The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

It is also possible that the laws of nature may very well all exist outside the pocket of space and time created by our big bang. Yes a very early universe may have been so hot and dense that our current laws of nature were inadequate to describe or predict the events occurring inside the dense mass but that does not mean that we can automatically rule out the possibility that the laws of nature would not have worked just fine at some distance away from this dense mass.And lets for a moment say that our big bang was in fact caused by the collision of two separate pockets of space time crashing into each other at extreme velocity. I predict that would generate a huge amount of background radiation that would cool over time. So if I find background radiation then that means I must be right ??? The existence of background radiation does not validate all matter in the known universe once existing inside a single dense mass. It just validates that the event that took place that began the process of scattering matter in all directions outwards took place in an environment of relatively consistent density.This message has been edited by nipok, 04-29-2005 12:57 AM

Model A (big bang) claims that all matter once existed inside a solitary mass something likely on the magnitude of a point singularity.Model B (collision theory) claims that all matter once existed inside 2 unique masses whose velocity was likely on the magnitude of c^2 in respect to each other. From a stationary observer nothing can travel faster than c but two separate items can move away from each other in opposite directions and from one item to the other the apparent speed can be greater than c. In collision theory all matter is held together by the same principles that govern our universe. Planets around a more dense star, solar systems around a more dense mass, galaxies around a more dense center. This is well proven. Our entire known universe is likely to be moving through a larger pocket of space time circling an much more dense center. It likely does so with other similar size pockets. These in turn make up a much larger pocket with relative space time inside itself that circles a more dense center as well. This continues to a point where the matter becomes the building blocks that become a quark or lepton on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. So when two atoms collide it is not really two atoms colliding but really the outermost electron shells. And it is not really two electrons colliding and massive velocity compared to each other but the two leptons that make up the electrons that are colliding. And someday it is likely that we will find as our scientific precision increases that there are building blocks to leptons so an atomic collision is really the collision not between two leptons but the two building blocks that make up leptons. With each subsequent decrease in size come an increase in effective velocity and we reach a point where the two small particles smash into each other and in a fraction of a nanosecond the laws that bind subatomic particles allow the mass and energy to regroup and bond back together so from an external viewer it looks like the matter remained whole but from in internal vantage point it would look very much like a big bang occurred. Yes since the few micro milliseconds after collision would be undergoing many of the same events as predicted in the big bang
theory. The unification of fundamental forces is based on something called Aetheric Density which someday will unite the remaining forces and yes this is validated under the collision theory paradigm. Much similar to what we have now. The nature of space time should be SpaceTime if you refer to our Universe or spacetime if you refer to our universe. spacetime would be well described in the process of our expansion. SpaceTime would exist on its own rights to define the physical world in the larger pockets of spacetime that our pocket of spacetime inhabits. All of which is part of SpaceTime. I'm sorry but the uncertainty principle has no bearing in this. Like the normalization of Feynmann diagrams and imaginary particles that pop into existence then disappear, these are constructs created in attempts to plug the logical holes in the parts of the big bang theory that fail normal logic and so strange constructs are invented to plug holes. Remove the holes and the constructs are useless. Since collision theory is the collision on a magnitude approaching c^2 the amount of energy released could easily equal the amount of energy an heat predicted in the earliest stages of the big bang, it is just the catalyst that caused the initial expansion that I question.This message has been edited by Admin, 04-29-2005 10:32 AM

What was it about my post that you consider off topic. The initial poster has trouble coming to grips with the physical laws of nature being such an integral part of the essence of the big bang theory. I also have difficulty accepting that the physical laws of nature can be bounded or initiated by an event.These physical laws of nature being bounded before the big bang and then released appear as such because they are all relative to us and our frame of reference but they are not absolutes.We can tell by observations that all matter in our tiny little known universe, our pocket of space time, once likely originated within a central location of unknown initial density. It may have been a point singularity as the big bang theory predicts or it may have been something else.Collision theory accepts almost all observations as made by the big bang theory but does not agree that there can be a boundary placed on the SpaceTime of our Universe, just the spacetime of our universe.