If Curtis were here, he would almost certainly note that what may seem to us
laypeople to be common sense (e,g., the mass of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars couldn't possibly have been squashed
into a point) is not a reliable basis for evaluating scientific theories.
After all, if it were, we would be fully justified in immediately tossing
quantum mechanics onto the trash heap, along with Darwinian evolution.
("Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can
it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain,' into a blind alley
from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like
that."--Richard Feynman on quantum mechanics)
In any case, scientists don't usually tell us the Big Bang theory is "the
gospel truth." Rather, they say it's the best theory we have currently.
Seraphita wrote:
> > Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big
> > Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't
> > believe in it are,:
I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in
*believing* in the Big Bang ie, in believing the mass of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when
there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which don't
require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to grips with
dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs again. I'd
love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the sheepish looks on
the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel truth. > >
