In an attempt to stop you from posting endless incomprehensible bullshit, I shall put this in the form of a yes-or-no question.
According to your ideas about time, it seems that it is "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that a big bang happened approximately thirteen billion years ago.
According to your ideas, is it also "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday?
This is a YES-or-NO question, and I would like you to answer it as such. I would be willing to wager a small sum that you won't, 'cos you're such a bullshitter, but it is after all a YES-or-NO question, so if you are still clinging to a shred of intellectual honesty, you will answer it YES or NO.
Re: On behalf of all participants in this thread...
...I'd like to ask that anyone receiving a cryptic or evasive response could nonetheless reply constructively, perhaps with further clarification or whatever else might help the discussion move forward?
Well, what would help the discussion move forward would be for him to answer my question. I can't do that for him.
No, Coy, you don't get it. Claims for both the Bunk to have occurred and leprechauns to have existed fail on the conceptual level first and the Bunk's failure is far more dismal than that of leprechauns. That is because the leprechauns' hypothesis proposes hypothetical objects hiding pots of gold which are quite conceivable objects whereas the bang concept operates with the idea of space expanding into itself which is a more twisted proposal impossible to visualise or conceptualise in any way, shape or form.
If it is impossible to conceptualize in any way, how is it that all those physicists manage to conceptualize it?
It may be true that you personally find it impossible to understand, but this disability is far from being universal, and the nature of the cosmos is fortunately not limited by by the deficiencies of your intelligence.
Oh, that, Inadequate. You mean mathemagicians? Because in physics space is but an abstract relation not a substance that can expand. But in mathemagic they use the trick of multiplying zero by zero while introducing all kinds of fractions by sleight-of-hand. The fractions multiplying imitate a meaningful physical activity. They imagine all kinds of lines stretching. Vectors, tensors, lines of force and suchlike and then forget to tell the public that the lines exist only on paper. That's how it's done in a nutshell.
So, to summarize: the big bang is not impossible to conceptualize because as you know perfectly well lots of people are perfectly able to conceptualize it; but rather than admit this you would prefer to spout a lot of crazy bullshit about a subject (mathematics) of which you possess no actual knowledge.
Re: Relevance of the alleged bunk to the history of light.
The issue of bang is highly relevant so there is no digression. If the concept of bang is accepted at face value then the bang is the ultimate source of all light in the single common for all the existence past. A single location for the origin of light.
So, not stars then? I thought it was stars. I thought that the only "light" from the Big Bang was the cosmic microwave background, and all the other light came from stars. For example, there's this star called "the sun", perhaps you've heard of it, and I'm fairly sure I'm typing by the light of the sun rather than by the light of this big bang you keep talking about.