Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Earl Baker (
23 Apr 1995 23:21:15 -0500

>In article <3ne013$>,
>Ken Smith <> wrote:
>>In article <>,
>>Gil Hardwick <> wrote:
>> What created the universe
>>in which the big bang had taken place

>There is no need for a universe before this one. For that matter in may
>not even make sense to talk about "before". Time was also created at the
>big bang. Since time is just another one of the dimensions of this
>universe it doesn't really make sense to talk about a value of thime that
>is outside the universe.

Parsley, sage, the big bang and thime; no make that thyme :) WELL, so
no universe existed until this one did; and this one just popped into being
out of nothing? It seems you are saying we shouldn't bother to wonder what
preceded this universe, since we are contained within it and so is time,
hence nothing preceded it. Bet that's a cosmology and a half, ma'am!

>>Further, what created the conditions for the big bang to occur in any
>The big bang may have created its own conditions or no condition may be
It created its own conditions, outside of time?

>>To assert that such an explosion JUST HAPPENED out of nothing defies
>>everything we know about explosions. And catastrophes.
>No it doesn't! In quantum physics things can just happen. We know that
>there is no need for a cause for the universe.

We do? Well, I won't ask you to explain quantum physics in a nutshell,
aren't you relieved? But I can't really take such a statement at face
value. I have no way to evaluate it.

*-----------------* skyweasel----> is on vacation for a while