< Babies, planets, stars and galaxies do not come from nothing but they form from specific components.

Balderdash!

Things are as they are, not because they require what they have, but because they were furnished with what was available, and they adapt to survive -- in spite of absent components. Specifics? Life, like geology, like cosmology, is only as specific as change -- evolution -- requires.

Nothing we can observe in the world around us 'popped' into existence from 'nothing'. No plant or animal can claim its existence due to a 'big bang approach'.



This is why it seems preposterous to assume the whole universe can pop into existence - when nothing in the universe can do the same thing.

Precisely - which is why primordial matter can never have existed in the first place. There would be no outside stimuli or interaction to cause any change in its 'blob' condition.





Whoa, slow down there, hombre!

I stated that the term ‘Universe’, by definition, is everything. There is no ‘outside’. By no means should this be construed to imply we know all that the Universe is composed of. We have ideas, called the periodic chart of elements, but are elements all there are? Of course not. We also have the subatomics, such as the bosons of gamma, gluon, and graviton; the leptons of neutrinos, free-floating electrons, muons, tau, the nus, and the upsilons; quarks; quark and lepton composites; the light, bland, and often charmed mesons; the baryons; supersymmetric particles -- and we’re still guessing at many of these, and there are new ones that are predicted, and yet to be discovered. What true properties will they hold?

And this is NOT the entire Universe, Tech1. This is simply the planet Earth, a mote of dust trapped within the shield of the Sun’s heliosphere. What particles are we missing? What cannot get to us through the Solar bow shock? What elements? What properties of space and time elude us, here in our cradled existence?

Perhaps the perturber, the catalyst for the Big Bang is here with us, but so disbursed we can never recognize it.

Perhaps not.

For how can the primordial matter change if it is the only thing in the universe at this moment?

Because it is the only thing supposed. What is this ‘primordial matter’ (proto-matter) made up of?

This is the ‘material realm’ of things. This is what makes stuff, stuff.

It has been shown that matter -- any matter -- is capable of self-organization. Given time (provided time is real), any and all things change -- including proto-matter. The Greeks may have been so right to name the first god Chaos. The thunderous beginnings of the Golden Age of the Universe could well be determined as the birth of all things. Also, the ancient Greeks had no difficulty accepting a period of null-time, and in the Golden Age, everything lasted forever -- until the birth of Time.
;^)

Well, I think it’s kinda neat.

Assuming (big word to use for the start of everything) the dialectical reality of proto-matter, acted upon by its own restructuring, this subtle, but cataclysmic, change could take on the assumed identity of destructive forces, combining to form new structures within the cosmic egg of the Universe. If you consider the resultant Universe as the structure formed by the evolution of chaos (proto-matter) into order (realized/unrealized elements), the supposed evolution of the Universe through a Big Bang event makes perfect sense.

But why stop there? An interesting page.

Primordial matter can't expand without reason.

So it had a reason. We just haven’t figured it out yet.

Is not the big bang really a theistical theory?



Is it based no longer upon science and evidence but upon faith and belief?





Of course. Faith and belief drive us forward. Without these, there would be no theories about anything.

No seriously...my site exists to help offset the glaring inequitable proposition of a big bang 'origins to the universe'.



I have nothing personal against big bang cosmologists at all. However science constantly critiques itself to get to greater and greater truths. My critique of the big bang is part of the process.

With as many flaws as the bang has - this is pretty easy pickins'. But the big bang's success is due the small town analogy - much like the hundred guys in a two-girl town - they aren't apt to be too picky and have very little selection.





He-he... Of course there are errors. If there weren’t, Big Bang would be a proven fact, not a theory.

And how many ‘beginning’ theories do we have out there vying for pole position? Two main ones. Trailing off in the distance are about two or three others. Over the horizon, a few more.

Yes, I agree to a point. But to say that things can go faster than light in the formation process - means that light-speed IS variable - and under certain conditions has no limit. This then makes all calculations regarding red shift, distances of stars, etc...worthless. Because we can say that light is really traveling faster than the assigned speed.

Yes, and no.

Light-speed is not variable. The properties of matter surrounding light is. We had different properties at the dawn of time. These properties allowed matter, and light, to propagate outward in a ‘seemingly’ FTL expansion. In reality, light-speed, relative to the surrounding properties, is constant.

Revisions this drastic - really require a whole new theory to accommodate them.

I think that’s what they’re working on. Anyway, we all know that no new ideas ever evolve if the same brains are retained to supply them as were used for the initial ideas.

As for your Evidence page, I found it to be cleverly worded.



Cleverly worded as in deceptive? Or cleverly worded as in insightful? ;-)





BTW, I do like the Vortex idea, but at the moment, I remain stuck with what’s handed me, and that’s still Big Bang. Perhaps England is right, and everyone really should drive on the left side -- but in my home town, I ain’t gonna be the first to try it out.
;^)

Keep swingin’ out there, Tech1,
Dan