With science under attack so much, astronomy has been getting its share of the flak. Because of this, some of the bigger ideas are getting hit, from the Big Bang to star formation to stellar (gasp) evolution.
I’ve been meaning to write more about this, but daily life interferes. However, The Angry Astronomer has written a brief overview of Big Bang myths. It’s a pretty good start. I’m sure I (and you) could come up with a zillion more things to talk about — and I do have a chapter in my book about this topic — but AA does a good job of getting the big picture boiled down to really just a few words. There are other sources as well for more info, but if someone comes along and starts getting in your face about where the BB came from, point ‘em to AA. But don’t CC me — I hear enough about this already.
July 30th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
AA comes before BA in the phone book, so I guess they’ll call him first.
Just like “AA Beautiful Blonde” gets all the customers.
July 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Angry Astronomer? Bad Astronomer? Who will be next on the list? The Crazy Astronomer. The Deft Astronomer. The EVIL Astronomer! BWAHAHAHA!!! *ahem* Sorry…
July 30th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Karnalis, why did you stop at “E”, couldn’t you think up something with “F”?
Well, maybe you could….
July 30th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I can,
The Fabulous Astronomer.
The Good Astronomer.
The Hideous Astronomer.
The iStronomer (coming soon from Apple, in white and black).
The Joking Astronomer.
The Kinky Astronomer.
The Leather Astronomer.
The Mad Astronomer.
The Neutered Astronomer (AKA The Squeaky Astronomer).
The Ominous Astronomer.
The Peed Astronomer.
The Queer Astronomer.
The Rouge Astronomer.
The Squeaky Astronomer (AKA The Neutered Astronomer).
The Ticking Astronomer (AKA Bomb Voyage).
The Ultimate Astronomer.
The Volks Astronomer (from Germany).
The Wicked Astronomer.
The Xenu Astronomer (He came into this world silent).
The YAA (Yet Another Astronomer).
The ZZ Top Astronomer (always a Sharp Dressed Man).
….I’d better go to bed….
July 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
What I’m really interested in is the Big Band theory, which Carl Sagan demonstrated once on Saturday Night Live.
July 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Hmm… Not sure whether I liked the post by the AA: the whole explosion gaffe, and the failure to point out that in GR you can have a finite spacetime where a universe has a finite age, makes me suspect he is not quite on top of his game.
So in my book B comes before A. Perhaps you should write a piece on this?
July 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
I am not interested at all about what started this universe. We need to know right now what could end OUR universe. If it gets any hotter I am going to become the MELTED Astronomer…. :*)
July 30th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Thomas: If anyone does try to call me, I’d probably refer them to someone with more knowledge than myself depending on how much I knew about the topic.
PK: The leaving out of GR stating that you can have a finite universe was intentional as it wasn’t necessary in responding to any of the claims that big-bang deniers often make. As far as the “whole explosion gaffe”, I admit that my definition of “explosion” was underdeveloped and I’m working on an updated version of the post which will remove that erronoious definition as well as making use of several other recommendations that commentors had left.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
All:
Upon reading the AA’s explanation of the Big Bang theory, I turned to my 14 year old who has just completed eighth grade and quizzed him on some of the details therein. His answers were amazingly enlightened. He showed a good understanding of the theory given only the completion of so few years of school.
I’m happy to note that there was non of the ‘Big Bang is just a theory’ or ‘Evolution is just a theory’ bunk that the IDiots have attempted to foist on our students of late. For the moment at least, our local middle school is ID free.
I’ll keep my ears tuned.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Glad to know I’ve got at least an 8th grade understanding!
I’m also happy to see that your school district is teaching the Big Bang. I’ve been into astronomy I can’t really remember where I learned about it, other than college classes and a very simple high school class. But I can’t say I recall learning anything about it except in my senior year of high school in an elective.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:20 am
It looks like the AA needs more…uh…(parallelism?) in his list. He argued FOR the first two statements and AGAINST that last two.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:17 am
Perhaps I should make this comment over at AA, but I’m a creature of habit and I like it here at the BA’s: When I talk to people about the Big Bang, they always want to know what came before it. I think it is therefore very important to stress that time itself was created in the Big Bang.
At this point M-theory (where a Big Bang can occur via the decay of the vacuum state) is so speculative that we can leave it at that.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:37 am
When I was sitting at the cinema the other night (local indie theater was showing Jaws), some older gentleman started rambling on about how “scientists” are starting to doubt evolution (”19th Century superstition”, he called it) and big bang theory and all of that. Made me want to slam my head against the seat in front of me in the hope of fatally driving bits of bone into my brain.
