Universe Race

You are lousy at understanding analogies (Or may be you are just being intentionally dificult?).Let me help. The north-south direction in the globe is an analogy for the time direction in the four-dimensional universe. Moving from the north southward is an analogy for time going by. As you move southward things change (there is the movement you asked about). One of the things that change as you move southward is the radius of the other dimension(s) (the ones orthogonal to the north-south (time) direction). That's the analogy for the expansion of the universe. There. I hope that helped.

No, that's what you've been telling us. That's your understanding of the Big Bang. we've been telling you that this is not the right way to look at it. We've been telling you that many of your questions are ill posed. for instance, you said These words seem to imply that you believe that the Big Bang theory assumes that there was a period of no expanssion preciding the expansion, and that all of a suden, for no reason, the thing started expanding by it self. That's the wrong way to look at it.You keep asking what happened before the expansion, but there was no before the expansion for anything to happen there. that's where the Earth's northpole analogy comes handy. There is no place northward from the northpole for anything to happen there. The question "what causes the expansion of the Big Bang" makes as much sense as the question "how do I go northward from the northpole".The north pole is simply the starting point of our system of coordinates. Note that that does not mean that the northpole is the begining of the Earth.

or the question makes no sense

No, it is not safe to say that. Exactly the oposite. It was expandingEdited by fallacycop, : got to fix them boxes

The singularity at t=0 is simply an statement of our ignorance. A gap in our scientific knowlege, if you will. Knowlege gaps are not safe places for us to stick our little gods, because that gap might get filled some day, and then 'poof', there goes your little god (its known to happen before to many little gods). A great GOD though, doesn't need any gaps in scientific knowlege. in order to exist.You see, that's the thing. Nobody is saying that people should stop believing in gods because of the Big Bang theory. Both things may turn out to be true, since they are not intrinsically contradictory.
But don't go looking for reasons to believe in god inside cosmological theories. You won't find those reasons there.And please don't say things likeIt is not ridiculous to believe in a universe without a creator. It is not ridiculous to believe in a creator either. The answer to the is-there-a-creator question is not an obvious one, and nobody should be ridiculed for choosing to believe in either way.

There was no change. The expanssion was the initial state of the universe (Within the Big Bang model).ICANT, you need to understand that the Big Bang (or any other scientific model for that matter) does not rule out the possibility of a creator. But it cannot be used as evidence for a creator either. The Is-There-A-Creator question cannot be answered through science. It is a theological question.Science can be used to rule out some creation stories (For instance, we know there was no such thing as Adam or Eve or a global flood), but it cannot be used to rule out a creator all together.

Nothing tavels fater then the speed of light within the Big Bang theory (with or without inflation). Space itself is expanding. There is no need for fudge factors or special exceptions. If you don't understand how that can be, may it's because (as you have amplely demonstrated in that thread) you are not qualified to understand it. Sorry.

Does that mean that you refuse to entertain the possibility that dark matter may be real after all?I can only assume that you must have an alternate explanation for what is seen in those pictures. Humor us...

Good for inflation then.That IS how science is supposed to work. We have a model that explains a lot of things -- good. But it has problems too. Someone comes up with an improvement for the model that fixes some of the problems and still explains a lot of things -- even better.Science doesn't get stuck with the old model just because someone said so 20 or 30 years ago. It progresses. getting stuck with old ideas that don't work anymore is more ike how religions work.

How so???If I don't know and I say I don't know, I'm making a truthfull statement.If I don't know and I say Goddidit, I'm just making things up.

Is that supposed to mean anything? To me it sounds like "yadda-yadda-yadda". -- A sure sign that you have no idea what you're talking about...

Oh! So when you say "do the math" you actually mean "don't do it".That's "Interesting"

Not entirely correct. A better description would be that the star speed are almost the same, as can be seen here, which means that galaxies don't spin like solid bodies

I'm glad you asked. The answer is no.
Now that we cleared that up may be we can star talking about the actual BBT?

Just a taste.Your model is based on the idea of an explosion expanding into an pre-existing flat static space.That explosion would have to have a center and, unless we happened to be at the center of the explosion, we ought to see different things depending on the direction of the space we chose to look at. There's no reason we should expect to be at the center of the universe.Your model cannot explain the cosmic microwave background.Your model is not consistent with General Relativity.