I see no advantqage with any cosmological theory of beginnings in the scientific literature. All the theories are unable to explain the construction of the universe as now measured.
What? That's all they do. I thought you were going to say that they don't explain how it began. They definitely explain the current state of the universe as it is now measured, or else we wouldn't use them.
Also, do you actually know what these theories say about the universe?
What came first... (a) the cosmos...or (b) the laws that govern it?
When it comes to the universe as a whole time isn't that simple or even applicable. I can explain if you wish.
At the moment of beginning were there any laws of physics that prevented the transmission of light? If so where did the law against it come from?
The Bible says that, God said; "Let there be light." The phrase, "let there be light" expresses God's desire that light be free of any resistance to it. In consequence of this it can be expected that in adherence to this command "Let there be..." there existed at that time, NO RESISTANCE to the transmission of light.
In big bang cosmology it is also proposed that, the laws of physics now operating, didn't apply at the 'initial' moment of beginning. Thus, no law existed to limit the speed of light.
I think the use of the word "law" in the phrase, laws of physics, might be conveying something to you that isn't intended.
There isn't some law preventing light from being transmitted in the early universe, it is simply that the arrangement of matter was such that, being so hot and dense, matter simply instantly reabsorbed any photons which were emitted.
If by this you mean that mankind can measure many things accurately and gather the data correctly...then I agree. But, the theories about "how" things came about are full of holes. I challenge you to scientifically explain and verify the validity of any of them. I'm no scientist but I'm no fool either. For example "you can't show me a picture of clouds in space and say "here is were stars are being formed" and think I'm dumb enough to believe it.
What if I showed you an mpeg file of the cloud actually collapsing and the nuclear furnace bursting into life, such as LkHa 101 in Perseus? We've seen their birth in real time from molecular clouds. And what is with the "dumb enough" comment, it's not like us cosmologists are actively trying to fool you.
Somewhat. I doubt you have any shocking revelations. But, hey! I might be wrong.
Depends, how much of the subject have you actually read? Do you know about Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity?
Explain. Thank you.
Time is simply a direction within the universe and isn't absolute. Different observers will call different paths through the universe time. What's time for one observer might be an angle in space to another.
With regards to the expansion of the universe I'll paste an old post from me:
Think of the Universe as the Earth.
Each Longtitude up from the south pole to the North pole is the Universe at a given time. The South Pole is the Big Bang for Example and the North Pole is the Big Crunch.
Each Circle is the Universe at a different time.
The Universe at a given time (Each circle) gets bigger away from the South Pole. To us this looks like Inflation because we crawl up each bit of longtitude and see the circle getting bigger. In reality the Universe was always been this shape and is static.
The Circle seen here would be the Universe at its maximum size, half way between the Big Crunch and Big Bang.
As you can see, whether there is space outside the Earth or not doesn't matter when discussing this. A similar case applies to the Universe.
(I know there doesn't necessarily have to be a Big Crunch, but this is just to make the Example simpler.)
By law I mean a regulating force that governs the operation of physical constansts and which limits the operational ranges of variables.
No, it's not a regulating force nor does it limit things. The laws of physics is simply a phrase used to describe the Classical idea of various principles which underline how the world operates. They don't regulate it actively or anything, the simply describe it.
However the phrase "laws of physics" isn't really in use anymore.
The point is simple. At the moment before anything that exists, came into existence it cannot be logically supposed that there existed any governing constraints upon the not yet existing things. Unless of course you believe in a pre-existing law maker with a pre existing plan.
Before with respect to whom?
Also, as I've pointed out above the universe is more like a sphere, where North-South is time. Everywhere on the sphere matter, and the rules which go with it, exist. The sphere itself doesn't need a beginning though. There is no time "before" the rules.
The matter that absorbed the photons.
Are you proposing that all matter just popped into existence and began to interact?
Regardless, your point about absorbtion of photons as is presently observable has nothing to do with the speed of light in the distances between points of absorbtion. The primary governing law is the 'dielectric constant'.
I could go to my University right now, get the mpeg that was recorded and post a link to it here. However I know you'll just have some lame "rebuttal". Your previous post shows that you have no interest in actually listening to what I have to say. You'll just misinterpret either accidentally or purposefully. Either that or show that theories which have withstood testing for a century are obviously ridiculous.
Explain the natural forces that achieve the tasks you claim are being performed in "real time".
The average kinetic energy per particle is less than the escape velocity of the cloud. Standard Newtonian gravity with Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.