PDA

View Full Version : Misconceptions in BB Cosmology Explained in the March issue



Spaceman Spiff
2005-Feb-18, 03:21 PM
A lot of the questions that I've seen asked and misconceptions put forth in this forum regarding predictions of the Big Bang theory are explained in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American. I highly recommend it. You can purchase it on-line (http://www.sciam.com/) or at your favorite book store.

No, I am not a representative of this fine magazine, just an astronomer who also happens to subscribe.
:D

George
2005-Feb-18, 04:36 PM
Any surprises of interest? Is it comprehensive or is it a summary of our posts? :)

Tensor
2005-Feb-18, 04:58 PM
A lot of the questions that I've seen asked and misconceptions put forth in this forum regarding predictions of the Big Bang theory are explained in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American. I highly recommend it. You can purchase it on-line (http://www.sciam.com/) or at your favorite book store.

No, I am not a representative of this fine magazine, just an astronomer who also happens to subscribe.
:D

It's a wonderful article there are several here that would benefit by reading it (well at least they should realize some of their claims are misconceptions). No, I am not a representative of this fine magazine, just an interested observer who also happens to subscribe. 8)

beskeptical
2005-Feb-20, 05:39 AM
I take it from the opening paragraphs it reiterates the BB is a fact not a 'theory' to use the anti-evolutionists' use of the term theory?

I really like Shermer's little piece on the fallacy of the missing link argument in the same issue. The summary paragraph on line says it all.

jnik
2005-Feb-20, 07:40 PM
No, I am not a representative of this fine magazine, just an astronomer who also happens to subscribe.
Has SciAm improved in recent years? Somewhere around '95 the intellectual level and overall quality took a dive to near-Omni levels and I stopped paying attention. Shame, because it used to be an excellent mag.

Spaceman Spiff
2005-Feb-21, 09:58 PM
I take it from the opening paragraphs it reiterates the BB is a fact not a 'theory' to use the anti-evolutionists' use of the term theory?

I really like Shermer's little piece on the fallacy of the missing link argument in the same issue. The summary paragraph on line says it all.

And like all scientific facts and theories are open to future scrutiny by the data.

Spaceman Spiff
2005-Feb-21, 10:01 PM
No, I am not a representative of this fine magazine, just an astronomer who also happens to subscribe.
Has SciAm improved in recent years? Somewhere around '95 the intellectual level and overall quality took a dive to near-Omni levels and I stopped paying attention. Shame, because it used to be an excellent mag.

Well, I think it has. But I agree that it may not be what it once was.