🚀 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.
>

You're very long on accusations and very short on specifics.  Is that
because you've been fed some propaganda but know you don't know enough to
defend your position once the specifics are known?  You can't make an
effective argument mouthing vague nonsense.  I just makes you look like a
fool.

Mark Folsom

[snip]