The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

"Anything you know about physics is also known to physicists."But they never mention the contradiction factor in their preamble. Namely that the universe is finite, thus they always talk about a post-universe scenario only - which is fine - if they said that in their preamble. Its an indispencible factor.And this would mean, the word ORIGIN and BEGINNING has to be taken out from that premise.Secondly, an external impact would have to be considered with the BBT. An explosion is triggered by an external factor, because if there was an internal reason, then this would violate the BEGINNING factor again. The latter is my main problem with the BBT.In contrast, Genesis dispences with this problem by its up-front preamble the universe is finite, and that there was a source factor of its occurence: IN THE BEGINNING GOD [Gen/1/1]. This does not require that anyone arbitrarilly accept the Creator premise, but that it is logical, imperical and non-negotiable the status of the universe being discussed be given, along with a source factor where origin and beginning is addressed. The BBT begins in a belated mid-point, with no acknowledgement of it's deficiency here.I find it amazing an ancient document like Genesis is the first introduction of the FINITE factor, and in specific context of the universe origins, and that all which is given is the B-Z, the A factor being barred and elusive: this has held today with the best of state of art science. It is amazing it is not acknowledged by atheist scientists as being so, namely the two most fulcrum factors of the universe origins is only ratified by Genesis.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

An expansion = an explosion. Al beit somewhat slower. The same criteria applies: what triggered it - an internal or external factor? Caution: your about to violate the finite factor. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

So be it, zippy. But if your response is not admn, then I am proposing that there is a world of difference between a finite and infinite universe. Criterias change dramatically, and thus this factor pivotally applies to the BBT and the question of what problems relate to it.Note my problem is not with a post BB premise, only that it is presented as a beginning of itself, as opposed the result of an indetermnable cause. Original expansions of itself negate all scientific reasonings. An external impact is thus non-negotiable here, and this cannot come from a point outside of the universe - this would again violate the finite premise. The cold/hot, and other such variances of positive/negative properties also dont apply, being negated by most physicists.I fully subscribe that even with some deficiencies, the BB is the best we've got: a greasy, brylcream deduction of something expanding this way - and therefore it must have come from that-away?!

I fully concur. Yours is an honest and logics acknowledged response. The only additive I can make, is that by subsequence, when all other knowns are discarded, we are left with only two alternatives: Goddidit, or else we're back to your own premise - it remains in limbo. Yet this clearly signifies a deficiency with the BBT - the subject of this thread. Not bad for a 50/50 equal odds by Genesis!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Then you have to define your notion of Finite. After all, we have never seen something which is complex, appearing of itself. This includes pineapples and automobiles.

quote:

---

I think time is a problem with the big bang in that the expansion is happening faster than lights speed and the galaxies themselves are said not to actually be moving.

---

I've heard of time slowing down with temperatures, so it can increase. However, it is space which is expanding, and space is NOT older than light [though Hawkins proposes space and time are originated at the same time], light being a promidial factor and not the result of energy and heat, as is posited. We know this by the velosity of light being transcendent of its energy source - as with a torch light velosity which cannot possibly be the result of its 2 AA bateries. Here, photons do not explain the sum total of light, nor can the sun produce light if it was not already pre-existant of the stars - as in its essential form.So there can be a premise for a pre-star light or pre-sun light. The latter gives cause to consider that light is more than what we see, and may account for the elusive factor which triggered the BB or the universe: all the data could have been contained in light as a directive program, and all that resulted from the BB could be thus explained to a more forward treshold of understanding than its lingering current inexplicability.My gut feeling is, the space is created by a phenomenon not unlike a battle ship off-loading tanks, by first making a platform for the tanks to move on water onto the shore. If cells in the body can create the skeletal structure to contain the entire body - why not to make space to contain the universal bodies?I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion. By reductionism, an explosion is an expansion, with a higher time factor only.

The seed factor is absolutely not negotiable and underlies all things. We find that even ToE's speciation does not work w/o the seed factor, and the only premise ToE can prove itself. Contrastingly, all repro is via the seed, including dna and skeletal imprints - and this process functions w/o the ToE factors, bypassing the millions of years time factor and all else.Here, my ponderings asks, is it possible there is a sort of universal manufacturing basement, such as another dimension, which spits out seeds, which in turn become stars and all other things? This says, the directives within particles would have different directive programs embedded in its micro wirings - because essentially, all particles have the same base material, thus they must contain seperate wirings/programs to become different products. The only other alternative is an external impact, independent of the physical material seen in the universe.

