Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:05:31 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

The answer is that *this* universe, the only
universe we know, began at the big bang

That's the whole point - you have no evidence that it didn't just
change form from something that was this universe but in different
form, or with different constants - or something entirely different.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for bull****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:05:31 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

The answer is that *this* universe, the only
universe we know, began at the big bang

That's the whole point - you have no evidence that it
didn't just
change form from something that was this universe but in
different
form, or with different constants - or something entirely
different.

No, Al, *you* have no evidence that any such
thing happened. You have it exactly backwards.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:02:02 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:19:28 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:50:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

What is before T = 0 should read
what is before CST (our conventional
space-time) = 0, and the answer
is

Before you formulate an answer, answer another
question:

Your evidence that time, itself, isn't a property of
the
current universe, is?

I didn't say that time, itself, isn't *a* property of
the
universe.

If it is then nothing happened "before" CST=0, because
there was no
"before".

No. The "before" is a different kind of "before"

A before that didn't use time.

I didn't say that. I said that the duration of
matter in its own space that we call time
would be different than our conventional
space-time.

Just as cosmic inflation presents a different
kind of space-time during the trillionths of
a second that it endures.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:53:51 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:01:55 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in
message
...

But the Big Bang implies only that our current
incarnation began at that point; it does not
rule out such things as a cyclic universe,

That's another topic.

It *IS* the point. If the universe is cyclic, the Big
Bang is only
the beginning of this cycle, not the beginning of the
universe. If
the universe is both cyclic and eternal, it had no
beginning.

It's another topic, in another category.

*This* universe had a clear beginning.

No evidence that it hasn't always existed in this, or some
other form.

That's right Al. *This* universe had a
clear beginning.

When you melt an ice cube have you created water ex
nihilo?

I didn't say that *this* universe was created from
nothing. I quite clearly said that it was created
from something, which was the primordial matter
whence the cosmic inflation of the big bang
sprung.




--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over
you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is
good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we
are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We
don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The
News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

"pete" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy, on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:53:51 GMT,
Martin McPhillips sez:

` "Al Klein" wrote in message
` ...
` On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:01:55 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
` wrote:
`
` "Cary Kittrell" wrote in
` message
` ...
`
` But the Big Bang implies only that our current
` incarnation began at that point; it does not
` rule out such things as a cyclic universe,
`
` That's another topic.
`
` It *IS* the point. If the universe is cyclic, the Big
` Bang is only
` the beginning of this cycle, not the beginning of the
` universe. If
` the universe is both cyclic and eternal, it had no
` beginning.

` It's another topic, in another category.

` *This* universe had a clear beginning. It's
` a theory with abundant supporting evidence.

For some choice of meanings for the word "universe".

No, for the *only* universe that we know, *that*
universe which began at the big bang.


` Speculation about whether *this* universe
` is part of a cycle, much less a cycle that is
` eternal, and "had no beginning" is just that,
` an interesting speculation.

` That *this* universe had a clear beginning
` does not mean it began from nothing nor that
` the something that it began from was either part
` of a "cycle" or that that cycle was "eternal."

Remember that the original meaning was _everything_,
I mean completely everything, any time, anything existing.
so the notion of "something that it began from"
is nonsense using that meaning.

Well, then, include that "something" whence
the cosmic inflation of the big bang sprung
as the primordial matter of *the* universe, of
which primoridal matter and energy the entire
universe is made.

The equation of the word "universe" with this particular
expanse of spacetime seems to be a fairly modern usage.

Well, we've looked back to the beginning, if
that's what you mean. Obviously that gives
a broader meaning to what we know.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

No. I'm a skeptic. An athiest believes there is no God. I have no
beliefs on the subject.

That is an atheist. While an agnostic believes that there could be a god,
an atheist has no such belief. I don't think it's really possible to
believe that something isn't: you either believe in a thing (theist), the
possibility of a thing (agnostic), or you don't (atheist).

If you claim to have faith that there's no deity, I'd think you were
probably a Taoist or something.

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:

Atheism [is] a religion, an anti-religion complete with its anti-god,
Nogod.

Nogod is Dogon spelled backwards. That's probably why all the screwy
books about the Dogon people and Sirius, the Dog Star.

I've never read the books but some kook on the LOST newsgroup keeps
referencing them. The ideas in there sound like a hoot and a half (or maybe
I'm just feeling nostalgic for when I was 10 and thought "Chariots of the
Gods" was a rigorous academic text).

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:20:55 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:05:31 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

The answer is that *this* universe, the only
universe we know, began at the big bang

That's the whole point - you have no evidence that it
didn't just
change form from something that was this universe but in
different
form, or with different constants - or something entirely
different.

No, Al, *you* have no evidence that any such
thing happened. You have it exactly backwards.

YOU made the assertion that "this universe, the only universe we know,
began at the big bang" So the burden of proof is yours. I'm just
showing a not-impossible alternative. (If your assertion is the only
possibility you have no burden of proof.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:23:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
.. .

No. The "before" is a different kind of "before"

A before that didn't use time.

I didn't say that. I said that the duration of
matter in its own space that we call time
would be different than our conventional
space-time.

Since what we call time is one of the dimensions of THIS universe in
its current state, there was no time "before" the Big Bang. You can
name anything "time" but the thing that's a dimension of this
universe's current state that we call "time" couldn't have pre-existed
the universe - by definition.

Just as cosmic inflation presents a different
kind of space-time during the trillionths of
a second that it endures.

Cosmic inflation is an ongoing process.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:27:22 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
wrote:

That's right Al. *This* universe had a
clear beginning.

When you melt an ice cube have you created water ex
nihilo?

I didn't say that *this* universe was created from
nothing. I quite clearly said that it was created
from something, which was the primordial matter
whence the cosmic inflation of the big bang
sprung.

Or it was simply this universe changing phase. Or something else. If
you claim it was some other thing than the universe itself present
your evidence.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"For aught we know a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order
originating within itself, as well as the mind does."
- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)