Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

The issue is not what people know, or what they don't know. The numerous issues debated are vested only in a post-BB scenario, while the real issue is well precedent of this BB point.It is not the numerous problems one can point to, such as the horizon and density issues, because these issues cannot be resolved at this point of analysis; as soon as we nominate a reason for any of these issues, many others pop up to replace them - because they are vested in criteria which is not factored in the BB. We have one premise which is theologically based, and another which is anti-theology, while the real issue is not confronted. And what is this real issue?The first problem is that most science views disregard or reject the universe as a finite realm, because it poses great difficulties in answering enigmatic issues - thus numerous qualifications are made which nullify the impact of a finite universe - eg. space was always prevalent, there was no expansion precisely following the BB instant, etc. Clearly, these are not theological or scientific issues, but are actually irresolvable paradoxes of themselves - it is not a tug-o-war between the theological and science sectors at all.In fact, we have a real paradox concerning the universe origins, and it is best to admit and confront it. We should correctly and truthfully cease debating the universe origins, and limit the discussion to a post-BB scenario, because we cannot fathom something from nothing - the real issue confronting humanity, and not a resolvable one. Admittedly, this is very difficult to do, and is against man's nature; also, we should accept that some post BB issues cannot be resolved, namely those which are effected by the 'something from nothing' premise.IOW, we can decipher how a car appeared - but we cannot fathom how the original, pre-quark, nano-structures of the car elements and the car maker originated. We will always end up in a brick wall scenario, converting this universal enigma to a battle between science and theology instead.

quote:

---

I like these assumptions without explanation. But I can't insert God without proving He exists.

---

The issue does not concern the BBT, but that there is no alternative scenario possible, or anything the mind can entertain.I have not heard of any theory, no matter how flimsy, of an external factor not applying with the universe emergence - without resorting to the infinite premise. The latter becomes only another way of its attesting, ab beit w/o using the creator term. By the process of elimination, a creator factor is encumbent - scientifically, mathematically and logically. This does not have to abide by a theological version of a creator, which does not alter the conclusion.

quote:

---

because the fabric of space is either very small matter particles, or an unknown light or field particle,

---

My prmise is based on a finite universe - which includes space, particles, forces - even nothingness as we know it or dont know it. Your premise is not of a finite universe but a back door to the unscientific infinite resorting - here, anything goes.

I am confounded how factors such as inflation can occur of its own, w/o an external triggering factor. There were no heat/energy/density variations, able to cause expansion/contraction phases.The factor of other universes also contradicts the finite premise - unless those realms do not contain anything contained in this universe.The factor of an infinite nothingness also defies the maths: infinite is w/o time, thereby also w/o space-time. One cannot allocate a part of an infinite as a variable from the rest - because the definition of infinite is 'NO CHANGES'; whatever changes anything is transcendent of that it changes. Change signifies a giving and a taking - which is the negation and antithesis of infinite:Can you add $5 to an infinite number of $s? If you can, it is proof it was not an infinite amount. Similarly, if the uni is expanding, it means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Here, we cannot even say that the finite $s was on an infinite matrix and seperated from the space - because a finite entity cannot contain an infinite. Basic 101 logic applies.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

in the context of quantum field theory, cosmology and quantum gravity.

---

These give no answers to the basic issue of what caused a triggering, and are instead based on interactions; those equations and theories are based on already prevaling forces and elements existing, and these are at all times factored in these equations.I would like to see a definitive preamble concerning the universe being finite - w/o qualifications and exceptions. It is almost pointless debating the early space-times w/o this preamble, because with an infinite premise it is anything goes, while some 90% of the questions being debated today - disappear with a definitive appraisal. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Where is the evidence for this claim that there is no space beyond our universe?

---

I pivotal question, and one which can clear the confusion.I think the confusion is based on space also being seen or argued as NOTHINGNESS, and the reason it is assumed as always existed. This factor cannot be proven or disproven, and it should be cast out of the menu. In any case it represents only the desperate refuge it has adopted as a last gasp: nothingness can account for anything - perhaps even against the finite premise. But it is not vested in evidence or proof.The best way to see nothingness is as NO THINGS - which refers to all things and anything. One cannot say carbon or heat energy always existed because it was contained in the pre-uni space of nothingness, even in another state or form. Because this violates the finite premise. IMHO, a nothingness has to contain something, to be classified as an actual nothingness - else there is no contrast factor.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The universe is not expanding, but rather, the original point is becoming larger. The diameter of the original point has expanded to the current size, and all that exists is still within that point. The expansion is harmogenous - equally in all directions, around itself - there being no other place to go. We see the uni as expanding, because we are looking at one section from another sector of that same point, namely within the universe. There is no outside facet; everything uni-contained is still uni-contained - only the size of the container has enlarged.We emerged much later, perhaps at a mid-point [because we can see all sides, past and future sectors]. Its like the BB represents a marble, and that marble started to inflate, namely it expanded equally in all directions; here, our solar system emerged at some time into the expansion, and the expansion continued therafter passed it. This is also a reason why the uni does/must have a centre, and this is not dependent on being able to determine that centre. The centre is now within the expanded original BB particle.If the above view is taken - there is no alternative to creationism - there had to have been an external factor impacting on the original particle, and there was nothing else whatsoever around. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you can't determine where the center is, then how could you simply say it is there?
I didn't see how you concluded that...

