Big Bang - formal name?

In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u...4e4f8ad699c?q=

Recently, I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS term for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


The most erudite scholarship of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) Then I re-read the Hoyle article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

On Nov 29, 7:26*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a *joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, *I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS *term *for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship *of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. *And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. *Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) *Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] *as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". *The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF *had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) *What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? *But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific *name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" *in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. *Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

You miss the point,'big bang' is derogatory in a sense that it
determines the intellectual weakness of the wider population or,what
amounts to the same thing - the dominance of those who can make people
believe the reasoning behind big bang,almost an actual triumph of
doublethink and nothing else.Same with forcing people to believe that
carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and we have control of
it,time travel control and things like that.

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four ,Orwell

You mention a 'singularity' or a sinvulgarity as I call it for tell me
what difference there is between infinite density/zero volume and
infinite volume/zero density and you will discover it is an elaborate
way to describe 'nothing'.I doubt if you will get the crude joke that
is 'big bang',most people just don't have the curiosity how human came
to develop such monstrosities.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:49:41 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

On Nov 29, 7:26*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a *joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, *I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS *term *for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship *of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. *And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. *Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) *Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] *as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". *The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF *had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) *What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? *But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific *name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" *in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. *Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

You miss the point,'big bang' is derogatory in a sense that it
determines the intellectual weakness of the wider population or,what
amounts to the same thing - the dominance of those who can make people
believe the reasoning behind big bang,almost an actual triumph of
doublethink and nothing else.Same with forcing people to believe that
carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and we have control of
it,time travel control and things like that.

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four ,Orwell

You mention a 'singularity' or a sinvulgarity as I call it for tell me
what difference there is between infinite density/zero volume and
infinite volume/zero density and you will discover it is an elaborate
way to describe 'nothing'.I doubt if you will get the crude joke that
is 'big bang',most people just don't have the curiosity how human came
to develop such monstrosities.


What was your major in college? Bull****ting?

On Nov 29, 9:56*am, Mack A. Damia wrote:


What was your major in college? * Bull****ting?

That's not a major, it's a Faculty, or a collection of Faculties.

On Nov 29, 7:56*am, Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:49:41 -0800 (PST), oriel36









wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:26 am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS term for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

You miss the point,'big bang' is derogatory in a sense that it
determines the intellectual weakness of the wider population or,what
amounts to the same thing - the dominance of those who can make people
believe the reasoning behind big bang,almost an actual triumph of
doublethink and nothing else.Same with forcing people to believe that
carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and we have control of
it,time travel control and things like that.

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four *,Orwell

You mention a 'singularity' or a sinvulgarity as I call it for tell me
what difference there is between infinite density/zero volume and
infinite volume/zero density and you will discover it is an elaborate
way to describe 'nothing'.I doubt if you will get the crude joke that
is 'big bang',most people just don't have the curiosity how human came
to develop such monstrosities.

What was your major in college? * Bull****ting?

A person of reasonable intelligence is asked to believe that the
furthest galaxies from our own represent the oldest and at a time the
Universe was at its smallest while simultaneously being asked to
believe that these are the youngest galaxies in an extremely large
Universe hence doublethink,the affliction of being able to hold two
contradictory views as valid.It is not a distraction but something
horrifying as the wider population got a hint of last year when
scientists managed to get all the world's civil leaders in one spot on
the belief that carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and humans
have control over global temperatures.I would say that is real power.

You may not have to intelligence to discern this as it is not a case
of people who know or don' t know or indeed people who don't want to
know and people who know,it is a case of people who don't want to know
on one side and people who imagine every possibility without physical
considerations hence there is no idea with the greater or lesser
probability of being right.All there is is doublethink,the ability to
say anything without fear of objection.

Welcome to the nightmare era of empiricism.

On Nov 29, 8:58*am, Peter Brooks wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:56*am, Mack A. Damia wrote:

What was your major in college? * Bull****ting?

That's not a major, it's a Faculty, or a collection of Faculties.

Easy stuff,you either mock the idea as doublethink or leave the people
who believe in the junk to their own pretenses insofar as there is no
reasoning with people who can't reason things out themselves.The
reason big bang exists at all is because the laziness of the wider
population and not the success of those who promote the nonsense hence
it says more about what you believe than what they do.It is one of the
oldest Christian tenets -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." St Augustine

I couldn't expect you to understand what Augustine means as you did
not express horror at the current idea of big bang and its no center/
no circumference ideology.

On Nov 29, 2:13*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:56*am, Mack A. Damia wrote:



On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:49:41 -0800 (PST), oriel36

wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:26 am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS term for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

You miss the point,'big bang' is derogatory in a sense that it
determines the intellectual weakness of the wider population or,what
amounts to the same thing - the dominance of those who can make people
believe the reasoning behind big bang,almost an actual triumph of
doublethink and nothing else.Same with forcing people to believe that
carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and we have control of
it,time travel control and things like that.