He didn’t get too specific, but he did say something completely insane about comets that almost made my head explode. Apparently, according to Mr. Loony, the same unspecified (and presumably not too complex) “scientists” from before did some calculation about comets losing mass from going near the sun and found that comets couldn’t be more than 10000 years old. And comets formed with the solar system. I guess that makes him an old-earth creationists. *head slam* One of those statements that’s so ignorant you don’t even know where to begin.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:10 am
Yeah, and he talked during the movie too…. how bad can it get?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:14 am
I think AA is doing a good job on his blog and I visit every once in a while. He’s not targeting astronomers or physicists and I’m neither.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:34 am
[...] Well, Bad Astronomer Phil Plait has an article today pointing to The Angry Astronomer (sheesh, these astronomers really need to switch to decaf) and his explanation of some Big Bang misconceptions, such as the one I just pointed out, as well as questions about the proof of the Big Bang. [...]
July 31st, 2006 at 8:34 am
“…did some calculation about comets losing mass from going near the sun and found that comets couldn’t be more than 10000 years old.”
People like to latch onto things such as this in conveniently isolated bites. It may be true that short period comets lose mass comparatively rapidly, because they frequently pass near the Sun.
What someone such as Mr. Loony is probably unaware of is that long period comets have measured orbital elements, and it’s determined to high confidence that their apohelia tend to be distributed in the region now called the Ort Cloud. Long period comets don’t spend the majority of their careers near the Sun, and can last for billions of years.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Joshua: I’ve heard that claim about comets before. The general idea is that, since comets get material blown off them (so to speak) every time they come near the sun, they should (and are) continually losing mass. Thus, how long should it take for comets to cease to exist? It’s certainly less than 4.5 billion years. Thus, since we’re not “creating” new comets, we shouldn’t see them if the solar system is that old and therefore, the solar system (and by fiat, the universe) is exactly 6,000 years old.
This is an example of the great partial truths that creationsts love. Yes, comets are constantly getting destroyed and all the comets that there are, were created at the formation of the solar system. The trick is that the solar system formed a lot of them and is storing them in the Kupier Belt and the Oort Cloud until the occasional gravitational perturbation knocks them in towards us, shiny and new. The presence of these was originally inferred by looking at the aphelion of short and long period comets respectively.
However, since they were only inferred, Creationists have been trying to claim that the Kupier Belt and Oort cloud don’t exist. But recently, this claim has been smashed with the visual confirmation of Kupier Belt objects.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
It’s been said before, by ancestors smarter than me, that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sows(female pigs) ear. Neither can you teach a pig to sing, no matter how hard you try. It will merely frustrate you and really piss off the pig,,,
We will continue trying to teach pigs to sing, though it’s a thankless task. Maybe someday, they will actually WANT to learn,,,
GAry 7
July 31st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The Good, the Bad, and the Angry Astronomers. You’re short one good astronomer. [Fortunately there are plenty around here.] The careless woo-woo would stand no chance.
I was going to post in the AA’s blog to let him know the BA invited us there, but obviously this incomplete trio wisely works together.
It has been interesting what is said of Lemaitre. Even how his name is given is confussing. What did he go by? Was it Abbe Georges Lemaitre, Georges-Henri Lemaitre, Georges LeMaitre, or monseignor Georges Lemaitre? What does Abbe mean – Abbot? Did he get two PhD’s, one from MIT? Were they (or was it) in physics or astrophysics?
One religious site is quick to mention he was a Belgian priest, but do not mention he had a PhD in physics. More often in non-religious articles, it is not mentioned he was a priest; this is understanable, however, if it is a science article.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Gary – I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. While there’s always going to be people out there that will disregard reality for mythology, my experience is that this isn’t the case for the majority.
The trick is trying to educate without making them get defensive. This is easier with some than others, but if you can keep them open, then it is possible to get people to listen to reason.
I’ve spent more hours than I care to admit on message boards debating this stuff with (generally) teens who have been preached to about the evils of the big bang and evolution, but have, on rare occasion, been able to show one how things actually work. It’s a thankless task and requires insane amounts of patience, but when you actually get someone finally saying “Oh. So that’s how it works. Well that makes sense. You’re right.” it’s all worth it.
And George, perhaps someone does need to start a Good Astronomer blog. We could be like the three muskateers or something.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Big Bang, Evolution, all that stuff- (remember D’arcy Thompson?)- a lot of it is just rescaling, partially symmetrically, with some anisotropism thank you very much. I saw it happen (well my matter-energy was there at any rate….).
Jess Tauber
August 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
The next time someone asks me “How far can you see with a telescope?” I’ll have the answer. “About halfway to the far side of the universe is as far as any telescope will ever see. Because the universe is growing at almost the speed of light.”
Have you read “The New Universe Theory” by Bobby McGehee? The universe’s origin and ongoing growth was caused by a chain-reaction Deflagration Wave. This theory complies with the Laws of Physics, from the first particle till now.
It answers several current mysteries, like; Where did those distant galaxies get so much velocity? Why haven’t astronomers agreed on a red-shift constant, when we have so many measurements?
The New Universe Theory will soon replace the Big Bang conjecture.