The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

IamJoseph writes:1. All matter and contents of the universe as we know it was ushered simultainiously. Nothing new applies - because there was nowhere else for anything knew to come from - now or then. At this point no laws [science] yet existed. Everything was one indecipherable mush; nothing was seperate or seperated to have its own identity: how could they w/o laws? Here, size also does not factor in - because size is relative and dependent on an observer - both never existed yet.

IamJoseph writes:You said it, but you did not show how this is possible.

IamJoseph writes:Go ahead and blame my english or me - which I'll crack you to smitherens any time. Its my only tongue.

IamJoseph writes:Is my english confusing?

IamJoseph writes:a new song is a new sing - but it was always universe contained. The point here.

IamJoseph writes:A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG.

Portillo writes:British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?".

Theodoric writes:Could you please provide the full quote and context. I cannot seem to find an original in Google.

Portillo writes:There seems to be alot of people here who arent creationists and dont believe in the big bang.

Portillo writes:Just looking at previous pages it seems as though some people are not willing to accept that the big bang theory is scientific fact.

Portillo writes:There seems to be alot of people here who arent creationists and dont believe in the big bang.

Maartenn100 writes:scientists say: 'the age of spacetime is 13.7 biljoen years old."

Maartenn100 writes:This sentence makes no sense at all.

Dr. A writes:This does not mean anything.

Portillo writes:You say that only creationists reject the big bang. But the cosmologystatement.org which was signed by many non-creationist scientists have suggested that the big bang is not a good explanation of how the universe began.

Rei writes:Gotta love the quality of these links that these quality scientists give to their work:http://education.vsnl.com/sankhyakarika/
http://www.kolbecenter.org/
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/
Yahoo
http://www.antidogma.ru/
http://www.eugenesittampalam.com/ (see the link for anti-gravity at BeardMuseum.com is for sale | HugeDomains)
(etc - and these are just the people who *posted* their links!)To some of these sorts of people, the Gaia Hypothesis would seem too mainstream. Lets look at some of their quality, applicable positions:"Independent researcher" (lots and lots of these!)
"US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.)"
"Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka"
(etc)The companies are *almost always* not applicable at all:
Kaz group -
The MITRE Corporation
http://superconix.com/
(etc)Of the names that are from universities, the vast majority are not from applicable fields:
Tom Walther: Senior programmer and systems analyst
Michael A. Duguay: Electrical engineering and data processing
Jonathan Chambers: Postgraduate psychology research student
(etc)Several of them don't show up in faculty listings for their claimed universities. Several of them can't even be found on the net outside this list.This list is a complete joke. Very few of these people are even in remotely related fields. Perhaps one in 40 of these people is in a position to accurately comment about the accuracy of the big bang.In short, this list isn't worth the paper it's written on (for which it isn't written on any)

Butterflytyrant writes:Can anyone help me out? Anyone know of any uses of the common phrases IamJoseph anywhere other than his posts?

Portillo writes:Charles Darwin was trained in medicine and theology.