Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

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

thats the problem with science. you are basing your entire science on an untested unknown. and your observations are so tentative it could possibly be considered science fiction.science should be looking for the truth of the way things are. so what happened?look at so many of you. even cavediver. who for the sake of science will argue that the theory of the big bang is solid as any theory can ever be. without examining definates, or seeking to understand the unknown by the definite observations of what IS known. which is this:the equation which the big bang is funded on is unfinished science. its a partial look. there is more to the truth than is available. and that truths should be examined by observations which are by all observations, fact.a mathematician's apology was a writing by an individual that understood that for all his learning and contributions he was only a stepping stone to hopefully a future generation of greater understanding. the only chance at finding and exploring beyond current theories is to examine the faults, admit them, and seek the truth by observation.LOOK.examine what the BBT says: ALL OF THE UNIVERSE IN ITS ENTIRETY EXISTED IN THE SIZE OF A PEA, WAS VERY HOT, AND DENSE.LOOKENERGY AND MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, ONLY CHANGED FROM FORM TO FORM.simplistically: something cannot come from nothing. all that is has derived from the always was.tell me; where is the brain of a tree? then how come it can communicate with other trees chemically to aid its kind?tell me, if a tree has a limited intelligence, what is the probability that a greater existence of intelligence exists, greater than mankind?look at a an atom.center, revolving access of charges around the core charges.star system: revolving planets, with polar charges around a center greater mass with its own charges.galaxy: center point, with evolving evolutions around the greater center.SEE? the pattern is the same. the strong force of atoms is the greater force with is mirrored in the larger composites of the base workings.another words: at the core of all that is, is an unexplainable powerful energy existence, from which all things are held together and sustained by.its the cornerstone. its the unexplainable great force the "strong" force. that without this, no matter would hold form.can you explain how that force exists? what sustains it? can you say that the force could not be possible to hold intelligence along its veins?no? then explain how a brain holds intelligence along its veins. or the tree?crystals grow when fed. so also does all biological life grow when fed.how long will you ignore the evidence before you that the world and all the universe is ONE entity coming from a single start? forever?when you understand, or for those who do understand, the universe and all that is came form a single existence, which evolved, how long til you understand that it had intelligence? because with no outside interactions, no thing can evolve, UNLESS directed.show me where I'm wrong? call me names. you will. call me stupid. you will. say I'm an idiot and no one should read my words, you will.BUT SHOW me where I'm wrong! you cant. not without quoting tentative science dreamed up from creative scientists to an ignorant crowd for the sake of obtaining grants to continue research. many of which are not even theories. nor theory worthy. but are just complex words describing an untestable, unverifiable unobservable guess.now examine what i say: it is based on LAWS of science, and observations occurring in nature everyday. and always the same methodology.you will be stubborn. God forgive you, and you will be angry with me, but i forgive you. and the world will reap its reward as the infected and diseased cell in the body of God until the time of Gods medicines completion. and then..what is not healed in the body, its cast off from it. so be it.

---

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

i understand what is obvious.what 137 are you referring? i will not be able to reply to your post, and i figure its just a jeer anyways. i still got that post 1 time every 30 minutes thing because the site is run by children who dont like real discussions. but i always love to try to figure out puzzles within what I'm capable of researching in the reality of our world.1 3 and 7 i noticed is times two plus one. ie: 1 times two plus 1 is 3 and 3 times two plus one is 7. i read an interesting article about cesium 137. a radioactive by product of nuclear fission. the glowing salt thing was kinda cool. but anyways, i dont see where any of that is useful.only God knows all the secrets of the universe. its his body. knowing that though, is a start to understanding what roles we play in it, individually, and as a whole. and for the seeker, you find that place. Gods blessing be with you always.see y'all when i get a chance to get back to a PC. take care, and God bless.

