The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

I'm not referring to time, the english language has it's limits you know. Do not ignore the core of the argument though.You are saying the big bang was the beginning of existsense(time)!
But you also believe the big bang required a cause(particles,anti-matter,matter,virtual particals). this means something already existed in order for the big bang to happen.Hence Endless Loop with no answerDo Until nothing = existence
nothing <> existence
LoopEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

no, Chiroptera didn't say that, I did.And no the universe doesn't require a cause. Its simply a leap on your part, supported by nothing more than your misunderstanding of the topic. This does not mean something already existed, why should it mean that? because you have declared it?-x

This is why physicists use math instead.

Then tell me in a sraight answerThe Big Bang happened from what energy source?
Remember - ( particles, matter, anti-matter, virtual particles) cannot do this this because they are part of the existence created
As in (They cannot come before they are created)
Also remember "Nothing" does not existDo Until nothing = existence
nothing cannot create existence therefore nothing <> existence
existence = Something outside of existence
LoopEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

The problem isn't with the English. The problem is that the core of your argument relies on concepts based on everyday experience and applying those concepts to a situation where they do not necessarily apply.- No, I do not believe that the universe requires a cause. Maybe there was a cause, maybe there wasn't. The problem is, I don't understand what "cause" means when it's applied to the universe as a whole.When we say, "A causes B", we mean that whenever we see B, we see that A precedes it in time.For the case of the universe, there is no "precedes". Since time began at the beginning of the universe, there was no time "before" this -- there was no "before". Nothing can precede the universe since the word "precede" has no meaning in this situation.Therefore, the word "cause" has no meaning. It makes no sense to discuss "what caused the universe to exist".This is the problem with these sorts of discussions. People don't realize the conceptual difficulties that are involved, how one cannot apply logic like they think that they can because logic requires precisely defined terms, and the words that they are using simply do not apply to this situation.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

So Chiroptera, you believe you universe has been here indefinetly?How can the universe have a beginning if there is no causeEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

You refuse to pay attention.Virtual particles do not require a cause, they aren't part of the existence you are trying to fabricate and redefine here.Just because you word a statement to claim that something "cannot come before they are created", doesn't make it any more true.You keep ignoring that all your premises to get to this point have been shown false, you never bothered to change your conclusion though. This is as ignorant as asking "what energy powers gravity" since no energy is required to 'power gravity' yet gravity was shown to you as the 'power source' for the original big bang separating the virtual particle into their respective particles and antiparticles. And these virtual particles require no cause, no energy, and create a sum total of zero energy and matter.

Big Bang, t = 0To talk about negative time is as meaningfull as talking about negative water.There is no t = -1That's the most simple way to put what you don't seem to understand.-x

I'm not talking about time. We know time is part of the universeBut you fail to understand that ENERGY itself is part of existence,how could any form of ENERGY create "the the existense it is created in"Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

I must retire. Thank you for taking your time to discuss this with me.

I would like to believe that, but the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time.Unlike some religious folk, I don't feel I have the luxury of believing what I want; I have to let the evidence influence my beliefs.- How can there be a cause if there was no time preceding the universe?

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

All subatomic particles are always dancing in and out of existence, and this is the reality that all matter is made from.There are also theoretical concepts where the sum matter and energy and whatever else all adds up to zero, that there is no net creation of matter, rather a temporary division. Actually many more than that. But they are "wrong" for any number of reasons, and not the least being an incomplete understanding of what the universe is made of, such that there appears to be a problem where none in fact exists.This invalidates the precepts used which assume that all is known.btw -- neither of your arguments is logical.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : all

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That's Mr Jack.Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Arguing that because everything in the universe has a cause*, the universe itself must, is a logical fallacy. This doesn't mean the universe didn't have a cause, it means we can't know.* - and, in any case, not everything in the universe has a cause, as was noted earlier.

A small point, Chiroptera, but we don't actually know that. Current physics ability to describe the big bang breaks down (extremely!) momentarily after the singularity, so it can't track back from there; however, both String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity can be traced back through t=0, and predict that time continue on the other side of the bang - that there was a before the big bang.

That's usually my line. I tend to take two tracks in discussions about the origins of the universe: I either try to point out that our current understanding of the laws of physics break down at some point shortly after the alleged singularity, so we don't even know whether there was a singularity or a beginning, or I go with the question of why the universe needs a "cause".This time I decided to go with the second.- But that just pushes back the question. It might explain where our part of the universe, the part that we see, came from, but there is still the question of where the whole shebang came from.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)