Gary, besides what I just sent in response to Don's post from yesterday, I offer the following: A "singularity" such as the one postulated to have been the beginning of our universe is truly unimaginable. As I understand it, our concept of density simply doesn't apply, anymore that it does to a stellar black hole or the super-massive black holes at the centers of most galaxies. I don't think that big bang theorists regard the universe as an object; it's just difficult to speak about it in other terms that make sense. It doesn't occupy space as an object of some kind - it is both the space and the object. Do you know of objections to the big bang other than these and the issues that Don described? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Gary Vardon Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) There are a lot of strong objections to the big bang idea. One is that the density of matter if it came from a single area would be unreasonable. Another objection is that the big bang treats the universe as an object. All objects are finite but the universe is infinite, The universe is said to expand but what is it expanding into? If the universe were much denser the universe would collapse if less dense then stars and galaxies would not form. Sincerely, Gary Vardon