🚀 go-pugleaf

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b20oq3$1q4$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com> wrote in message
> > news:JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > hmmm...
> > >
> > > BBT is at best a "best-fit" theory to some early observations, but the
> way
> > > it has influenced interpretations of subsequent observations has
reduced
> > > current theory to a tenuous "stack of cards" where the destruction of
a
> > > fundamental idea will bring the whole lot crashing down.
> >
> > 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 is a
> classic case of thowing the baby out with the bathwater
> after extrapolating beyond the region of validity.

The extrapolators and the baby throwers are on different sides of the fence.

Mark Folsom