|>
|> In a lecture March 31 at San Diego State U, the eminent theoretical
|> astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge demonstrated that the Big Bang theory is
|> nothing more than the Judeao-Christian creation myth put to mathematics.
|>   He gave as an example Paul Davis, an astronomical cosmologist,
|> who was recently rewarded the one million dollar Templeton prize in religion.
|>   He exhibited a model based on Narlikar's comment that Hindus do
|> not need a beginning of time.  The Burbidge/Narlikar model is thus the
|> Hindu cosmology put to mathematics with a series of universes.
|>   Burbidge stated, "The laws of physics have been equated to God."
|>   His final comments were:
|>   "We all have our religious beliefs.  We certainly don't want to
|> get them mixed up with the problems of dealing with non-linear
|> equations.  At least I don't."
|>   None of the astronomical cosmological models are believable, much
|> less "proven".  The primary reason is that none of them are able to
|> specify initial and final conditions for the universe.  Hence this is
|> speculation--nothing more.
|>
|>

|> : I am doing some research for my physics class regarding the current
|> : evidence that scientists have in their belief in the Big Bang Theory.  If
|> : you have any information regarding this topic, please e-mail to me at

|> : Thanks
|>
|> : --
|> : This is my own personal idea.  It is not a reflection of Monta Vista High
|> : School or Fremont Union High School District.
|>

I am afraid that this Burbidge fellow is incorrect (and it is incorrect to
claim that he "demonstrated" anything).  Those who believe in the big bang
theory span all religions.  Hindus also have a penchant for claiming the big
bang as support for their religion (irrelevant to an astronomer, but somehow
Burbidge finds it significant, according to you).  Finally, the big bang took
time to be accepted because it went AGAINST the prejudices, religious and
otherwise, of the scientists at the time.

The complaint that the models are not believable because they don't specify
initial and final conditions is particularly odd.  We must take the universe as
we find it, and not impose our preconceptions on it.  This is what Burbidge
seems to be saying, but it is definitely not what you say he is doing.

In short, it sounds like Burbidge is guilty of the very crime he is describing.
        -- Bill Lawson

In a lecture March 31 at San Diego State U, the eminent theoretical
astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge demonstrated that the Big Bang theory is
nothing more than the Judeao-Christian creation myth put to mathematics.
        He gave as an example Paul Davis, an astronomical cosmologist,
who was recently rewarded the one million dollar Templeton prize in religion.
        He exhibited a model based on Narlikar's comment that Hindus do
not need a beginning of time.  The Burbidge/Narlikar model is thus the
Hindu cosmology put to mathematics with a series of universes.
        Burbidge stated, "The laws of physics have been equated to God."
        His final comments were:
        "We all have our religious beliefs.  We certainly don't want to
get them mixed up with the problems of dealing with non-linear
equations.  At least I don't."
        None of the astronomical cosmological models are believable, much
less "proven".  The primary reason is that none of them are able to
specify initial and final conditions for the universe.  Hence this is
speculation--nothing more.

: I am doing some research for my physics class regarding the current
: evidence that scientists have in their belief in the Big Bang Theory.  If
: you have any information regarding this topic, please e-mail to me at

: Thanks

: --
: This is my own personal idea.  It is not a reflection of Monta Vista High
: School or Fremont Union High School District.

Dan Drake

In my previous response, I forgot one interesting fact.  A few years ago, one
astronomer and popular writer (whose name escapes me just now) wrote
extensively about how *slow* astronomers were to accept the Big Bang, because
they thought it smacked of biblical creation, and they're mostly a bunch of
atheists.  Obviously, either accepting it or rejecting it because of a
religious connection is bad science; falsely accusing other people of
doing either of these is also bad science.

It seems that no matter how you react to a theory that _somebody_ wants to
associate with religion, you'll get sniped at by one religious faction or
another; maybe it's best just to stick to science and ignore that stuff.

