Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The BIG BANG Insanity


Common sense tells us (and any non-physicist) that the Universe could not be created ex nihilo.

That is, if the Universe is the totality of existence (reality), it could not have sprung from an infinitely small “atom” as conjectured in the Big Bang Theory.

There would have had to be something into which that Big Bang atom could “explode.”

Mentally we can’t envision the supposed void that physicists propose the Big Bang atom was surrounded by when it generated.

Moreover, from whence did the Big Bang atom derive?

Even if we accept the postulations of the Big Bang physicists, we can’t account for the creation of the primordial “atom” that gave birth to the Universe we inhabit.

Of course, if the Steady State Theory of the Universe remained viable, that is acceptable, as is the theological position that God is internal, infinite, and brought the Universe into existence from nothing – into the existence that is God itself, the “body” of God as conjectured by Teilhard de Chardin (and others).

The expansion of the Universe doesn’t presuppose a burst of cataclysmic energy, especially from a pinpoint source.

Expansion of the Universe that we can perceive could be an exhalation of the Universe for the time-frame we’re part of, and the Universe will contract eventually as the Vedic accounts have it.

Expansion is not necessarily intrinsic to the Universe.

And we’ll be exploring the physicists’ mental aberration about the Big Bang even more, upcoming….


Epinoia said...

Science is limited to the observable, and as such is working toward truth -- step by step. The so-called "Big Bang" theory is ultimately compatible with a steady state theory.

Science is also limited in how much mass it can suggest exists in the universe. As such, it is again limited to observation -- how much mass is out there which we can actually detect? This begs another question -- how much mass is out there which we can NOT detect?

I am quite comfortable with the slow, methodical progress made by Science. It's certainly preferable to mythologies which have no modern day usefulness -- and can NEVER be the subject of scientific methodology.

If metaphysics wants to speculate that there is more than enough mass out there to provide multiple simultaneous 'crunches', then that is also fine by me. Science may someday reach that conclusion via scientific methodology as well.

Todd said...

My understanding of the origins of the Big Bang theory leads me to conclude that the red shift phenomenon discovered by Hubble forces a conclusion that the universe is expanding. If there is another scientific explanation for why everything in the observable universe is moving away from everything else, I am unaware of it.

A steady state universe would not exhibit a red shift.

I can understand the consternation associated with the question "from whence did the Big Bang atom derive?" because that is the exact question I ask proponents of Intelligent Design. That is, if the universe was created by an intelligent designer, then where did the intelligent designer come from?

RRRGroup said...


As pointed out, not too clearly evidently, the steady state theory would work if the Universe breathes; that is if the Universe expands and contracts as indicated in Hindu religious texts.

We are in the expanding phase, but millennia from now there will be a contracting phase.

Humans, and Hubble, have just not been around long enough to be part of the contraction, or to observe it.


Jeremy said...

This is simple and I experienced it:

Nothingness is intelligence and that's indicated by the fact that it is a concept that exists prior to the brain. So prior to matter is nothing, nothing is a concept and therefore intelligence.

The moment formless intelligence becomes aware of itself, there is a flash and from that flash, all things. Boom. The Big Bang.

This only looks like it's on a time line because that's the easiest way to explain it: First nothing, then awareness, then creation. But it's actually simultaneous and is the ever-present case. There is no creator separate from creation, no god outside of this.

This being the fact, when physicists dig and dig and dig they eventually hit a wall. They hit nothingness, which cannot be perceived (obviously) and so the physicist will create something to look at.

Subatomic particles do not react according to the whims of the observer as is presently thought to be the case. They are created by the act of observing.

At this level we are co-creators of reality and yet New Age nonsense exploits that and extrapolates that we create our realities on the everyday level. Hogwash. Getting mugged in the park is not due to some unconscious masochistic wish fulfillment. Grow up.

But yeah...on that subatomic level...figure out that this is true and win the Nobel Prize.

RRRGroup said...

Interesting Jeremy...


Todd said...

"This is simple and I experienced it" ? I have no idea what that even means.

Michael said...

I am glad to hear that someone else finds the "big bang" rather fishy. First, everything is NOT moving away from everything else, as one would expect from a radial extension in spoace from a single point. Galaxies collide. How does the big bang theory explain that? Second, why can we not estimate the rough location of the epicentre? We know distances, directions, and speeds, which ought to be enough to trace back to the origin.

RRRGroup said...


You are on to something, of course.

Einstein was initially correct to agree with Hoyle that the Universe was eternal.

The Hubble expansion can be explained by a number of other scenarios.

The Big Bang is ridiculous on the face of it.