Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

I understand the initial conditions had to be very precise or the universe would not exist today.But I also read where the Einstein equation says that any deviation from flatness would grow to very large by now.But that is not what is observed.http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/.../Cosmos/FlatnessProblem.html I like these assumptions without explanation. But I can't insert God without proving He exists.It seems like you are trying to tell me there is no problem with the BBT. But I keep finding scientist that say there is a lot of problems with the BBT.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

We're assuming that conditions must have been such that we didn't immediately disappear into a singularity, and are admitting that we don't know why.Inserting God says we do know why.Now, I can prove I know the words to the Lords prayer, but I can't prove I don't know them. That is why the person who knows something has to prove it, and those who don't know something don't.(And you're still talking about a dated model.)

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

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.

there are many other theories the mind can entertain. but the equations are not any better, which can explain the truth with "proof". you listen to math as evidence. why not reason?the universe is expanding..OK..whats it expanding IN?.the universe was the size of a pea...
you know the amount of mass in ONE star? you mean ALL stars and matter ..even ALL the universe was the size of a pea? how is this possible? where did all the space time come from? and where did it go?so yes. the big bang model is flawed.vacuum of space. here is a hint. now use reason:how is a vacuum possible?a vacuum only exists when a pressure between matter is less in one area than in the surrounding area in which the vacuum exists.because the fabric of space is either very small matter particles, or an unknown light or field particle, or only waves of radiation light and gravity forces, it is apparently empty. it is vast..and contains a vacuum.we cannot see the edges, and apparently it stretches for all eternity. the fullness of the cosmos is littered with mass. stars planets and other forms of matter. the matter ranges in density, held together by the attractive force of gravity, which is stronger than the existing vacuum.so either the forces of gravity from the greater matters induce the vacuum because the area's of space between matters is stretched,and there are edges beyond mans range of vision that are thicker than the area of space that we are aware of.or..what?universe expansion: the known universe must exist within an unknown area that allows expansion of our known universe.put a balloon in water..make the baloon a little heavy. so it floats about midway in the tank. now..add water..baloon gets smaller. take water out, and the baloon expands. the baloon represents all the universe that we know of. the tank is the unknown area. perhaps infinite.the problems that exist within the bbt are mostly because of observational error and flawed math. the equation is not finished. gravity must be linked with electromagnetism and time and speed to under stand the relatives. i believe linking gravity will be possible when we understand the equations that link sounds relation and speeds with matter and radiation. until you understand the interactions of time with these variables, your only looking at placements and locations relative to your time and not the time relation of the viewed object.anyways thats my theory.all the bbt is is a theory. and its pushed around as a proven fact. ITS NOT PROVEN. no matter how useful a tool in space exploration, it has not explained the greater question: for HOW and WHY exist at all?do not be rejecters of knowledge of the truth to these questions. if you ask the questions, then you might be able to seek the answer.ps: hey percy. im still at a one post per 30 minutes here. swallow some pride. you might not like what i say..but i deserve the right to question the truth as much as anyone else. and you cannot say im wrong because no one knows the true answer but God.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If the BBT is right, we could easily conclude that if 1 Big Bang was ever possible, then multiple Big Bangs are likely to have taken place in the seemingly endless space. Multiple universes could hold the answer on how the miracle of life happened on this planet. The probability of a celestial body to be able to sustain life are probably in the order of 1: 1000 billions but it's a problem that's easily solved if we consider an infinite number of Big Bangs and universes.

It's not as simple as this - the Universe is *highly* non-linear. You cannot naively extrapolate from any one situation. You can certainly suggest it, investigate it, model it, and test it. But you cannot say "are likely to have taken place" from simple musing.In this case, you have to realise that the Big Bang is not something that occurs *in* space. It is the entirety of space. And so your extraplolation is invalid at the first step.HOWEVER, we do have several models where the Big Bang and "space" are actually only a subpart of a greater (possibly higher dimensional) space, and your idea here is certainly seriously considered (suggested, investigated, modelled, tested), as well as its impact on the fact of our existence.Just to add - our Universe is probably plenty big enough to come up with life bearing planets. The multiverse (multiple big bangs) helps to come up with a universe simply capable of supporting stars and planets of any form, out of the infinitude of possible universes that wouldn't even support structure (atoms), never mind stars!Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Any of them. Don't worry, I'm more than capable of explaining all of them. However, I cannot vouch that you will understand them.

Do you? Do you also like omitting the very next sentence from the passage you quoted which shows how these assumptions are made unnecessary with inflation? I would have thought a pastor would have been above common trolling but perhaps I am wrong...

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.

You are confounded because you have merely been told of the existence of a concept known as inflation. Other than the most fundemental basics, its nature has not been discussed here - what it is, why it occurs, details of the possible mechanisms behind it, its naturalness (or unnaturalness) in the context of quantum field theory, cosmology and quantum gravity.

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:

---

In this case, you have to realise that the Big Bang is not something that occurs *in* space. It is the entirety of space.
  —cavediver

---

Where is the evidence for this claim that there is no space beyond our universe?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

What do you mean by "space"? Surely any space "beyond" the Universe is already included *in* the Universe?Edited by cavediver, : superfluous comma

I would appear that there are 2 different connotations of the word "Space" being used in this and other threads.1) Space is only that is in the visible universre and expands as does the universe. In this space did not exist until the Big Bang2) Space is the entire entity of the visible & invisible (beyond the visible) universe. In this view space is universal regardless of the big bang in that it always existed, just that it contained nothing.These 2 connotations seem to cause ambiguity. The problem seems to be "What is space?", "Where is space?"
and "Is space Infinite?" None of which can be answered objectively.If space did not exist before the Big Bang then what occupied the volume we now call space?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969