9 0

Pure Space Is Just An Absolute State of Nothingness, and the Big Bang Event Didn’t Create Squat!

There has been quite some debate over a number of posts about the exact nature of space and time and how all of that relates back to the nature of our (the) Universe. I’ve made dozens of comments on these but of course scattered all over the place, so here I’m going to consolidate my worldviews on the nature of time, space and the Big Bang event.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that there WASN’T any physical existence before the Big Bang event but where is the actual observational evidence for that? There is none, so the BEST that proponents can do to negate an actual state of existence before the Big Bang event is just say that they just don’t BELIEVE there was physical existence prior to the Big Bang event. They don’t and can’t actually KNOW that to be a fact. Now for interested readers, I have provided some references below [#] to tomes that actually address the question of existence before the Big Bang event.

Words Come Easily: Doubling down – It’s easy to say there was a state of absolute nothingness – no – before the Big Bang event, yet state that with absolute certainty on the basis of no actual observational evidence (since one can’t observe whether or not there was an actual existence before the Big Bang event. In fact one can’t observe in the here and now any further back in time than roughly 380,000 years post the Big Bang event since the Universe prior to that was too opaque. That’s the same reason we can’t actually observe the Sun’s core because there’s too much other stuff in the way.

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that at the moment of the Big Bang event that the entire contents of the entire Universe were crammed into a volume pinhead-size (or even less) while clearly sidestepping any explanation of why that state of affairs wouldn’t create the Mother of all Black Holes which would then in turn nip in the bud any sort of “bang”, big or otherwise.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that the Big Bang event created all of matter / energy out of a state of absolute nothingness. However, when it comes down to actually explaining the “how” of that, they are strangely silent. It’s a case of just believe us because we say so. Of course such a proposal violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that the Big Bang event created space and time, but any attempt to actually explain the “how” of things has been a total failure. Now if you insist that the Big Bang event “created” space, then space has to be not only a something but a continuous something. It doesn’t take an act of creation to ‘create’ a state of absolute nothingness; a pure vacuum; a void. Now if space isn’t a continuous something then it’s composed of individual and discrete bits and pieces (of unidentified and unknown composition just to add insult to injury). But what MUST lie or reside BETWEEN those individual bits and pieces (of dubious composition) is, well, a vacuum; a void; a state of absolute nothingness, or, in other words actual space. That means that those bits and pieces reside IN space and are NOT space itself.

Words Come Easily: Doubling down - It’s easy to say that the Big Bang event created space, but that very act of creation implies that space is an actual something – is composed of an actual something – which is absurd for unless that something is continuous and solid, there would have to be gaps between the bits and pieces that compose actual space. That is then absurd since those gaps would be the actual space and the bits and pieces just residing in space.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that space is an actual something but impossible to actually demonstrate this. Some people insist that it’s only a matter of time before this is demonstrated but we’re not living in a Universe of what might be (which could just as easily equally turn out to be what might not be) but what actually is the case in question right now.

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that space isn’t infinite, yet it’s easier to wrap your head around that concept – that space is infinite – than the concept that space is finite since that then requires the question, what’s beyond the edge or the boundary of finite space?

Words Come Easily: It’s actually easy to say that so-called something space itself is expanding. It’s just as easy to say that it is actually all of the objects IN space that are expanding away from each other (like the bits and pieces that fly off of a cherry bomb or an actual atomic bomb expand IN existing space). There is no observational test or experiment that cosmologists can make that would distinguish between objects – like galaxies – moving IN or THROUGH space vis-à-vis moving ON space piggyback style. If there is any reader who can offer up such an observation, speak it now or forever hold your peace!

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that there was at the point of the Big Bang event the creation of, or a beginning to, time (hence an initial creation of matter / energy) while ignoring the well-established First Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you don’t ignore that First Law of Thermodynamics – and you shouldn’t – then matter / energy has always existed and therefore time has always existed. There is a temporal infinity.


[#] Burbidge, Geoffrey & Narlikar, Jayant V.; Facts and Speculations in Cosmology; Cambridge University Press, New York; 2008.