---

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

ah. not a pointless point, yet, more than one road leads to Rome.science is observation. you run an experiment, to OBSERVE.but until you ask the right question, your not looking for the answer. same goes for observation, which is all science truly is. documented observations. if you do not run the correct experiment, you observe nothing.now this topic is titled about problems with the most accepted "theory" which is a guess based on tentative math and observations within our abilities. it is NOT meant for such a theory to be accepted, because it is not a tested proven law. and such as it is, but a stepping stone in the right direction with some truths and half truths on to the path of the hopeful : TRUTH.what IS sad is acceptance of half truths by scientists they kill the reason of science, which is to know the truth, that knowing it mankind will excel.i have not yet participated with a debate on this topic in which the debaters where searching for a greater understanding by :
a: identifying and acknowlodging faults.
b: searching for the answers.
c: searching for a way to check or double checked the observed new answers by experimentation or mass logic.it should not be surprising that on questions with which a guess must be made because you lack understanding of the question, or data, that the guesses of the majority are almost always the correct answer. but that is : almost always.the big bang theory is ascribing all of the universe as ONE, in its evolution of its "manys". these "many s" are still "as one" in its ascription to the math. the singularity is inevitable. with no outside interactions no ONE thing with NO environment can evolve unless it is a self directed evolvment. direction...being the key. with no direction a timeless always was in its form holds no possibilities for evolution of itself without outside interaction of another force.which, as long as two forces are, the question "before that" is relevant. which is not true T=0, but a path after.this is your science, that you have put your trust and faith in, that the big bang is the most probable theory, and it has issues. but aside from that REASON: of the problems, what is it REALLY saying? from ALL observation, ALL math, ALL SCIENCE it says: T=0 is inevitable.the only thing scientists have not done, is evaluate that statement for what it DOES say, by what it CANNOT say, based on what now is, and what was, after the T=0 event by all observation.the fault, is the arrogance, and unwillingness, of science as a whole to endorse God. or any such being greater than science itself which they worship. but the science of God is the science of all that is. since God is existence, so also are all that exist a part of God. to become religious, is when a scientist understands the definition of God, and understands the universal language enough, that they find his definition reiterated over and over again by the text and events that prove what science of today rejects.the issue here of this site is to argue creation and evolution ce'st nes pas? i bring the argument that all of science, and that the evolution of all things, is therefore proof only of what it has tried to disprove; which is: that God is. but much to the dismay of religious peoples, creationists and scientists alike, who reject the truth, is: the definition of God does not fit what they envision.albeit: is that not like science? that the truth is almost never what you wish for it to be, yet it is, what it is.maybe not in this age, maybe never. but the truth will be known to all one day. if they exist. if existence itself, which recycles all things in its grandeur for its hidden reasons, recycles all but your consciousness to live in a body that lasts forever more, then you will know.long after I'm forgotten i pray one day the truth will be known to those who live in flesh, before there flesh is lost to them. because how much better a decision will people make in there fleshly living lives armed with such evidence as the indisputable truth and proof that God is?you see, many say; ill believe it when i see it. but...they see it and still dont believe. so for that: it is those who believe who will see. and not the other way around.i hope one day you or perhaps others who debate the topic of the start of the universe and all things; will debate honestly. and look for the truth by observing. and that by all observation; the law of existence IS solid. i dont know my part in this life, but whatever comes will come. perhaps i may never know that i have aided my fellow mankind in any way, towards any good thing; but in my obvious destitude, what gifts God has given me to give, i pray even one individual might be blessed as i give it away.good luck in your debates. perhaps ill return before too long and put my two cents in

