with speculation about earlier stages.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.