Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Sat, 29 Apr 1995 06:17:51 GMT

In article <>, JAMES BENTHALL ( writes:
>according to the theory, there was no old nothingness. It *created*
>the space as it expanded. Read Weinberg's _The First Three Minutes_ and
>I'll read Zukav.

Our exchange above I deleted to save bandwidth, James, but you appear
to agree with an idea that the Big Bang created a new nothingness out
of an old nothingness.

But here now you assert that there was no old nothingness, and I find
myself constrained to ask how can there be a new nothingness? For that
matter, how can there ever BE any sort of nothingness anywhere at all.

Or are the rest of them simply arguing that the new nothingness is in
fact a new somethingness (as yet undiscovered) albeit full of rubble
which the old nothingness (which wasn't) was not?

Excuse me that I do remain incredulous. Yes, we do have these PhDs, in
putting their case to the electorate for more and more billions and
and more more land to build bigger and bigger facilities capable of
"observing" smaller and smaller phenomena, standing there in front of
the camera with their pretty mathematical computer simulations and
rambling on after this fashion, I guess in the hope that someone out
there will be able to some day make some sense of it.

Excuse me that I myself decide to vote for that sort of money to be
spent on the rehabilitation of degraded farmland, decent housing and
adequate health care for remote communities . . .

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270