Responding to a ’blog post from Michael here...
I also find a lot of Big Bang scenarios a bit — well... loose-ended & arguable.
Especially, I think, arguable by proponents of a different kind of Bang or anything else down to non-Bangers including the forever-universe people and so on.
What it all comes down to for me is that so many Bang (or non-Bang) variants are either carefully-proposed or put up in such a way as to shoot the legs out of many other Bang concepts. This itself hints at subvocal politics.
Who is right? Are any of the groups right? Is there a “right” scenario being proposed? Or even one “close enough”?
Careful reading of the productions of the many teams involved (even with heavy culling of many of the whackier ones) repeatedly leads me to assess the answer as “nobody sensible is really certain” & on that basis, the idea of making firm long-term plans around any of these theories is basically insane.
By using “sensible” as a qualifier I automatically rule out the many people who have adopted a single or few favourite ideas and are busily riding those off into the sunset regardless of however many contradictory observations arise. Yes, this includes “mainstream” proponents if they’re being meat-headed about it.
Realistically, this simplifies the task down to something which looks too simple and straightforward, despite the reading it requires. On the gripping hand, this also culls out a lot of self-inflating rubbish from the playfield very quickly. Time itself often appears as a clarifying agent, since anything highly extreme tends to be testable, one way or another.
Comments