OK. Now use some clarity and let me know specifically what you are referring to also.

quote:

---

So then all waves are "promidial factors" that are "transcendent" of the source. Why do you keep repeating such fallacies even when corrected?

---

Waves are inert, their function being trasportation of force particles only.

quote:

---

So there can be a premise for a pre-star light or pre-sun light

​

And pre-waves designed for re-heating my leftover lunch. It just doesnt have the same ring to it as light being transcendent and thus confirming your Biblical interpretations.

---

Stars cannot produce light if it was not pre-existent. Light would be a factor in the BB billions of years before stars formed.

quote:

---

The latter gives cause to consider that light is more than what we see, and may account for the elusive factor which triggered the BB or the universe: all the data could have been contained in light as a directive program

​

Nope. Warming food is the key here IamJoseph, prove I am wrong.

---

Warming, is part of a process. The BBT explosion obviously was not a random one - the result says so, namely trillions of complex products and processes were set in motion - silimultainiously too, which negates the notion of 'by accumulative' means. Even time becomes a superfluous item here.

quote:

---

I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion. By reductionism, an explosion is an expansion, with a higher time factor only.

​

Place an icecube on a plate, with a higher time factor it explodes!

---

Slow down the film, and you get a slow expansion. The applied term explosion is relative here.

quote:

---

We find that even ToE's speciation does not work w/o the seed factor

​

Asexual reproduction refutes you until you provide a working definition of "seed". Thanks for bringing this up once again, this time in a Big Bang topic no less.

---

No, it does not. Asexual = a subjective view. There is a seed even in inorganic matter. Nothing happends without the seed, which contains the data to continue. The principle is exactly the same in a life form repro.

quote:

---

Here, my ponderings asks, is it possible there is a sort of universal manufacturing basement, such as another dimension, which spits out seeds, which in turn become stars and all other things?

​

There is no evidence that stars need seeds to form. There is no evidence of formed stars containing seeds. There is no evidence of "all other things" needing or having seeds. There is evidence of gravity however and the current theories do just fine in explaining our universe.

---

I used the term, ponderings, and asked a question there. Of course a star needs a seed factor, and an incubating period. Some do not become stars and dont reach a critical maturity. Everything cyclical and repeatable inhabits a seed.

quote:

---

all particles have the same base material, thus they must contain seperate wirings/programs to become different products.

​

The laws of physics. No programs or wires required.

---

The laws are explanations of a working system only. Like a car manual.My issue with the BB, and what are its problems, is either there is an external impact here, or the theory fails in actuality. And this is based on the universe being finite. I see the BBT still prevailing only for want of another, more logical premise, which has not happened as yet - but there is widespread disastisfaction with it, and it does not answer any pivotal questions, ending only in a brick wall - the surest indication it is wrong.The external impact, from any logical view, would also have to be continuous, not only at one BB instant. The BB posits a saturation point was reached of one particle/cell [?], but there is nowhere those componenets could come from, and the premise of an expansion [or explosion] is assumed as natural, when it applies only to one instant 15 B years ago, and at one point only: who gave the directive of an explosion, and where did this phenomenon arise from? Where did the componenets within the first particle come from? Where did the directives to form complex processes and products come from?The answer is given as NATURE, or that it just happened - this is where science ceases to exist as an explanation, and becomes slight of hand casino science. I see no alternative to an external, independent impact here - the higher logical assumption. Sorry if it offends that it alligns with any theology - but it is also a logical, scientific conclusion to boot - and should be equally responded to in a scientific mode.Should I assume you see no irregularities with the BBT?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Size is relative and does not matter. The only factor which impacts is if the first entity was a true 'one' [singular; indivisible; irreducible]. This is encumbent if a finite realm is the preamble.There cannot be any action with one - because there was nothing yet to interact with. This says the universe did not begin with one but with a minimal duality construct and also an external, independent and precedent force applying. The precedent control factor is required because the dual entities have to be programmed to ID and interact with each other.This can be seen in any reductionist example one wants to nominate: a star, a pineapple or a car - these cannot interact with each other to produce the result they do; and pre- and parallel universes not only violate this universe's finitae factor, but it does not resolve the issue - it only pushes the goal post further up.At the first point there was no enivornment, energy, light, space, math, science or time. Else the finite factor becomes violated.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1. How is this a problem for the Big Bang model?

