The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

An expansion = an explosion. Al beit somewhat slower. The same criteria applies: what triggered it - an internal or external factor? Caution: your about to violate the finite factor. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The above really kicks in my "he hasn't a clue" sensor. I may be wrong.Deal with IamJoseph carefully. If you suspect that attempting to respond to his message(s) is going to trigger less than calm responses, perhaps it's best not to respond. Or something like that.Let's not get cranky here.Adminnemooseus

Hey. Guess what? Nobody knows the answer to your question, not even the best scientists on the planet.But that does not mean that God did it. It just means that we're human, and we don't know everything there is to know yet.

Could I see that translated into English?STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN VOCABULARY. BAD IAMJOSEPH! BAD!!! BAD!!!

So be it, zippy. But if your response is not admn, then I am proposing that there is a world of difference between a finite and infinite universe. Criterias change dramatically, and thus this factor pivotally applies to the BBT and the question of what problems relate to it.Note my problem is not with a post BB premise, only that it is presented as a beginning of itself, as opposed the result of an indetermnable cause. Original expansions of itself negate all scientific reasonings. An external impact is thus non-negotiable here, and this cannot come from a point outside of the universe - this would again violate the finite premise. The cold/hot, and other such variances of positive/negative properties also dont apply, being negated by most physicists.I fully subscribe that even with some deficiencies, the BB is the best we've got: a greasy, brylcream deduction of something expanding this way - and therefore it must have come from that-away?!

I fully concur. Yours is an honest and logics acknowledged response. The only additive I can make, is that by subsequence, when all other knowns are discarded, we are left with only two alternatives: Goddidit, or else we're back to your own premise - it remains in limbo. Yet this clearly signifies a deficiency with the BBT - the subject of this thread. Not bad for a 50/50 equal odds by Genesis!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Then you have to define your notion of Finite. After all, we have never seen something which is complex, appearing of itself. This includes pineapples and automobiles.

Your messages seem to fall under:"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".How about trying to write with some sort of clarity?Adminnemooseus

I think time is a problem with the big bang in that the expansion is happening faster than lights speed and the galaxies themselves are said not to actually be moving.Perhaps the problem is the name big bang that suggests an explosion that the name should be changed if the universe multiplied due to say an expansion. If scientists no longer agree it started with a bang then change the name, etc...P.S. Whats wrong with the universe started from a seed designed by God that this seed grew expanding faster than light and multiplying in space from say a seed the size of a pea, multiplying energy of say the vacuum energy of space (cashmier effect), to give shape to the universe like a mustard seed gives rise to an herb due cells multiplying thus in respect to the universe giving rise to galaxies multiplying.That the information that formed the entire universe just was energy multiplying from a seed perhaps the size of a pea gave rise to the size shape of the entire universe.If you add string theory that energy can travel faster than light then first the energy multiplied giving rise to the pattern like what NASA is saying are infinitesimal patterns that mark the seed of what grew into the galaxies and the vast structure we see today, etc...++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Within this light are infinitesimal patterns that mark the seeds of what later grew into clusters of galaxies and the vast structure we see all around us.NASA - Top Story - NEW IMAGE OF INFANT UNIVERSE REVEALS ERA OF FIRST STARS, AGE OF COSMOS, AND MORE - Feb. 11, 2003Another COBE group, led by George Smoot, discovered slight temperature fluctuations embedded in this afterglow that point back to slight density differences in the infant Universe. These fluctuations were the primordial seeds that evolved into all the large-scale structure we see today as gravity turned these small deviations into clusters of galaxies and the humongous voids between clusters.http://universe.nasa.gov/science/bigbang.htmlEdited by Admin, : Shorten the line of plusses.

quote:

---

I think time is a problem with the big bang in that the expansion is happening faster than lights speed and the galaxies themselves are said not to actually be moving.

---

I've heard of time slowing down with temperatures, so it can increase. However, it is space which is expanding, and space is NOT older than light [though Hawkins proposes space and time are originated at the same time], light being a promidial factor and not the result of energy and heat, as is posited. We know this by the velosity of light being transcendent of its energy source - as with a torch light velosity which cannot possibly be the result of its 2 AA bateries. Here, photons do not explain the sum total of light, nor can the sun produce light if it was not already pre-existant of the stars - as in its essential form.So there can be a premise for a pre-star light or pre-sun light. The latter gives cause to consider that light is more than what we see, and may account for the elusive factor which triggered the BB or the universe: all the data could have been contained in light as a directive program, and all that resulted from the BB could be thus explained to a more forward treshold of understanding than its lingering current inexplicability.My gut feeling is, the space is created by a phenomenon not unlike a battle ship off-loading tanks, by first making a platform for the tanks to move on water onto the shore. If cells in the body can create the skeletal structure to contain the entire body - why not to make space to contain the universal bodies?I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion. By reductionism, an explosion is an expansion, with a higher time factor only.

The seed factor is absolutely not negotiable and underlies all things. We find that even ToE's speciation does not work w/o the seed factor, and the only premise ToE can prove itself. Contrastingly, all repro is via the seed, including dna and skeletal imprints - and this process functions w/o the ToE factors, bypassing the millions of years time factor and all else.Here, my ponderings asks, is it possible there is a sort of universal manufacturing basement, such as another dimension, which spits out seeds, which in turn become stars and all other things? This says, the directives within particles would have different directive programs embedded in its micro wirings - because essentially, all particles have the same base material, thus they must contain seperate wirings/programs to become different products. The only other alternative is an external impact, independent of the physical material seen in the universe.

OK. Now use some clarity and let me know specifically what you are referring to also.

Good idea. Hard to do in practice, because individuals rarely get the chance to dictate phrases - once they get out there, they're difficult to control. Having seen this, I think there is more caution in naming things these days - but it isn't perfect. As humans we like certain phrases, even if they aren't accurate. We have a penchant for metaphor that is always going to be problematic.The big bang can be seen as a set of cosmological theories. Some of the later names are less contentious. How do you prefer "Inflationary Cosmology" for example? What's right about it? Beats me, but a lot of thought has gone into philosophy and science and about how and when we can make confident statements about the way the universe works. One of the principle ideas that has stuck is parsimony - and God just adds replaces one unexplained/unexplainable problem with another.

They never did agree that it started with anything like a "bang."From Wiki:

quote:

---

It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lematre's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" in derision during a 1950 BBC radio broadcast.

---

Fred Hoyle, who coined the term, was the main proponent of the "steady state" model, where new matter would actually be "created" as the Universe expands. As you can see above, he meant the phrase "this big bang idea" to be derisive - he was one of the scientist in opposition to the current model before a real consensus was achieved.Unfortunately for all of us, the name stuck. Removing it now would be like, say, trying to change the date of Christmas simply becasue we all know it wasn't the real date of Jesus' birth. The theory's name has now been causing confusion and misunderstandings among the incompletely informed for nearly 60 years, and I doubt it's ever going to get better.10 years from now, 20, maybe even 30, I'm sure there will still be people who have been educated as to what the Big Bang model actualy is arguing against those who think it's like a chemical explosion as the name implies. Just like today.

See, IamJoseph's posts are exactly what I am talking about when I speak of creationists that are crackpots. I mean, do regular creationists actually understand this crap? If so, how come they don't come in and clarify to us lowly mortals? If not, how come they don't police themselves?