The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

I do not believe in the Big Bang either.I have my own theory Uploaded with ImageShack.usEdited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

yes, you are right. I don't know what the meaning could be with the model I have.

The Big Bang is an 'interpretation' of the facts. It's a theory to explain the measured facts.
God is just a name, a word. That's all. There is no definition for it (or many different ones).
Thests can't see that there can be an eternel universe.
It's very illogic to think that there can be an eternal god, but not an eternal universe. Very strange thinking.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

In my theory I start with a whole (set of) different postulate(s):Spacestretch is the gravitational equivalent of lengthcontraction of an object (= spacestretch for observer).
Because of a timedifference.Or even better:If spacestretch for the observer is involved, timedifference must be involved too. (and motion)(lengtcontraction of object can also be seen as spacestretch for the observer)It's the observer-triangleWhen you see motion, you see timedifference and spacestretch.
When you see timedifference, you see motion ans spacestretch
When you see spacestretch, you see motion and timedifferenceA second postulate:your time ticks always normal for you.
your clock is the norm, the criterium for distortions elsewhere.AndYou ARE a clock.So space, time and motion will change, given your postion, given your clock. (relativistically spoken).That's relativity.The curvature of spacetime from the universe as a wholeI know, it's a bit an abstract concept.I talked about 'the curvature of the universe as a whole'.
This curvature can only be seen from a distance.Can you see the curvature of spacetime caused by our galaxy?
No, not at all. Because you are a part of it.So, distance make you see 'a whole' and its influence on other 'wholes'.
galaxies on other galaxies, clusters on clusters, local groups on eachother etc.These are, what I call: emergent systems. Wholons.
These systems curve spacetime too, as whole 'objects'.So, at a certain point, you will see the influence of the curvature of the universe as such a whole on the objects in it. That causes the perception of 'an expanding universe'. Spacestretch.But, that's just a relativistic perception - given your position, given your clock.
Space does strange things because of this curvature. (motion and timedifference will be involved too)So: it's not about the facts. It's about the interpretation of the facts. (the theory)
Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Is here on the forum a 'quote-button' to answer in the messagebox? Thanks for helping: The Big BangHave you ever considered this:scientists say: 'the age of spacetime is 13.7 biljoen years old."This sentence makes no sense at all.How can 'spacetime' has an age? It's timeless. It's time itself. How can time has a clock?How can spacetime be first a singularity and expand? A singularity must expand in space to have 'some space'.
Evolving into what? in time and space? that includes that time and space already existed before the expanding. Otherwise spacetime can not evolve in time. (has a history of 13.7 billion years)You see: that makes no sense at all. That's irrational. (in my opinion, it's non-local untill being observed)Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Pressie, what are you talking about?
I just use rational reasoning in the discussion:How can time itself evolve in time (has a history of 13.7 billion years). It's a very rational question. No God needed.
If time can evolve in time, time already exists.A little bit rational thinking and you can say: this whole theory can't be truth. Nice consistent math, but it can not be the case.It's more likely that matter is unpositioned in time and space, until being observed.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Pressie, (and Percy)'to observe' is not what I really mean. It's more: to exist and to experience objects and measuring causalities in space and time'.But: spacetime is 13.7 billion years old.
But spacetime is 'all events in the past or future'.
So, how can 'spacetime' itself has a past or a future?Then you say: the evolution of spacetime is an event, in what?A star can evolve through time.
But time itself can't have a past and a future, does it?And I don't say 'the event isn't there, if not been observed'
I say: the event is not positioned by an observer in time and space, given his position from where he or she will measure the existence of the objectThe event is non-local until being observed. (lightspeedlimit)
And the existential status of an object is what you see, feel etc.For example, an object in depth are pixels of different events given your position. The front of an object is younger then the sides you see of that same object. (light travels longer from there)
Every pixel of an object is an event positioned in time given the position of a measuring observer. The interaction photon-matter-position observer will position it in time and space.Another observer (from another position) will localise the same object on a different position in time. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

I follow what you want to say, but in that case you can find a referencepoint. (space).But in the case of the 'event' spacetime, there is nothing to refere to. An event in what? In time? It's only 'spacetime' that exists.And 'spacetime' = "all events."I do agree on the 'spacetime'-idea. But it's difficult for me to except the idea that it has a past and a future itself. (evoluation in time). Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

No, do not understand me wrong. I love science, rationality and the scientific method. Because my thinking is been build with information of science. But I can't see how 'spacetime' (all events) can be seen as an event itself with a past and a future.Beautiful discoveries in science like 'entanglement' and 'the limitspeed of light' give me the idea that we as observers (or our instruments) will put something in time and place (a particle) when we measure it, given our position.Before that, it was not localised. So it can has more positions in time given different angles. On the timeline of the observer.F.e. when you look at an object: the front will be less far in the past 'given your position' then the sides of that object.But also the front of an object, when it's large, has different events on your timeline. Because light will need time to reach your eyes when 'a pixel' of that object is positioned further away from you.But other observers will 'position' the same object on another point on their timeline.You will see it in an angle. (different events on your timeline in the past, given that angle of that 'front' of that 'object' (whole of events).But time and space itself 'just are'.Another argument (also build on solid science):
All events and motion is relative, given a referencepoint.
That's relativity. But 'spacetime' itself, what is the referencepoint?
the Nothing
Timeless and spaceless entity? (like a photon?)Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

The reason why nobody in science can think about that, is because 'an observer' can not be found. It's zeropoint in the material world. It's nothing. It's always 0m/s in relation to the speed of light. It's 0 meter and 0 seconds. Timeless and Spaceless. It's a variable scientists don't like to think about.
It is = 0

That's truth.But I mean this:you can find a brain. You can find neurons, electricity etc.
But you can't find 'feelings, experiences, observations, colors, music'
All aspects of the world.But it is not in the material world.
But its an aspect of 'the reality'.And as far as we know, these things has no influence on the material world.
But I think 'observations' have there role to play: localisation in space and time.Conscousness is been represented by 'brains', 'neurons, nervecells etc.It's one material thing with two sides. A material side and an immaterial, not findable aspect. We only can find this, if we are such things.So maybe there is some other 'material' in the world. And it's is also a coin with two sides. A material side, and also an undetectable immaterial side: I suspect 'light' and electricityThe position of the observer:According to our measurements, we are in "the actual moment" (for ourselves).
And the actual moment is how big? (0m/0s)
That's our position.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

yes, I know. It's because I'm dutch. My English is very bad. I must change things etc.