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four *,Orwell

You mention a 'singularity' or a sinvulgarity as I call it for tell me
what difference there is between infinite density/zero volume and
infinite volume/zero density and you will discover it is an elaborate
way to describe 'nothing'.I doubt if you will get the crude joke that
is 'big bang',most people just don't have the curiosity how human came
to develop such monstrosities.

What was your major in college? * Bull****ting?

A person of reasonable intelligence is asked to believe that the
furthest galaxies *from our own represent the oldest and at a time the
Universe was at its smallest while simultaneously being asked to
believe that these are the youngest galaxies in an extremely large
Universe hence doublethink,the affliction of being able to hold two
contradictory views as valid.

There are not two contradictory views; you are misparsing things.

The Big Bang theory rests on observation *and a couple of
assumptions*. One of the assumptions is the universal constancy of the
speed of light.

Do you agree with that assumption?

If so, then when you look up at the sun, the light that enters your
eyes is ~eight minutes old. When you look at the moon, its light is
about a minute and a half old.

You do agree that the sun is much farther from us than is the moon,
right? Proportionate to the ratio of its distance to your eye to the
moon's distance from your eye, right?

So, the farther an object is from you, the older its light is by the
time it gets to you, right?

So, if galaxies at the edge of observability are very very far away,
that means the light from them is very, very old, right?

How do we know a given galaxy's distance?

The light from very very distant objects is spectrally redshifted.
It is empirically measured (radar) that receding objects' light gets
redshifted. *Assuming* that relationship holds true for astronomical
objects, at some distance their recessional speed will approach light
speed asymptotically. That distance is the observational limit.

Also, since the (approximately) uniform recessional velocity of
everything in the Universe suggests it is expanding. Extrapolating
backwards from it current (observable) size, and its current expansion
rate, eventually it all had to originate at a point.

The distances predicted above are pretty close to the same.
*Assuming* this is not mere coincidence, they support each other, not
contradict.

There are not two views. There are observations, assumptions, and
conclusions.

If you do not argue with the raw observational data, or the
assumptions I've mentioned, what is your problem with the conclusion?

If you do disagree with the observed data, how so exactly?

If you disagree with one or more *assumptions*, which ones, and how?

contradictory views as valid.It is not a distraction but something
horrifying as the wider population got a hint of last year when
scientists managed to get all the world's civil leaders in one spot on
the belief that carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and humans
have control over global temperatures.I would say that is real power.

Rhetoric is not a new concept.

You may not have to intelligence to discern this as it is not a case
of people who know or don' t know or indeed people who don't want to
know and people who know,it is a case of people who don't want to know
on one side and people who imagine every possibility without *physical
considerations hence there is no idea with the greater or lesser
probability of being right.All there is is doublethink,the ability to
say anything without fear of objection.

Welcome to the nightmare era of empiricism.

Empiricism claims to be predictive.

If you have another approach that makes testable predictions (not
interpretations, that's mere math) not in accord with the BB model,
what are they?


Mark L. Fergerson

Once Upon A Time,
Dr. HotSalt wrote:

If you have another approach that makes testable predictions (not
interpretations, that's mere math) not in accord with the BB model,
what are they?

Yaeh, what he said! And also, why ain't you rich?


**
Captain Infinity

oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

On Nov 29, 8:26*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a *joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, *I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS *term *for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship *of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. *And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. *Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) *Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] *as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". *The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF *had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) *What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? *But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific *name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" *in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. *Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen


(also in that other group, mostly)


I understand that the latest hip theory is the Big Bounce and no
longer the Big Bang.

The idea, from the little I've seen on telly, is that a star died,
leading to a black hole, leading to all sorts of stuff getting sucked
into it, consumed by it, becoming it, perhaps influencing it, being
released in the creation of a new universe.

It gets me thinking. Is there a correlation with life on earth. Here,
there is much inequality, but surely being a gas in outer space, being
forced into a black hole reflects such inequalities. Does the new
universe that was (allegedly) spewed forth from said black hole merely
repeat the cycle of the politics that dominated, yielded or exercised
as it evolved within blackness?
Is pre-The Big Bounce the architect of our existence; the reason we
have birth to decay and so many other things we ordinarily don't even
question, and things we do, such as altruism?

Biblically speaking, what if, the whole process is not about Good or
Evil, but about Chance and Fate which are not opposites in the sense
of against one another, but are in fact in a relationship with each
other.

What if, we could find out enough about this cycle, could we then
tweak it a bit to, in effect, re-negotiate our lot, our existence?