Philosophy Now Forum

The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... e-big-bang
PhilX

The link is no good. Simpler questions are the moe difficult, such as why is space black. This does little for me: http://www.amnh.org/education/resources ... radox.html

Bernard wrote:The link is no good. Simpler questions are the moe difficult, such as why is space black. This does little for me: http://www.amnh.org/education/resources ... radox.html

I fixed the link (notice the date of the article, 4/2008. I picked this article as it presented three different theories. Also note that if the questions were easy to answer, I'd be boring my audience).

PhilX

yep the universe began when nothing divided its self into negative and positive to make something.nothing became time and space for the something to move in.but nothing always keep its status as nothing even though something was going on.

jackles wrote:yep the universe began when nothing divided its self into negative and positive to make something.nothing became time and space for the something to move in.but nothing always keep its status as nothing even though something was going on.

Last time I checked on this, the program said that space has many properties (wish it had specified them). What space really is, I don't know.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity ...

That's because by definition it can't?

let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space ...

I thought the mathematics behind inflation theory does just that?

and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy. ...

Could that be why the term 'theoretical' is used?

I think that string theory and quantum mechanics has produced a variety of additional theories in terms of how the universe came into being. The Big Bang is now just one of a number of theories. I think the important point is that even if it turns out that string theory is correct and the end and the beginning of our universe started with a collision of branes then this does not rule out the physics of the Big Bang.

If brane theory were proven we would find certain parts of the Big Bang replaced. For example, the inflationary period might be replaced with a different type of explanation. Nonetheless, both models still incorporate Big Bang cosmology.

yeah even though there is a happening moving something.nothing keeps it status as nothing and does not move .nothing as in nonmoving is limitless never happenedness.nothing is the begining and the end of all happening but does not loose its status of nothing nonmoving existance.so that time moves from its none moving pre event status to allow the happening .time is abstracted from nonmoving nothing by the something in motion.in the begining there was nothing and then from nothing there was motion which abstracted time and space from the nothing.and the motion tensed the nothing into future motion from the nothing.