After sitting through the entire session by Simon Singh, I am still left with some questions. I waved around my hands till I got tired, but apparently the moderator didn't think enough of me to take my question. He had promised to cover Led Zeppelin, Teletubbies and an electrified gherkin - two out of three there. Led Zeppelin songs in reverse are satanic messages and Teletubbies are evil. Me, f3ew and botsie were there - I saw Mrinal around as well. But all that aside, there were a few things I had in mind when the talk was going on.
Measuring red shift: The basic data Edwin Hubble got out of his measurements was that farther away a galaxy is the more red shifted his hydrogen lines were. But let me ask you a question, what ever he is seeing is from tens of thousands of light years away. Can we assume that the universe back then had the same lines for hydrogen spectra ? Just like the futurama joke about Oh, that's why they had to change the speed of light in 2208, I could simply say that Constants aren't. What if the data we get from those stars ten thousand years later paints a totally different picture. We are seeing the past - where are we compensating for it ?
3K background radiation: The tired light hypothesis has long been rejected, but with the 3K background radiation, another question needs to be asked. The problem with the tired light theory was the conservation of energy - provided that we have a background radiation which is measurable, how do we prove that it is the luminous afterglow of the big bang and not the accumulated energy lost by the photons.
Weak anthropic principle: Well, if life could only evolve in a universe with a thermodynamic arrow pointing the right way (CPT symmetries obeyed as well) - it sort of explains why the universe and it's physical laws are as we see. But then assuming that the arrow of time only exists in context with the universe, there is no before or after.
Relative velocity: If all bodies further away are moving faster than those closer, what is the edge of such a universe. But relativity throws you a curve ball by dismissing the idea of absolute time. For observers on each body, they live in different times, just as the twins paradox (not being a paradox) would suggest.
Generally, a nice talk. Enough sound effects and all that to keep people entertained. For a technical journalist, entertainment is immediately after accuracy and just above fine details.
--Spherical bastard: looks the same anyway you look at it, just like a sphere