No, this is the latest stuff. As I said, I saw only the tail end of it, but there was no doubt they were talking about more and more scientists, Arno Penzias among them, dismantling the Big Bang theory tot he point where they are openly saying there was no Big Bang after all.
The basic theme was "what was before the Big Bang". Of course, from the point of view of the current Big Bang dogma, that is a nonsequitur, since nothing can be "before" time began, nor could anything exist before space was created.
But, modern science is (once again) beginning to challenge the idea of ex nihilo creation dogma. What makes it significant is that among them are the very people who created that dogma. Unfortunately, what they have to offer is no better than the Big Bang. Whether it is a new universe being created in each black hole, or the eternal filament theory, it all ends up in one big speculation, where there is distinction without a difference. For that matter, the defunct Steady State theory was as good as any other. :) They are all nice stories.
And so does this mean that you believe everything you hear without checking it out first? You are happy to rely on "rumors," even "rumors of rumors?"
That's probably not exactly it. For you write:
But, modern science is (once again) beginning to challenge the idea of ex nihilo creation dogma. What makes it significant is that among them are the very people who created that dogma. [Do you mean, e.g., Penrose? Note: He wasn't doing "dogma" before or later; he wasn't arguing for an ex nihilo creation. He and Stephen Hawking did a mathematical study of the Big Bang hypothesis, and found it statistically highly probable. That's all.] Unfortunately, what they have to offer is no better than the Big Bang. Whether it is a new universe being created in each black hole, or the eternal filament theory, it all ends up in one big speculation, where there is distinction without a difference. For that matter, the defunct Steady State theory was as good as any other. :) They are all nice stories.I think your point may be: "Who cares? They're all just 'nice stories' anyway." Conclusion: One's as good or as bad as any other. Therefore, they are equally worthless and not worth my time to understand what these "nice stories" actually say. After all, you can't prove any of them anyway.
I don't want to belabor that point here. But I'd like to note a brief comment. The scientific community in general, and cosmological physicists in particular, are dedicated to finding only "naturalistic causes" of natural phenomena, in this case the origin (or non-origin) and order of the Universe. The Big Bang theory has bothered them from the very first, for it seems eerily similar to the description of the origin of the Universe given in Genesis 1. God is not a "naturalistic cause" for these people. Rather, He is a "supernatural entity," and this sort of thing is absolutely banished from modern science. Therefore, the scientific "mission" becomes: Find an "explanation" of the Universe that has no recourse to a Creator God. (Jeepers, Isaac Newton didn't do that!)
However, scientific cosmologists who turn a blind eye to Big Bang theory because it allows a "divine foot"" into the Universe are in an interesting position, it seems to me. For Big Bang theory also well harmonizes with Aristotle's Laws of Causation, not to mention Aristotelian logic. And these are the very foundations of modern science.
FWIW, IMHO.
I dunno, dear kosta, sometimes I think you believe the Universe is unknowable in principle. I do not agree with you on that point.
Just because we can't know "everything" doesn't mean we can know "nothing at all."