[#] Clegg, Brian; Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe; St. Martin’s Press, New York; 2009.

[#] Gasperini, Maurizio; The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory; Springer-Verlag, Berlin; 2008.

[#] Silk, Joseph; The Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology; Oxford University Press, New York; 2006.

[#] Steinhardt, Paul J. & Turok, Neil; Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang; Phoenix, London; 2007.

johnprytz 7 Mar 18

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I think that part of the problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by the word "space". Do you mean what is between matter as you stated before? Do you mean what's between planets and stars? Do you that which contains planets, stars and all that other stuff out there.

@johnprytz Then that nothingness is only defined by the things between it.


4 pop science books, bravo.

@johnprytz These are meant to be speculative not definitive and from what I can gather, the authors themselves do believe in the big bang. Prestigious publishers print all sorts of things including fiction. I like pop science and read a lot of it and its a good way to spark your interest. Clearly these are not textbooks on advanced physics and never intended by the authors to be a substitute for education. If you are really sincerely interested in challenging conventional cosmology take some classes and learn the basics. Learn the Dunning–Kruger effect too.


Now about the cherry bomb analogy. Depending on how you want to set up the initial velocities, you would expect to see one of two thing that indicates where the center of the explosion happened. You would see either large void where the matter used to be, or a large clump of matter where the matter is moving away from.

This is not what we observe.

I tried to explain how we don't observe the effects of an explosion in another thread to him, you'll just go around in circles.

One issue I am seeing in those against the big bang (I personally don't support it but acknowledge that it is the leading scientific theory) is they think everyone thinks it was a literal explosion. The term big bang was actually made in jest by a scientist who didn't support the big bang. Before it was the big bang, it was actually called the cosmic explosion from the primordial atom, but shortly after we observed the effects of expansion and that title died.

@FatherOfNyx Yeah, I think I know the thread.

@indirect76 Once I remembered this is the guy who believes we are living in a simulation, just had to rip the bandaid and call it.

@FatherOfNyx Oh, one of those guys. Sounds like there’s a glitch in the simulation.

@johnprytz The idea of a reality being a simulation is completely unfalsifiable, but we are really getting off topic.

@johnprytz Something being unfalsifiable means it is necessarily possible? I don’t follow that logic. It doesn’t matter because I never said it was impossible. it’s possible, and I acknowledge that.

Care to talk about my first comment about what we would expect to see in your cherry bomb analogy?

@johnprytz So why don’t we see a large void from where the Big Bang occurred?

@johnprytz The void would be intact because there would be no reason for any matter to reverse direction and fill the void. There would be a single, large void, distinct from any smaller voids.


I agree that time & space didn’t necessarily start at the Big Bang. It may have, it may not have. I really don’t know.

I disagree on space being pure nothingness. Pure nothingness would have no properties. Space has the property of three demensions. So that makes space something.

@johnprytz So if you have one dimensional space, three dimensional space, infinite dimensional space and nothing, these are all the same thing to you?

@johnprytz I’m a philosophical materialist, so yes, I believe things exist without a mind to perceive them. Are you just expressing idealism?

I’ve answered your query, now please answer mine. If you have space that limits movement to one, two or three dimensions and nothing, are these all the same thing? Yes or no.

@johnprytz Well, OK. If you don’t want to give me a simple yes or no answer, how about this. Either demonstrate that you can move into a fourth spatial dimension or explain why that cannot be done.

@johnprytz I’m sorry my language has failed. I don’t know how else to rephrase my questions.


You are right - the BBT is a joke - only simple minded people believe its true - why? because they want to believe everything had a beginning.
The universe has always been here.

gater Level 7 Mar 18, 2019

Wow. Beat the hell out of that straw man.


I completely agree.


So, do words come easily?

@johnprytz Kind of like the evidence for your simulation belief?


Brevity is a wonderful thing.

It's also the soul of wit.

@MrBeelzeebubbles -Bill Shakesman

@johnprytz Or 250 words or less, apparently.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:313007
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.