The article makes some common mistakes. Here are two:
Quote:
|
A point in the past when the radius of the Universe was zero. Since all the matter in the Universe must have been condensed in a small region, along with all its energy, this moment of Creation is referred to as the Big Bang.
|
First of all, there was never "zero" radius-- such a thing would be impossible to describe with science. Secondly, the "moment" of Creation was not the "Big Bang", the Big Bang model is a model of the evolution of the universe after its creation. There is no theory for the creation of the universe, as there is no "theory of initial conditions" in science. Initial conditions are a
device used throughout science, no more and no less.
Then it goes downhill from there. It misspells "Olbers' paradox", and it goes on to make the remarkably inaccurate statement:
Quote:
|
Note that a Creation point automatically implies two things: 1) the Universe has a finite age (about 15 billion years) and 2) the Universe has a finite size.
|
The age is now thought to be 13.7 billion years, not 15, and worse, the common model is to assume the universe has infinite size simply because there is no evidence of a finite size. That doesn't mean we know it's infinite, it means we don't know it's finite, and have no reason (other than philosophical, for some) to think that it is finite. That is has a "creation point" is another misnomer-- all its points are the creation point, and none of this requires a finite size. I didn't bother to read any more.