|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
A global group of 33 leading physicists have rejected the crank theory of big bang. They have published an open letter in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20, to let the scientific community know that the spirit of truth and objectivity is still alive in science.
Here is the link to the letter that they published-
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/an-open-l … sed-minds/
Here is the original article. The excerpt says nothing about 33 leading scientists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 … -bang.html
The part of the letter that isn't accessible online except on various creationism web sites has been pasted from this book
http://books.google.ca/books?id=EvN9Gfb … CE0Q6AEwBw
This is a book called Dismantling the Big Bang Theory: God's Universe Rediscovered
written by Dr. John Hartnett and Alexander Williams.
Well, it does say. At the end of the letter, one can find the signatures of 33 leading physicists.
You completely misunderstood the content of that book. The writers were merely quoting the original letter published by those scientists.
They did not say they were quoting from any letter. So, maybe they are plagiarists?
If I could read the whole letter myself I might believe it. If it were true, it would have been published in sites other than ones promoting creationism.
1) "They did not say they were quoting from any letter. So, maybe they are plagiarists?"
They mention their source properly. It's just that those pages are excluded from the reader (check the link again).
2) "If I could read the whole letter myself I might believe it. If it were true, it would have been published in sites other than ones promoting creationism."
That letter has been republished to many websites dealing with science and technology. Obviously you didn't find them. If you don't trust them, then just read the synopsis of that letter published in New Scientist.
I did. It says some are questioning it... That is a far cry from denying it.
That depends upon interpretation. They think that big bang is standing on the power of money. I don't think that equals to questioning the theory. They just deny the method of validity.
Apart from that, they are obviously denying it. Otherwise they wouldn't have signed that letter.
LOL. It's amazing there are still folks that follow Halton Arp's crank theories even though they were thoroughly debunked years ago.
Very old news.
Here is the synopsis of that letter which had been published under the name of scientists Eric Lerner, and subsequently signed by himself and his colleagues.
"1. Bucking the big bang
Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner and dozens of other scientists."
http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbau … ric+Lerner
by janesix6 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by uncorrectedvision6 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big...
by Make Money9 years ago
I'm sure if you listen to this audio file you'll agree that the Big Bang theory has fizzled. http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/200804 … izzles.mp3-----------------------------------How many academics does it take...
by qwark7 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by Csaba Krause5 years ago
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as...
by Helen Murphy Howell7 years ago
Alternative to the 'Big Bang'?Is there any other alternatives to the 'Big Bang' theory that might be possible?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.