Yes, I considered this when I wrote my reply to Mazulu. That is why I said billion years and not trillion or gazillion. And I also considered the case of virtual photons. But my analogy of a pond is a real world example. It was meant to show a simple explanation of the difference between medium and cause. And though it is possible for a complimentary pair of waves, of the size a pebble would produce on a still pond, to spontaneously appear on said pond, it is such a remote possibility that I did not think it was relevant. I have no idea of the scale of such a remote possibility but it might not happen in the current age of the universe. It is an interesting idea though. But all that is not really what I was addressing. I was talking about the difference between medium and cause. I don't know my latin roots that well but medium probably means something between or in the middle of. A cause would refer to a beginning or start, which is very un-middle-like.
And your example of the Big Bang, an action without a cause, directly refutes Mazulu who said that everything has a cause. Mazulu is all about the "ontology" don't you know.
Understood. Thanks for that clarification of what was in your mind.
The problem remains, though. Any criticism of someone else's 'take' on something cannot itself have it both ways. Either there exists or doesn't exist the possibility (whether in 'eternity' or in finite time is immaterial beause we have no way to judge 'scale' of time/duration when it comes to the big bang and universal phenomena set overall, becaue we have nothing to 'compare the universe to', if you get my drift) that any system is 'spontaneously' capable of producing 'waves' of non-zero characteristics/properties for some 'transient' period before subsiding back to whence it came (the 'pond', whatever/wherever that may be in the underlying 'medium in which and within which our 'universal waves set' arises/evolves/subsides in whatever timescale inherent to universal system (not necessarily within 'human' timescales).
Any little study of non-linear systems and chaos/complexity/emergence theory/phenomena/processes will demonstrate clearly that patterns CAN arise and evolve and subside 'seemingly without cause' for the waves/perturbations constituting the phenomena observed.
I just wanted to caution ANYONE about being too dogmatic when calling/criticizing others as 'cranks' etc just because they have a real physics 'take' on
medium/s (aether or whatever terms used) instead of a merely abstract mathematical
field/s 'take' which is glibly defaulted to by anyone wishing to disparage others takes.
In short: Until the 'abstract' maths 'field' concept is proved to actually remove the physical/logical need for a real medium in a real (not merely mathematical model of) the universe, then it is unscientifically presumptuous, and even foolhardy, to make pronouncements/comments as if one actually has anything but abstractions and models to counter others' real physical takes on these aspects.
Caution all round when purporting to make counterclaims that are themselves based on opinion/conflation of real/mathematical 'takes' on the same aspects.
Thanks again for your conscientious clarification, Cheezle. Much appreciated. Cheers!