Joe asked:

First of all, I have been asking the exact same questions. The universe without matter to fill it, is still
something. Space itself exists, and can exist without matter to fill it. Therefore one can not place a
time limit on area itself only on the matter that exist within it. I have tried to get answers back from
websites for many years now. Scientists will not touch that question. I do not understand how a
scientist with doctor's degree can try to tell me the universe is approximately a few billions years old,
when the expansion or reverse could have happen over and over. I believe that there really is no
such thing as nothing. The conscience goes back into the void. Genetic traits are apart of the
machine that is matter. There is a creator that places our conscience in where ever is necessary.

Joe also asked:

I have noticed something in my life time. Most everything is either a circle or cycle. All of matter
seems to be revolving in a circle, and that means all of the matter in all of space because it is so vast
one does not know. Seasons cycle, galaxies cycle. Why do scientist stick to any kind of big bang
theory when the very same ones claim that stars are born in the nebula Orion from dust clouds that
they can not explain? Their speculation have no foundations. The string gravity theory intrigues me
though.

and Sam asked:

I am trying to figure out the origin of the universe. Why does there have to be a beginning? Is it
possible that the universe has been in existence for eternity?

============

I'm sorry, but your initial assertion is already mistaken. Space without anything in it is a logical
absurdity. It is true that Newton believed it, but only on a "let's pretend" basis so that his equation
might come out right. His critic Leibniz showed why this is absurd, and also gave an excellent account
of time, which you might find yourself agreeing with.

I'm puzzled at your claim that "scientists will not touch" your question. I've been in correspondence
with several of the leading lights in physics and found no resistance whatever to the discussion of this
issue. Maybe you should read An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time and Spaceby Van
Fraassen. Newton and Leibniz figure large in the book, as well as more recent theories on the same
subject.

The last three sentences of your question elude me. Maybe it's in the spelling, but I can't make out
what you're saying. Try again, perhaps?

Joe's second question:

You may be surprised to learn that phenomena moving in circles and cycles is just about the oldest
observation in the oldest records of mankind. Now though perhaps you should be glad to have
discovered it again on your own bat, it would have been more economical, surely, to have read some
appropriate literature first. Don't you think?

When you speak of scientists and big bangs, you really should be more precise about which
scientists you have in mind. For it is a fact that many of them do not stick to the big bang. The latter is
just one of a fairly large number of current creation scenarios, and it is partly a matter of accident that
the big bang theory acquired popularity. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that the reason is the most
stupid one anyone could think of: the name. Its punchy and easy to remember, and doesn't everyone
love the idea of a huge cosmic explosion? Undoubtedly. However, you're mistaken in asserting they
are speculations without foundations. They have the best foundations of any cosmological theory in
human history. But it seems to me that you're not acquainted with them. So by all means carry on
with string theory. Amid all this, it occurs to me that we haven't mentioned philosophy with one word.
So what was your question really all about?

Jürgen Lawrenz

If the universe were to pass out of existence, you could ask, "What were its dimensions, its length,
width, and height, when it existed," but asking "don't those dimensions still exist in the form of space,
even though they're empty" may be like asking, "What was the angle between the roadway and the
supporting pier on that bridge they demolished last week, and does that angle still exist, even though
the bridge is gone?"

Douglas Barber

Personally, I cannot envisage a universe without matter, in the empirical sense that matter is
generally understood. I believe that I can understand the point that you are making, that space and
time are absolute realities. However, does space — time in isolation provide a sufficient concept for
the constitution of a universe? What would it relate to? How could it be understood to eliminate a
vacuum? Perhaps a physicist could explain a four dimension space — time in a vacuum. I think they
would be hard put to it, I find it beyond my capabilities.

The structure of your question presents you with immediate problems. What is meant by "a universe
without matter to fill it"? I understand a universe, whichever aspect of philosophy we support, to be
something we can observe, 'matter' distributed within a space — time concept. (This is a general
view, but as a supporter of Kant I see it in a rather special way.) The naive view that the universe fits
into some sort of container, like a gas in a spherical flask, seems to be at the seat of your question.
What is the flask made of? What are its dimensions?

I feel that I have to agree with you that space—time only has value in relation to the displacement and
measurement of 'material' objects. As for the notion expounded by scientists to describe the origin of
the universe, these are theories based on current observations. Unfortunately, what we often find in
science is a search for evidence to support a pre-conceived notion, over time the notion becomes
established as the likely explanation and, despite discoveries giving possible/ probable support to
alternative theories, these alternatives are largely ignored. Evolution is another case in point.

<PPYour idea that the universe has recycled itself over and over again and that there never has been
a vacuum is not new. For some time the ' Steady State Universe' suggested by Hoyle was a strong
competitor in the best theory stakes, until losing out to the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang remains
a theory and does not have one hundred per cent support. Some of the alleged supporting evidence
is very tenuous to say the least, and, as previously suggested, could support alternative theories.

You believe that there is no such thing as nothing, yet you say that the conscience goes back into the
void. Is this not contradictory? I agree that life means rather more than genetic manifestation. I also
concede that you are entitled to believe in a creator until it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that
no such entity exists, and this is likely to be a never ending quest. However, you will require a very
persuasive argument to overcome the secular ideas of the present age.

As you say the 'cycle' is very prevalent in nature. However, we cannot make assertions about
happenings in the universe beyond the range of our observations. With regard to the birth of stars,
these are events occurring following the alleged Big Bang, and in no way affect the notion of the Big
Bang. The Big Bang is alleged to have set everything in motion, e g the expansion of the universe
and the constant re-distribution of matter.

I agree that the String Theory is very interesting and stretches the imagination to extremes. For good
coverage of the theory I recommend you read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe(Jonathan Cape,
London. ISBN 0-224-05299-3).

John Brandon

71