Big Bang Critics

Silas would better answer this. I hypothesize:
1) The 'expanding universe' evidence supports singularity ... a central core of expansion (if that is what you're getting at).
2) Parsimony exists in singularity of expansion (i.e., it's easier to construe)
3) The Creation-Phenomenon begs *one set of rules*, not many.
4) Theists will construe one *Designer*
5) Etc.
(Please specify what you mean by singularity)

Ah, the *Alpha-event-of-the-alpha-event*. Time eventually *eludes* scientists (as do quarks, light, life, and metaphysics)
(I’ll not respond again as my specialty is not astrophysics. I do *wish*, however, that great scientists (like Silas) would provide disclaimers (as do physicians) concerning the 'bounds of their big-bang knowledge')

Very true. But it doesn't stop us from trying to understand.

According to GR, the answers are nothing and nothing. The universe isn't so much getting bigger, just the distance between points is increasing. Distance is a strangly maleable concept in GR.

In the first seconds after the Big Bang, there was no matter, scientists suspect. Just energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, particles of regular matter and antimatter were formed in almost equal amounts

Not a chanceMass is a property of matter AND energy. Mass is what gravity couples to, it is what curves space. In Relativity we call it stress-energy just to be obtuse.Matter is the name we give to the excitations of a specific type of quantum energy field: fermionic fields give rise to fermions. They tend to have mass, but not very much. Examples are quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc.Solid stuff (technical term) is made up of both matter fermions and "force" bosons. The mass of solid stuff consists of the mass of the actual matter fermions (tiny) and the effective mass of all of the binding energy holding the solid stuff together (huge). About 0.1% of the mass of a proton comes from the mass of the three matter fermions (quarks) making up the proton.To say you can convert matter to energy is a little misleading. You can convert a pair of fermions into a pair of photons. Fermions have mass, photons do not. So in a sense you have convereted matter to energy, but what you have really done is exchange a pair of particles called matter for a different pair of particles which aren't called matter!!

I think this comes back to cavedivers distinction between fermionic mass and bosonic mass. Photons have no rest mass (which I assume means fermionic mass). They do however have momentum, which is related to mass, so I don't think it's true to say that they have no mass whatsoever.

Off the top of my head, photons travel at c. This demands that they have zero rest mass as long as the relativistic equations are correct (and I've not heard of any evidence that contradicts them, but if there is I'll stand corrected). It's not possible for anything to travel at c if it doesn't have zero rest mass, from a relativistic point of view.

The reason I mentioned terminology is that your statement, "Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically," is impossibly vague. By physical do you mean anything that exists, or only anything physical like an anvil? By mass do you mean rest mass or energy mass?If I were to seek correct interpretations of your statement, one would be, "Everything physical (i.e., made up of particles) has a rest mass," and the other would be, "Everything that exists has an energy mass."

What I was actually replying to was your claim that "Everything physical has mass or it does not exist physically." I pointed out that it was impossibly vague, and it still isn't clear what you were trying to say.

So you have found a specific error with aspects of the big bang theory? Which points of evidence do you dispute?