Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Bryan
More to the point, the data directly disproves the idea you are proposing - a static universe.


Now, there's something I didn't propose!

Actually, you did - eve if you didn't realise it. The only way we could have a universe that is:
a) infinitely old, and
b) has the current configuration of galaxies

is for the universe to be static.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Time, like space, was a product of the BB. Hence, why it is mathmatically impossible to talk about "before" the BB.


Yet cosmologists are increasingly talking about "before the BB". Do you have access to BBC 2 Horizon 11th Oct?

Not without a time machine.

But when cosmologists talk about "before the big bang", the term "before" is used as there is no equivalent english term (nor, IMO, is there likely to one in any language) for "preceding the emergence of time", or more accurately "under conditions in which tau is indeterminate".

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I watched the video (thanks for that) and intend watching it again, before making any comments, other, than to mention that even L K insists that nothing is not nothing any more.

Its more like that "nothing", in the way people tend to think of it, is a physical impossibility.

Bryan

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA