Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:10:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vtmp1s$nt6i$5@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me> <vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me> <vsjgjn$1v1n4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjk4k$24q5m$1@dont-email.me> <vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsni1v$291i3$5@dont-email.me>
	<slrnvv82gk.2aciv.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
	<vt1a7f$i5jd$1@dont-email.me> <vti36r$g4nu$2@dont-email.me>
	<slrnvvqhmc.2eh69.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
	<vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me> <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
	<87cyde2vyf.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vtkdpf$2jc0d$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtlpsm$3nrio$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 01:10:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="106e88ba52bf91129f74dfc3c9756b79";
	logging-data="783570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wQXuSDo3bPhg+9+qeEwA4"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3o/spnGDU3rW2vcEUlq2LcPaJYA=
Bytes: 3292

On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:19:02 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

> No, as cosmology is currently understood, it is meaningless to talk
> about space or time before the Big Bang.

That’s one theory. But there are bits of evidence that don’t quite fit.

Exhibit Number One: the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background 
radiation. Basically, if you look at the size of the Universe at any given 
point versus its age at that point, there is never enough time for random 
irregularities in the energy density to smooth themselves out over that 
distance.

The “inflation” field was postulated to try to get around this. But that 
requires two assumptions: one, the inflation field turned on very early in 
the formation of our Universe, to suddenly expand it, much faster than 
light, to something much larger than a single atomic radius (like how 
blowing up a balloon smooths out any wrinkles in its skin). Two, the field 
then turned off at some point soon afterwards, we don’t know why or how.

Because, if the field didn’t turn off, then it would keep on acting, and 
keep on creating new baby Universes, each with their own Big Bang, 
spawning off the parent one (and each baby in turn spawning off its own 
babies, and so on), right through to the present day.

Another hypothesis to try to explain the smoothness of the CBE is that the 
Universe is actually older than the Big Bang, so what we are seeing is the 
accumulated effect from the current Bang and at least one other Bang 
before that. Possibility a whole endless series of Bangs.

So you see, whichever way you try to explain away the available evidence, 
it seems to lead towards the idea of multiple Big Bangs.