Summations Only

Welcome to the conversation OniWell I prefer the term ignorant over fake. You will find I have no self-respect when it comes to learning something.I suppose I could have chosen velocity speed of light velocity of light.Potato/PotatoesWhat is wrong with acceleration?And about my sentence Is it the relative speed between the galaxies?I could use (uniform translatory motion relative to each other).What do you think of a possible violation of STR?

Well i call on the anthropic principle, there are 10 to the 500 power of possible universes and each can have a different value for dark energy if the value of ours was grater it would overpower gravity and we would not be here to talk about how it all began.But the thing is if you dont like the big bang theory because it offends your bible then you have to find a noter explanation for what we observe.Like the expansion of the universe
Cosmic microwave background radiation
The abundance of light elementsThis is what the big bang theory explains and there is no contesting theory well except magic man dun it.

It isn't your self-respect that is in question. Some of us are concerned about your respect for others.I understand your concern about being labeled a fake. I don't believe you are a fake. But consider this. You've been pretty adamant about your disdain for FRW, but your questions here about violations of special relativity suggest that you have reached that conclusion while remaining clueless about cosmology.But I know that you are not a fake, but are simply a motivated reader. You are simply parroting back the crank explanations that your fellow creationists have come up with. Your questions are exactly the same as their questions.Explanations for why expansion of space does not result in violations of special relativity can be found in countless places with a minimal search. Even some of the less technically minded participants here have encountered those explanations. Perhaps if you at least acknowledged what everyone else knows and explain why none of that satisfies you, people won't call you a fake.Or not. It's your call.

Is it your belief or understanding that the galaxies themselves are moving? Or do you get that the space between them is expanding?If it's the latter, then you are right and we can chat about things. If it's the former then you are wrong and should start there in your inquery.Furthermore as the space between them expands, the galaxies are further from each other. The spece between the galaxies is exapnding at a rate faster than light can travel. That does not violate the SoL.- Oni

(frako) my friend You are now talking about a hypothesis that can never be falsified or even remotely shown to be true. For those who are not up on such things, it is the Mutiverse. Because the Mutiverse does not meet Popper’s falsifiability criterion it is not science, it is philosophy at best or a false religion at worst. God could have caused creation via a Big Bang. I oppose the Big Bang because it is wrong. Here are problems with the Big BangHorizon problem for CMB
Flatness problem
Where is all the Antimatter?
Energy polarization of Quasars
Quantized Red shifts
General orientation of Galaxies implies a universe center
Type III stars are missing in early universe
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
Delayed stellar synthesis from new Vacuum energy addition (inflation on Jean’s diameter)
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass can not be imparted to matter.
Big Bang CMB failed the shadow test for background radiation
Expansion of the universe seems to have a preferred direction. (Cosmological Principle is wrong). Incorrect Carmeli’s 5d model or even Plasma Red Shift cosmology.

You produced pretty much the same list back in Message 57. Son Goku responded in message 60, and NoNukes in message 61. I tracked your replies to Son Goku, and by my reckoning, you've addressed one of his refutations (and Son Goku has diligently come back to you on your subsequent responses on that).

Nonsense. You oppose the big bang because you don't like it. You accept contrary crank hypothesis and dismiss criticisms of those hypothesis without regard for the evidence.

Never heard of the 5d model and google cant find anything on it, and plasma red shift has been known to be wrong for decades just like creationism. The problems you posted about big bang have already been addressed.As for the multiverse hypothesis yes it cant be tested but 3 independent fields point to it and usually when that happens something about the hypothesis must be right.

Hi NoNukes. Could you provide some evidence for the big bang? Actual evidence that supports it. What actual evidence is there that makes it a better theory than other theories?

Since you seem unable to use Google, what makes you think you could understand the evidence supporting the BBT?Anyhoo, typing "evidence of the big bang" into Google provides this as the first result:
Evidence for the Big Bang

Why? What I showed above is the proof that in the FLRW Big Bang spacetime momentum is conserved. There isn't another "more advanced proof", it's actually the proof. Plus even if there was, a proof is a proof.For a proof of conservation of energy I will need to discuss the notion of Energy in General Relativity, but I will deal with this post first. The "Laws of Physics" do not operate the way you think.In the 17th century Newton and others, noticed that in all collisions between objects a number, which was called Energy, was always conserved. That is, a certain combination of the momenta of the particles in a collision never changed.Later, violations to this principle were found, in electric interactions. However it was then realised that you could consider the particle to have a certain energy coming from its position relative to the object causing the Force. As when you hold pen some distance from the Earth (Earth causing the force of gravity), the pen is said to have Potential energy, even though it isn't moving.In truth, this potential energy is just another number, it's only called energy because the sum of it with what Newton called energy originally (which we now call kinetic energy) is always conserved. So now we have a number that is always conserved.Later Hamilton and Lagrange came to a deeper understanding of what was going on. Energy was simply temporal momentum. Just as momentum moves you through space, energy moves you through time. As momentum is conserved because different points in space are no different, Energy is conserved because different points in time are no different.
Hamilton and Lagrange couldn't answer why Energy/Temporal momentum wasn't free to be any value it wanted, like spatial momentum, but instead was a specific function of spatial momentum.Einstein answered this in Special Relativity. Space and time were now spacetime. So instead of having temporal and spatial momenta you just had spacetime momenta, or four-momenta as it is known.The total amount of four-momenta an object has is always equal to its mass. Four-momenta is a vector with four components: The first term is energy, the rest momenta in the various x, y and z directions. Since this whole thing is fixed to be of size m=mass, energy cannot be whatever value it wants. The square of the size is given by the formula: This has to equal : So you can see that Energy has to adjust to the values of the spatial momenta in order to keep the entire four-momenta of size m.So the answer to Lagrange and Hamilton's question lay in the unification of space and time. (Note that creationists who reject special relativity have no explanation for why energy is fixed by spatial momenta).Finally Einstein then came up with General Relativity. Here spacetime can curve, so different points in time are different, so you don't expect Energy/Temporal momenta to be conserved.
What happens mathematically is that four-momentum still has to have size "m = mass", but how you calculate size is different, because the geometry is differentIn the FLRW spacetime of the Big Bang, the size of vectors is calculated by a different formula. This gives the following for the size of the four-momentum: which has to equal "m": Now not only does energy have to adjust to the changing values of the spatial momenta, but also the scale factor describing the current size of the universe.When the universe is large, is large, so the Energy has to be large to compensate for it, it will also have to get larger as gets larger. So Energy is not really conserved, but the length of four momenta is.Hopefully I have conveyed two things:1. A lot of physics is just pure geometry in General Relativity.2. Rather than "Laws of physics" that cannot be violated, you should think in terms of an increasing understanding of the universe. Energy used to be a fundamental concept, but we now see it is just the temporal part of our spacetime momentum or four-momentum. There is no reason that we should be super-glued to 17th century notions when faced with a universe where space and time are just aspects of spacetime, where spacetime itself can bend and where matter is a probabilistic soup. We should, of course, be able to explain the previous laws, but we can move on.Edited by Son Goku, : Error in a formula, some typos.

Note that our friend was unable to detect that your proof was relativistic.

What other theories has science proposed?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

There was continuous creation.

Never heard of that theory...Links?- Oni