​

2. Why does the thing that our universe interacted with have to be intelligent?

---

Because we are talking emperically, not theologically, right? And science is laws, as we see the entire universe rests on majestic laws throughout - it was either created in wisdom or became such on its own [only two possibilities apply].We know that an action results only via an interaction - whch says a true pristine ONE cannot create an action. Thus, if the BBT is based on a ONE singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, with nothing else yet existing at the initiation point - it cannot expand or go BOOM! No action can occur here.This leaves the only plausable alternative of a duality construct. Consider the first human or the frst zebra: the first example would have to be a positive [male]/negative [female] duality. The situation at the BB point is even more critical: there was no enviornemnt yet.Admittedly, this scenario is based on an absolutely fnite universe - a pivital factor most neo scientists run far from - they either ignore this or produce novel manipulations around it.

quote:

---

Well, the problem with so much heat confined in so little ...volume??

---

Once, the universe and all its contents never exsted. Preamble # 1.In a finite realm there was yet no heat [which is the result of an interaction], or the principle of 'confinement' [infers more than one], nor the phenomenon of 'little' [relative to what?], nor volume [measured against what?].

quote:

---

Since the known "laws of physics" do not apply neither do your conclusions.

---

This is what I referred to as escapist, novel manipulation; it is senseless and has no reasoning behind it - it cannot refer to majestic laws because it is not specifically conducive to anything as its resultant subsequence.If the laws of physics break down [which I agree with, because laws need a law maker; or they never existed once - else we would not measure the universe's life span, and had to be introduced as laws], then we can start at the point when laws did kick in. Here, we still cannot condone a ONE by itself as conducive to any action whatsoever. An external impact, pre-universe, must be at the helm to triger an action. There is no scientific alternative to this factor.A better, scientific scenario:1. All matter and contents of the universe as we know it was ushered simultainiously. Nothing new applies - because there was nowhere else for anything knew to come from - now or then. At this point no laws [science] yet existed. Everything was one indecipherable mush; nothing was seperate or seperated to have its own identity: how could they w/o laws? Here, size also does not factor in - because size is relative and dependent on an observer - both never existed yet.2. Laws were enacted. Before this time, there was no 2 or 2+2 = 4; nor H or H20 - water never yet existed. Because no laws yet existed. The laws gave specific attributes to the mush [matter]. Therein, and only therefter, a seperation or action could occur, specific to the laws embedded in the mush.3. What was the first action, or the first thing seperated? This is LIGHT; it was seperated from the void [mush]. Light is the primodial force and independent of star light: stars cannot produce light unless light pre-existed the stars. Light is the anticipatory factor for everything, including life and stars, and a direct result of laws [aka a command]. It does appear a correct protocol.4. What should be listed after light - which other products? This becomes a mute point because it will account for trillions of actions. What is relevant for humans is what came next relative to humans. Namely what came next for earth - the subject for us. These should include those actions which anticipate life; what can these be? How about a focusing on this solar system, namely the critical incline of the earth relative to our sun, such as the critical seperation of DAY and NIGHT? How about getting closer to the earth now, because its about anticipation of life - like the seperation of water from land, to cater to a host of life forms which will appear? What happens when we extend this thread - we find the first life form being vegetation - which is again anticipatory to all life forms fortheir sustainence.It is a slight of hand casino science which prefers to talk science, while also accepting a foundation based on a scienceless premise. If there was no laws or laws are deemed to emerge out of nothing - then there cannot be anything called science.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Apparently you are wrong from A-Z. Not knowing when laws kicked in or became applicable does not vindicate your stance!

quote:

---

New things can always be. Just because science [rules not laws] hasn't always been or will be, doesn't mean that everything is past our knowledge. The main tree of thought branches into many observers: each can view [know] what there is. Relative size makes for a poor measurement.

---

You said it, but you did not show how this is possible. In a finite realm, new things cannot emerge. What is credible instead, is that the laws embedded in the same stuff is able to evolve into percieved new things, because of the program which fosters this extension - this is varied from your statement of new. There is nowhere else for new to come from - consider the first point of the universe if you will: there is no 'somewhere else'.Is a song new - or that its notes were always dangling within the universe? The situation is like a compounded permutation, as in a lotto which has billions of possibilities with just 10 digits; all potentials are bound up in the same realm. One can see this as anticipatory programmed, catering for all future possibilities. Gun Powder, Newton's laws of motion and MCSq are not new - they are percieved newly as we advance in our knowledge quotient; these existed from the beginning of the first point, with nowhere else to come from. New violates the finite factor.