The Big Bang is Busted (Continued)
(c) Robert Neil Boyd

[R. N. Boyd]:

The "big bang" theory has many flaws. The problem of infinite velocity of expansion is just one of the issues. But let's look at this one a bit deeper...

Where is the mechanism which can explain what *stopped* this infinite rate of "expansion" to the supposed rate of "expansion" we "observe" directly today? Common sense says that infinite velocity has infinite inertial mass. Where is the infinite counter-force to be found, which will bring an infinite inertial mass to a near stop?

Answer: The question is unanswerable in terms of *any* known physics.

The "big bang" is a pitiful theory if you ask me. It hardly deserves to be called a conjecture, IMO.

[Dave Squires]:

Supposedly the Hubble telescope has seen many galaxies at about 15 billion light years out in deep space. Now the light from these galaxies is assumed to have left them 15 billion years ago. If that is so then the size of the universe back then, 15 billion years ago, was the size we are seeing now, 15 billion years later.

So how did the universe expand instantaneously to 15 billion light years in size at the instant of the "Big Bang"?

Even with a lightspeed expansion rate it would have taken 15 billion light years to reach the size where the light from these galaxies would be emitted and start the journey to us. What this says is that the universe must be "at least" TWICE as old as any "Big Bang" theory will ever predict if, indeed, there ever was a "Big Bang".

It has never made any sense to me to observe 15 billion light year distant galaxies and say that the universe is 15 billion years old. I find it hard to believe that the above question has never entered the minds of the Big Bang adherents. I would venture to guess that deeper observations will see galaxies far beyond the 15 billion light year distance so far seen.

I just know somebody is going to say I am naive and the theory actually does account for this. If so it would appear to me to be just "explaining it away". Well, after all it is just a theory and not necessarily "fact".