A Bang into Nowhere: Comments on the Universe Expansion Theory

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Scientific Paper
Title A Bang into Nowhere: Comments on the Universe Expansion Theory
Read in full Link to paper
Author(s) Constantin Antonopoulos
Keywords beginning of Time, the Universe, galaxies drift
Published 2003
Journal Apeiron
Volume 10
Number 1
No. of pages 6
Pages 40-68

Read the full paper here

Abstract

The notion of a first ever moment of Time is selfcontradictory: In lacking a moment before it, it lacks a lower barrier, so there is no stopping it from?inconsistently?receding further and further into an infinitely remote past. Hence, there cannot be a beginning of Time. Only a beginning in Time. The notion of the expansion or growth of Space is incoherent. Objects growing in Space grow by taking up more of space. But for Space to do that, Space must take up more of space, and in order to do that Space must be larger than it is. Hence, there can be no expansion of Space. (Only one in space.) Furthermore, there is no such thing as ?the Universe.? ?The Universe? denotes no special object; in fact, it denotes no object of any kind. The fact that all things have a cause does not mean that ?the Universe? has a cause any more than the fact that all men have a mother means that Humanity has a mother. Hence ?the Universe? does not have a cause. ?The Universe? does not have an age. ?The universe? is a short hand, comprehensive reference to all things that exist. And things being many, they have many ages . Hence, there is no such thing as the age of ?the universe,? unless we mean an ...average age. ?The Universe? is just an inventory word, an inventory meant to be exhaustive. And inventories have no size. (I guess.) Hence, ?the universe? has no size either. Universe expansion theorists mention an ?observation', documenting the fact that galaxies drift apart from one another, without however having moved an inch! ?Only the space in-between them grows.? This is the sort of empirical confirmation that a theory of the sort here criticized truly deserves.