In fact, Big Bang is hard to swallow, since it posits a gigantic
discontinuity in which all the known laws break down, and scientists hate
that kind of thing for good reason.  Hoyle's alternative, though, was to
abandon the conservation of energy, which is unappealing for the same
reason.  If Burbidge actually has another way to get around the evidence, it
would be interesting to hear about--stripped of the religious crap(*), of
course.

(*) No implication that religion is crap.  Its introduction into scientific
questions is another matter.

Dan Drake

1. Redshifts of galaxies increases with their distance.
2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
3. The relative abundance of the elements

As for the N/B steady-state theory being akin to Hindu cosmology
that is a bunch of bunkum from a know-nothing. In Hindu cosmology
the universe undergoes successive cycles of creation and destruction,
quite unlike the steady-state theory.

It is a common assumption in physical cosmology that the universe is
to a good approximation, spatially isotropic and homogenous, that is,
one part of the universe is as good as the other, and there is
nothing special about any location.  If you extend that to saying :
why should we believe that there is anything distinguished about any
moment of time, and think about it hard enough, you end up with a
steady state theory of the universe.  The extra "symmetry" is appealing,
but the evidence, as interpreted today, doesn't support it.

-arun gupta

Astronomers rely on red-shift as their way of estimating the distances
of distant (far outside our galaxy) objects, because they now assume
that there was a big bang.  

Question:
  What is the most distant object whose distance was measured *other*
  than by red-shift?

The steady-state model also contains an expansion of the universe, but
gives no explanation of why, other than it has always existed.  The
Big Bang models and their inflationary cousins attempt to give an
explanation of why the expansion is as observed, within the context of
our best theory of gravity today, the general theory of relativity.

So be careful when you make large, sweeping generalizations.  The
usually prove incorrect and mark you as one not truely familiar with
the topic at hand.

J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Rauch Memorial Planetarium
University of Louisville

This is not true:  Put some ants (resiliant ones) on a bomb and give them
telescopes and blow the bomb up.  The ants will not see redshift proportional
to distance because the ants are expanding radially away from the bomb center
and not each other.  Put those ants on a balloon and glue them down real good
and inflate the balloon - then the ants will recover the Hubble Law.

|>
|> Astronomers rely on red-shift as their way of estimating the distances
|> of distant (far outside our galaxy) objects, because they now assume
|> that there was a big bang.  
|>
|> Question:
|>   What is the most distant object whose distance was measured *other*
|>   than by red-shift?
|>

The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect has been measured for clusters in the range
z = 0.1-0.3.

A distant supernova was just discovered in a z = 0.48 galaxy

Models of superluminal motion give distances and those objects I think
have z up to 1

So distances have been measured to at least 1/2 the horizon radius with
techniques other than using redshift.  Fortunately, you did not ask if
"good" distances had been measured.

 Look. I was there, and you'll have to take my word for it because my
my camera jammed-up. It was really big, and Messy? Let me tell you!
 -And all those Quark-things..well, I suppose there are a few under the
rugs still, but if you want them for evidence, you should use a jar;
I don't want them around here again, they give me a runny nose.

: > 1. Redshifts of galaxies increases with their distance.

: Astronomers rely on red-shift as their way of estimating the distances
: of distant (far outside our galaxy) objects, because they now assume
: that there was a big bang.  

: Question:
:   What is the most distant object whose distance was measured *other*
:   than by red-shift?

The Hubble scope has been able to measure the distance to Cepheid variables
in a galaxy in the Virgo cluster.  I don't remember the distance, but it's
somewhere in the high tens of millions of light years.

The purpose of the measurement was to calibrate the Hubble constant, and
thereby determine exactly how fast the observed universe is expanding.

:  Look. I was there, and you'll have to take my word for it because my
: my camera jammed-up. It was really big, and Messy? Let me tell you!

Which direction did you have your camera pointed?

--
This .sigfile is a thought virus. Its mission in life is to ensure
that it does not get read, thought about, or duplicated. So DO NOT
read this, do not think about it, and DEFINITELY do not duplicate it
in your own .sig, if you want it to complete its mission!