re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not one big one
sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for
40 years???
art swanson

...he (Hawking) was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not
one big one.

Sounds like he's been talking to Bert.g oc

...he (Hawking) was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not
one big one.

Sounds like he's been talking to Bert.g oc

Arth6831 wrote:
recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not one big one

What newspaper and what date?

sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for
40 years???
art swanson

Not to bust your bubble, but the big bang is on quite sound observational
footing. We teach to school children that which we can support observationally,
emphasizing that it can change when observations warrant. So, though it is not
etched in stone, it is the only thing that has the track record to support it.

Arth6831 wrote:
recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many little
bangs, but not one big one

What newspaper and what date?

sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for
40 years???
art swanson

Not to bust your bubble, but the big bang is on quite sound observational
footing. We teach to school children that which we can support observationally,
emphasizing that it can change when observations warrant. So, though it is not
etched in stone, it is the only thing that has the track record to support it.

"Arth6831" wrote in message
...
recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many
little
bangs, but not one big one
sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating
universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids
for
40 years???
art swanson

"Vindication"? First time I've heard that Hawking is the final arbiter of
things cosmological. Even if what you read is true (A. too bad you don't
quote your source and B. eight years ago? what are Hawkings' current
ideas?), all you have are competing theories . . . except in this case,
one---the Big Bang---is a theory that has an enormous amount of supporting
evidence while the other---Hoyle's---has very little evidence and not much
support in the scientific community.

RM

"Arth6831" wrote in message
...
recently i saw a newspaper article alluding to hawkings rejection of big
bang....about 8 yrs ago he was quoted as saying he could buy into many
little
bangs, but not one big one
sounds to me like vindication of hoyle and narlikar.....oscillating
universe
with creation events------bangs----at the minima,,,,,,every 200 billion
years....i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and
nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids
for
40 years???
art swanson

"Vindication"? First time I've heard that Hawking is the final arbiter of
things cosmological. Even if what you read is true (A. too bad you don't
quote your source and B. eight years ago? what are Hawkings' current
ideas?), all you have are competing theories . . . except in this case,
one---the Big Bang---is a theory that has an enormous amount of supporting
evidence while the other---Hoyle's---has very little evidence and not much
support in the scientific community.

RM

when will they admit they have been
lying to american schoolkids for 40
years???
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0art swanson

Art, you should do a web search under 'Big Bang Nucleosynthesis'. It
explains how the generation of the primal elements hydrogen, helium and
lithium are consistent with the BB model.
Then there's the dueterium (heavy hydrogen) enigma.
Deuterium cannot be created in stars, as it is destroyed in the fusion
process. Yet it is found in trace amounts terrestrially, and more
abundantly in protostellar clouds which have yet to undergo star
formation.
The existance of deuterium in the universe is totally supportive of a
superhot 'genesis event' in the deep past. oc

when will they admit they have been
lying to american schoolkids for 40
years???
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0art swanson

Art, you should do a web search under 'Big Bang Nucleosynthesis'. It
explains how the generation of the primal elements hydrogen, helium and
lithium are consistent with the BB model.
Then there's the dueterium (heavy hydrogen) enigma.
Deuterium cannot be created in stars, as it is destroyed in the fusion
process. Yet it is found in trace amounts terrestrially, and more
abundantly in protostellar clouds which have yet to undergo star
formation.
The existance of deuterium in the universe is totally supportive of a
superhot 'genesis event' in the deep past. oc

Didn't COBE pretty much end this debate?