---

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

you observe the test results.i don't expect everyone to "get it"the point of my post is i expect everyone to "overlook" the truth. because what is simple, is made complicated because the truth is too easy and taken for granted.since i will not be able to reply to the message directly after yours due to a posting time limit, and my time to leave PC access, i will respond to the post below yours with this:to debate to win based on assumptions that no scientist would ever chance calling anything but "tentative" based on current observations within limits yet limited, to being called an unproven "theory" for the sake of continuance of the field of exploring the beginning of all things, is a foolish endeavor that only promotes your own ignorance in a field that promotes string theory and other now popular but just as science fiction as string theory, all for the sake of looking for the answer to the question that all of current science says: what did the universe look like in the "location' of space time known as T=0.if you didn't understand that understand this: to be mocked by ignorant people who believe themselves smarter than they are makes a fool feel less foolish.i would hope in the future there are at least some that do come to this site to sort out and document potentials that can be explored by logic and observation, via testing or pure observation of already tested links to further science in its goal of understanding what it is, to exist.my time is done, and i go to visit my father in the hospital (heart attack, he's doing fine tho)i don't mind being called a fool, and i wish i time to argue with you (30 min limit kills debate potential) because i would so like to see you "prove" your statements.

---

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

you can't run a test other than logic in which to observe the origin of all things.you can discover how some mechanism's work. but your math your using to model the universe is based WAY to much on assumptions that cannot be proven.when i explored origin i threw the assumptions out and followed definates. the most definite of science is a science "law" which can be expanded, but are not ever completely incorrect.the greatest proof of what I've shown you is in the observation of those laws. existing is a definite assumption. to question that you exist and are existing within "existence" is DEFINATE.existence had to "be" before anything that did not exist that "does exist" now, COULD be.all in the universe has common themes. hydrogen, nitrogen, gravity, atoms, strong force etc etc. and all those forces work in a decidable fashion, that if they did not cooperate in a form in which the abilities of each is limited, they would corrupt each other and be chaos. this is called "balance". these observations im telling you were discovered by the tests of science, in that the "natural order" is exactly that...ORDER.now also..does different stages of intelligence exist..from trees, to microbes..to mitochondria..to directing cells of DNA. and finally..for what men can find..the greatest of "directing forces" or intelligence..is the human brain. unfortunately..it is so swelled in the heads of men..that they believe the buck stops there. but as per natures "design", so also if the mold strays true as all observation has shown..there is even a greater intelligence than ours. and the easiest to see is the greatest of them all. this law:by ALL tests or observations NO where will you find, that anything that exists will become greater of itself, with NO outside variables. WITHOUT direction.and that is exactly what all science has shown us to date, is that T=0 is inevitable by all acceptable models within even the least of set unproven assumptions to model the test data. meaning: that in the beginning, THE EXISTENCE that was..existed singularly (all energy that is at all, all that is or could become , existed within itself , of itself.NOW ..we KNOW it became more complicated..we are here..thats proof..and we wasn't always here..thats also proven..so BECAUSE things have evolved, we MUST ask..from whence came the first evolution?science has two options here. chance. or direction. direction meaning God...ands chance meaning existence is a pointless thing to even be at all..since it neither has a point or a purpose but is a random act of forces that just "happen" to "exist" for no reason at all.now..since science is VERY want to push the "chance" scenario, you now have to explain to the entire world what i have been asking you all along:how can a single entity, with no outside variables, NO outside interactions, become more complex without direction?you'll never find it. not in nature, not in anything but a directed consequence, or INTERACTIONS with outside forces before any complexity can be found, so also, will you find that more things which are simple, become more complex by there interactions, with directing forces of intelligence within their forms. (DNA etc).to Percy: i never came to this site to boggle you with bullshit. i came to this site because i believed that people are smart enough to see what everyone so wants to ignore in the science community: that we do not exist without a reason. and the discoveries that i had observed, i wish to give to you people too think out.this is not a game. you think this is just afternoon fun to argue and test debate skills on a controversial subject so you can mark your "wins" on your bedpost? do you have any idea at all how important this topic is? to the world? to a people? to science? can you AFFFORD to get this one wrong? for the sake of science and truth? or for the sake of potentially loosing your eternal soul? dont you WANT to know the TRUTH? if your SO sure of it.then show me something that becomes more complex with ZERO to interact with..and ZERO direction.

---

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