The meaningless Big Bang question

Hi George.  For other readers' convenience,  this discussion is continuing our previous discussion at www.open2.net/forum/showthread.php (post #349).  Let me repeat what I said there in post #347 :-
 
... let me just mention that Aristotle and Augustine had different approaches to time (and lots of other things). They had different presuppositions. Newton plumped for a Platonic idea of time (consistent with the Aristotelian here). But Newton's "Platonism" ("mathematical" time) is completely different philosophically from Aristotle's. The Greeks distinguished between the "physical" (what was real) and the "mathematical" (merely a description of the appearance!). And this is the distinction that Galileo broke down. Had he maintained it he would not have been condemned by the Church. So to speak of "mathematical truth" actually undermines the point you are making, and underlines the point I am making!
 

Newton was talking of "mathematical" truth in a modern way,  for all that he was the "last mediaeval". But he did not have the modern interest in approximations,  which interest has arisen because we have found that there are mathematically intractable problems.  For example,  Newton did not know that the three-body problem was insoluble analytically.  Specifically,  it was only in 1747 that d'Alembert demonstrated that it could be solved by successive approximation.  Even the two-body problem was only solved completely by Euler in 1744.
 
So your distinction between what Newton thought was "true" and what he thought was "practical" is anachronistic. It is also (even more!) anachronistic to think that Augustine thought in the same terms.  No,  Augustine really thought that creatures are necessary to measure time,  where I mean by "measure" what you have said.  And this is precisely how we measure time today.  I still think this is astonishing.  Note that with this definition of time,  the (metaphysical) question of "regularity" is sidestepped.
 
I said,  "Only if we know on other grounds that the supernatural does not exist can we rule out the question ["why is there something rather than nothing?"] as meaningless."  You proceeded to raise the possibility of physical answers to the question of the cause of the Universe.  This is a misunderstanding,  as I have said before.  Finding a physical cause of the Universe cannot answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing,  which question is irreducibly supernatural.  This must be so since a physical cause must itself be either caused or require a non-causal (ie,  supernatural!) explanation,  and this applies to Guth's metaphysical (ie physical,  but speculative) theory too.  If the supernatural does not exist then the question is simply meaningless.  You implicitly acknowledge this when you say,  "if the supernatural does not exist then it merely means ... that the question may be well posed but has no answer, it is simply the way the universe is."  If the question has no answer then it is ill-posed by definition!  This is what it means to say that "it is simply the way the universe is" (which is a valid and coherent position of course).
 

An excellent piece.  It is at a basic level,  but that is good since it should be accessible to everyone.
I think that the Abstract ought to have pointed out that while the question "What is the cause of the Universe?" is meaningless,  the related question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not!
Just a quibble.  Prof. Stannard (for whom I have the highest regard) did not get Augustine quite right (I am sure he was deliberately simplifying).  Augustine actually says (Confessions X1:12) :-
 
My answer to those who ask 'What was God doing before he made heaven and hell' is not 'He was preparing Hell for people who pry into mysteries'.  This frivolous retort has been made before now,  so we are told,  in order to evade the point of the question.  But it is one thing to make fun of the questioner and another to find the answer.  So I shall refrain from this reply ...
 

This is in the course of a very long discussion of the nature of time,  of which the conclusion is that time is one of God's creatures,  itself made at the beginning.  It seems to me that this is a very modern attitude!

I have to contest the Big Bang Theory as a scientific proof or fact.

It even lacks a certain appeal to fitting anything we can observe, or relate to in life.
Not much in our world in the way of construction, comes from any type of big bang.

Except by predetermined demolition designed to make way for new building.

Usually when things are jammed together or blown apart we get no construction. I have seen no proof whatsoever to support this single special case of a "Big Bang" creating a Universe.

I believe that more then likely the Universe was built rather slowly over time. By the formation over time of sustainable sized planets and stars.
Whose volume to surface area limited their size.
As a single cell animals size is limited by cell wall membrane surface area, compared to the cells volume.
A planet and sun are limited in size by similar factors.

I warn that I follow a much older form of science, Universal Science. Universal Science is just starting to get serious looks, as the legitimate source of scientific truths.
For many years it was shunned and attacked. Much like Socrates was attacked for having truth, and suggesting self truth as the only way to solid science. If you cannot be true to yourself, your science will not be true.

My first impression when I heard the term "Big Bang" applied as the explanation for the formation of the universe, was that it was a joke, a prank, someone was playing.

Much to my horror it was put forth as real.

There was much work done showing that the particle of electricity is indestructible. And does not come in contact with other particles of electricity at all.
There was also proof that the particle of electricity was one of an infinite number (uncountable number) of particles of electricity that from a sphere, the single hydrogen nucleus.
The hydrogen nucleus is held in play by exterior forces, and the mathematics of spherical surface area and spherical volume.

Since all like particles repel. All things were actually repelling. The entire universe is under pressure from all sides. By extremely high velocity particles of electricity. Creating the pressure that we see in structures, like rope, and chain, as its strength, or lifting ability. Things like chain and rope appear to have a want not to pull apart.

Even after the fall of Universal Scientists, some college professors did find proof of the cosmic rays in space. Which were confirmed as particles of electricity. They were first contested and denied.

We say metal has an affection for itself or attracts its own atoms to pull together, to form a singe body. However since no one could ever prove a scientific force of attraction. The only explanation was that these materials are under pressure. A force is pushing them together.

At this time many started to understand the amazing abilities that men like Benjamin Franklin, and Tesla had been talking about. Because for the first time they understood matter as an electrical effect. Rather then something solid with real weight.

Rather, men realized that matter had no real mass or weight. Those qualities were nothing more then an electrical effect. That could be controlled or effected.

Many wars have done there evil, to hide these simple truths, from good men that would use this knowledge for good.

I would think that our science close to home needs some cleaning up, before we imagine what happened so many years ago, as fact.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

dear sir,
the big bang theory is only a theory; it is not fact as most professors would have us believe. to believe this theory is like taking a leap of faith and jumping off the forth bridge into the river before you have learned to swim because someone said it could be done successfully.
how about other theories?;
[1]
that the universe as we know it may actually be just a super galaxy which is so far from it's nearest of countless other super -galaxies [ let's say a trillion trillion lt. yrs. away] that we cannot detect these other super-galaxies[universes].
[2]
that our universe may have started from some prime sub-atomic particles interacting in disorganised improbable groups to form the first atoms which interacted with each other or with other sub-atomic particles as catalists to slowly form more and more atoms [probably hydrogen. as more atoms formed the first star could have formed.
this requires all space was filled with sub atomic particlesof which all matter breaks down to in time. this means our universe may have formed from effects such as gamma rays from hyper-novas at the nearest outer edges of our closest neighbouring sg [universe]
3
our universe could be considered to be a cancer or viral infection of an otherwise [perfect?] empty cosmos full of inert sub-atomic particles which cannot be detected.