"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).
Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not have
a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that the Big Bang as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of
you
would have had me believe.

Anything is possible.
This universe could be a single electron in another, sitting on the grid of
Sander Waals' SET rig.

In fact, the concept of a "beginning", or birth, of the universe, is no more
than the gestalt of human experience. In reality, none of us has ever seen a
true creation, only transformations. Therefore, it may be no more than a
preconception that universes are "born."