Archive for August, 2010

In his preface to The Big Bang Never Happened (1st Vintage Books ed., 1992), Lerner ironically asserts that scientists and the media believed that the COBE results overshadowed “minor” discoveries such as DNA, antibiotics, relativity, and quantum physics. Among a wave of accusations against COBE, Learner writes that “the results didn’t even prove the cosmic background […]

I began reading The Big Bang Never Happened (1st Vintage Books ed., 1992) by Eric Lerner this weekend. Actually, I haven’t read past the preface yet, but it certainly set a tone for the rest of the book. I couldn’t help but feel somewhat offended after reading the preface; it came off as sour and […]

In my reading today and yesterday, I realised that this topic is more simply structured than I thought in my post ‘Which controversies?’. My thoughts on controversies within cosmology are primarily the arguments against the Big Bang theory; the alternative theories. These are actually broken up into easy categories: Theories starting from different physics to […]

… because I’m much better at thinking and organising than doing. This post is no different. Running on from my last post, I want to clarify two things. For one, I’m not here to defend the Big Bang theory by debunking alternative (non-standard) cosmological theories. I’ve got to keep that in mind myself! Instead, my […]

I feel like I should have linked to this blog post already. Ethan Siegel from Starts with a Bang launched an incredibly passionate attack against the article, ‘Why the Big Bang Won’t Work‘. Siegel clearly explains what the Big Bang model of cosmology actually predicts as he debunks most of the claims in the aforementioned article. […]

With so much information here on the net and minimal time thus far to sift through it, I plan to research and write about a few particular areas of controversy within cosmology. I wish to write about the original debate in the 1950s and 60s between Big Bang scientists and those who favoured the Steady State model, […]

When I talk about ‘controversies within cosmology’, what do I mean? What does it take for something to be labelled a scientific controversy? In The Golem (2nd ed. 1998), Collins and Pinch conclude that the only science the public need know about is controversial science as controversy is “how science is done”. For me, the latter […]