---

Its like one quark within one of our brain cells cannot determine another quark in our toe cells. Here, size does matter.

quote:

---

- there is no alternative to creationism

​

Creation as an unguilded mechanism, Yes(i.e. Quantum fluctuations etc...) However, religiously based creationism(i.e. Christianity etc...) or plainly as a God, then No. There are many alternatives to that, like Quantum fluctuations...

---

Creationism per se is not religiously based, at least not the OT version. This allows any transcendent premise one likes, to apply. The point I made was that there is no alternative to an external impacting, and this also has to be transcendent, with full cognition, of what is created. Anything random or accidental cannot apply.

quote:

---

How so if we still have the fact that the Universe is expanding?

---

This commonplace saying should be re-examined. The universe is not expanding - it is in expansion. The former infers there is somewhere else to expand to - which violated the finite factor.

When you finish laughing, consider the situation you are laughing at. You will have to conclude the universe is not expanding [where to - in a finite realm?] - but can only be in a mode of self-expansion.Update your uni model - your error was not considering the uni is finite and thus not factoring this in the equation. It is a commonplace error.

quote:

---

Inflation is the earliest moments of expansion

---

This factor says the expansion was post-uni, thus an in/within-uni phenomenon.

quote:

---

when some weird unscientific things was to have taken place.

---

This factor says there was/had to be - an external triggering impact.The above factors say the universe is in self-expansion, as opposed expanding, namely the original particle has expanded, while the space bed was and is at all times contained within the original particle; also - that there cannot be parallel or multi universes [the finite factor].Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

BRANDENBERGER would not call it debunked even though he pointed out problems with the BBT, that did not agree with the theory.

---

Reason this cannot be openly and conclusively stated by a scientist today:1. There is yet no alternative scenario - which does not mean the BBT is correct. IOW, even if there are blatant errors, one cannot make objections w/o offering alternative solutions. Science goes by the best, most reasonable path available to it.2. Like the ToE premise, a scientist going against the held position will get his min. 15 year career destroyed.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Disagree. You have to conform your thoughts there is not a single hint the uni is not finite, and this is the conclusion of the greatest scientists, maths and sciences.However, it is clear when the finite premise is factored in the equation, most assumptions about the universe become wrong and end up in very silly premises. You can test this by assuing the uni is finite: what happens then?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I understand it the Andromeda-Milky Way collision is to take place in 5 billion years.

​

The earth will be uninhabitable several billion years prior to that time due to our sun's burning up phase.

---

You are quoting the bible in this assumption the earth will be uninhabitable in 5 B years. This is selective quoting. Some more imagination and you will see that in 5B years, humanity will conquer the known universe, as well as the energy, food and speed factor, control the spacial environment and continue having dominion over all the worlds. The bible says so, as well as recent human prowess.But first, humanity has to control its own self here on planet earth: this calls for belief via commonly agreed laws - instead of MAD annihilation doctrines.

quote:

---

I noticed you contradicted yourself in posts 5/97.

---

No - you have to apply menial input to see I said most science 'views' [as in this forum] disregard the finite aspect of the uni, while most major scientists [incl. Einstein, Newton, Hawkings] agree the uni is 100% finite.

quote:

---

P.S. Please provide evidence the universe is finite.

---

You confirm my posts. Evidences point only to finite, and there are no evidences whatsoever to its contrary. The uni is expanding; the notion of a BB itself says, first and foremost, the uni is finite - else no BB.The enormity of this has still not sunk in, nor its impact on a host of premises held - it is as if the notion is very unwelcome, and a disruption. Mostly, it is shunned because it can or may allign to a theology such as genesis, when the correct outcome should be a point accorded in favor of genesis. There is paranoiac agenda science here as opposed honest science.No science forum is complete nor legitimate without a thread debating the 'WHAT IF' factor - namely how does a finite universe impact on sciences, including cosmology, physics, biology and ToE - if the finite factor is made absolute and non-negotiable in the preamble.