cavediver writes:
The Big Bang hypothesis simply cannot possibly match any observational data at all unless you can demonstrate to me logically how is it possible to gain any concrete physical volume from the pure unadulterated nothing the universe is bounded by necessarily and how is it possible to express that gain with an increase in a concrete physically measurable radius of the whole shebang.
For as long as you demand that the Universe conform to your own prosaic understanding of what is logical and sensible, you will remain utterly ignorant. Those of us who have devoted much of our lives to understanding the Universe, long ago learnt to let go of all presuppositions and let the Universe itself dictate its characteristics without interference from our ignorance. You would do well to do likewise.
Do you even understand how General Relativity gives rise to the possibility of an expanding Universe, independent of any hypothetical "nothingness" that according to you surrounds it? And perhaps you could explain how "nothingness" can somehow transcend its own "nothingness" to gain the ability to "surround"?
Al seems like the kind of guy who thinks that the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are "weird."
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are normal.
We're weird. The Universe makes the rules, not us, we can just try to figure them out. People who try to mash the Universe into an intuitive anthropomorphic framework wind up like ICANT, ranting on and on about how existence brings everything that exists into existence.
™ Version 4.2
