The Big Bang Theory Big Blunder: An Open Letter to Closed Minds
in [Relativity]
|
From: Totorkon on 17 Oct 2009 12:14 On Sep 29, 7:38 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 29, 3:22 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > > > > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > > Don Gillies wrote: > > > Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly don't > > > claim to know much. However, I must say that I find the idea of the > > > big bang (a whole lot of stuff appearing out of nothing) just as > > > fantastical as the idea that three letters of the alphabet strung > > > together to spell "god" explain the creation of the universe. A bit > > > more technical detail with the big bang theory, of course, but as far > > > as I know, it hasn't got round the difficulty of how something (an > > > incredible lot of stuff, actually) came out of nothing. I have often > > > felt a bit uneasy about how astronomy books nowdays treat the big > > > bang as accepted fact. There was a time, not so long ago, when books > > > did present it as supposition. Not sure when the change from > > > supposition to accepted dogma came about, but it does look a bit like > > > everyone now feels they have to toe the party line. > > > You find the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing > > fantastical. Would you find the idea of the universe always > > having been around (or having appeared out of *something*), > > and at the same time conspiring to make us think it appeared > > out of nothing, less fantastical? > > > Dirk Vdm > > In the case of an eternal universe, 'fantastical' is > not the most appropriate word, but 'self-consistent'. > Eternal universe (i.e. without beginning and without > an end) is the reason of its own existence, it didn't > need a creator or any Big Bang beginning whatsoever.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - nobody in the universe is faster on the recall in the relm of phisiomathematics than moortel |