New Civilization News: Big Bang Befuddlement    
 Big Bang Befuddlement9 comments
picture30 Apr 2004 @ 15:39, by Bruce Kodish

As I wrote in the book Dare to Inquire,"Serious misevaluating may complicate some of the current discussions about the "big bang" and the beginning of our presently known universe."

"Cosmologists (physicists who study the large scale structures of the universe) generally agree that some momentous event called "the big bang" occurred some 12 to 15 billion years ago. This began the presently expanding universe that we live in."

"However, there is much speculation involved with this theory and more than one version of it. Some top-notch scientists have created confusion by implying that the 'beginning' of the known universe is the same as the 'beginning' of 'everything' including 'time', therefore placing off-limits any discussion about the pre-conditions of the 'big bang', etc. After all, nothing can come before the beginning of everything--can it?"

"There are serious reasons for questioning the legitimacy of attempts to close discussion by possibly confusing Ôthe big bangÕ with the beginning of ÔeverythingÕ. For one thing, such an interpretation conflicts with the traditional naturalistic-'materialistic' assumption that "nothing comes out of nothing" and that the existence of something depends upon previous existences. This basic assumption should not be abandoned lightly by naturalistic formulators."

"It has by no means been definitely established that the Ôbig bangÕ beginning of the known universe, even if it did occur, is equivalent to the beginning of ÔeverythingÕ. Alternative scenarios which elaborate on possible preconditions to the Ôbig bangÕ and even multiple ÔuniversesÕ with different ÔlawsÕ, have been developed by some physicists." See The Myth of the Beginning of Time in the current (May 2004) issue of Scientific American.

"There seems to be more room for scientific discussion and disagreement here than many people think. Blithe talk about Ôthe beginning of the universeÕ can easily result in finalistic, absolutistic formulating. How might a change from "the" universe to "a" universe affect current cosmology?"

"Discussion about the beginning of ÔtimeÕ lends itself to catchy verbal play which, however much fun, may represent a confusion of orders of abstractionÑobjectifying ÔtimeÕ as a ÔthingÕ which can have a ÔbeginningÕ. If ÔtimeÕ is not an object, but a word to label a dimension of observation and experience, how can it have a defined ÔbeginningÕ and ÔendÕ? How might we re-view cosmology if we spoke of an indefinitely continuable process?"

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



30 Apr 2004 @ 15:53 by sharie : THE BIG BANG MYTH
A long list of evidence supports the Big Bang Theory, but there's an even longer and more convincing list of evidence that the universe as we know it did *not* begin with a Bang.

These lists are a bit off the topic here because the question really is:

Where does matter come from and where does space come from?

Since matter, as physicists prove, is more than 99% space, then we are - in all probability - looking at the big-innings of the world from some dewey-eyed perspective.

Thank you for the post.  

30 Apr 2004 @ 17:11 by Ge Zi @ : linear time
all the discussions of a beginning and end of the universe or a universe become obsolete once we get rid of the idea of time having some mystical property of governing everything and going only one way.
If instead we take what uni-verse really seems to indicate that it is the whole thing - maybe the whole thing of everything that exists. that would also mean every possible event. for example both the events that 'I catch the train' and 'I miss the train' (sliding doors is an interesting movie dealing with that).
Then our perception of time is just our decision which of all these events we look at - in time and space.
Now it does not matter if big bang or not - because in a uni-verse both do exisit especially if we discuss both possibilities.
And it also becomes conceivable that this uni-verse contains its own non-existence - we can think of it so it DOES exist.  

2 May 2004 @ 08:05 by spiritseek : Uni-verse...
definition please...I feel it means "In The Beginning..."  

2 May 2004 @ 08:31 by jmarc : my understanding
would be Uni + verse = one + all or all in one. but i may be wrong...  

2 May 2004 @ 09:43 by spiritseek : or

8 May 2004 @ 17:00 by sharie : Uni-Verse means... One-Song
Verse... as in a song...

or it could mean One-Experience

as in "I am well-versed (well-experienced) in this."


23 May 2004 @ 14:33 by john john @ : big bang
if nothing comes from nothing, and we exist, then there must have been something that always existed,  

13 Mar 2015 @ 11:13 by noworriesluxuryauto @ : Hello,I love reading through your blog,
Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.  

31 Mar 2015 @ 10:14 by Much Work @ : I was suggested this blog by my cousin.
I was suggested this blog by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my difficulty. You are wonderful! Thanks!  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
23 Sep 2010 @ 21:37: WORLD KNOWLEDGE - WELTWISSEN (1710 - 1810 - 1910 - 2010)
14 Mar 2010 @ 11:50: Grieve"s Twin Prime Conjecture
10 Mar 2010 @ 07:57: the Most Important Second ever
27 Sep 2007 @ 00:46: Parallel universes are a bit more real
19 Jul 2007 @ 05:19: Preparing for the showdown: November 7th
30 Jun 2007 @ 23:36: Synthetic Life Soon
19 Jun 2007 @ 17:14: The Scientific Case Against Materialism
25 Apr 2007 @ 14:17: Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
27 Mar 2007 @ 10:30: The New Antinomy

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?