Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

     The discussion was not organised to avoid your great question - as far as I can remember the discussion existed much before you tried to poison all the threads ... with your personal problems with the aliens. BTW this thread also is not about the aliens. The question here is whether one of the fake explanations of the Big Bang 'theory' is better than the remaining fake explanations - where do you see any aliens in the question?

"the aliens"? What aliens? Show me some, or some evidence for them.

     Never on this and on the other thread, for this is not the theme. If you are so much interested in the aliens open a brand new thread and wait for somebody to get interested in your problems.

Never on this and on the other thread, for you have none. You pulled that out of your delusional ass and now can't back it up.

     It doesn't matter - in anyway you won't have that information (if any).
     The guy here is asking whether his interpretation of the Big Bang 'theory' is correct or not - why don't you answer
him or you prefer to **** up this thread as well.

And that doesn't matter because I haven't made any claims regarding it. You did claim that there was some sort of creator in the form of a "personal" race of hybrid 45%/30%/25% invisible alien/ILF/god-thingies-of-the-gaps. Burden of proof is on those making the claim. You made the claim. Your evidence is?

     It matters and even how. This thread here is not about your personal problems with the hypothesis of the ILF in the assumptions of the Big Bang. Nothing in the theme here suggests anything of the kind. The guy here is asking whether the Big Bang could be a result of annihilation of matter, rather than reverse explosion of Singularity - where do you see your question in that issue?

Doesn't matter in your response to me because I have made no claims regarding it. Pure straw man fallacy, with a dash of non sequitur, hand-waving, pseudoscientific technobabble and red herring. You say that some sort of deranged hybrid hypothesis of alien ILFs, a god and the Big Bang account for the universe, then you try to tear apart you own "probably" 25%. OK. Show us some evidence. We've been waiting a loooooooong time...but you got nuffin', homie.

     No. I am not saying that. You may try again to formulate more correctly what the claim actually was.
     It is nothing of the kind.
You were told more than once that you will not be given any other info on the theme - what more do you want to hear. If you are so interested - there is public space. You may go and search there (if you know how and what to search).
     The problem with you is that you are one-way broadcasting ... without any feedback. You were told that this thread is not about your personal problems with the aliens - and you continue poisoning it with the same question.

By all means, please clarify my misunderstanding of this:

You keep saying "the aliens" as if we all knew which aliens you were talking about, as if we all agreed they even existed. Which aliens? Show us. Show us which aliens are "the aliens."

     Your misunderstanding is that you accept all these hypothetical probabilities as some events that have actually happened. These are possible scenarios - assumptions for the theory that cannot be proved by the theory itself (no matter whether this concerns the Big Bang, God or other ILFs, etc). The assumptions have to be verified & validated in some other way ... and in this case they can't. So there is reasonable ground to believe that they may be unknowable, but as a minimum they are unknown.
     In case you claim, for example, that the Universe has been created by the Big Bang 'theory', you will have to prove with something outside and uncorrelated to the Big Bang that: 1. The Universe has not always existed; 2. The Big Bang has the capacity to create 3D space out of zero-D space; 3. The Big Bang can compile, or take out, or find the Master Plan (with all the information), required for the structuring of the Universe; 4. No form of intelligence has existed in the Universe onto the moment of launching the Big Bang; 5. All that Infinite Concepts can exist in the real world as physical interpretations and can 'appear all of a sudden and out of nowhere', etc.
     Pay attention that for the verification & validation of the assumptions one cannot use anything that has been used subsequently in the theory (like red shift, CMB, etc.). One cannot claim creation on the grounds of the red shift and after that use that very same red shift as justification of the inferred theory.

Do we have someone here who understands the math well enough to say why the big bang has to be a single point just because black holes are ? Why couldnt the universe have formed everywhere and lumped together . I know this would solve some problems, but create others .

My understanding is that all of the crap you just posted is a strawman fallacy. I've not made the claims you attribute to me. My only claim, and I post this for the umpteenth time, since you're in constant denial, is that you have **** all evidence for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps that magically teleports instructions for the earth from billions of years ago. All you have to do to refute my claim is to provide evidence for yours. Simples!!!!!

     You may ask Prof. Steven Hawking about that - he is the mastermind of the Singularity.

There is ample scientific evidence to support the Big Bang Theory, and the associated cosmological theories regarding the evolution of the universe we inhabit. I say evolution of the universe not creation of it because none of these theories even purport to explain where the energy released in the big bang came from, or how it all started. Scientists naturally speculate on various possibilities, but none can be confirmed. Indeed it is not clear that science based on verifiable theory and observation can provide an answer. The best we can do is speculate on possibilities that are compatible with the laws of physics as we know them now.

All of this proceeded in stages as, based on observations of the heavens, men first assumed the stars they could see were spots or objects on "celestial spheres" centered on the earth and orbiting it at near constant speed. Later observations identified the variations of planetary motion (Venus, & Mars most prominently) from the distant stars, but even then most assumed they and our sun orbited the earth in circular orbits. Subsequent observations aided by then fast developing telescopes and theories put forward by Copernicus and Galileo confirmed that the earth itself is but one of a number of planets orbiting the sun. Newton's laws of motion and later work and observations by Kepler demonstrated that planetary orbits in our solar system are elliptical, not circular.

Even then the age of the universe was both unknown and badly underestimated by most scientists. The early developments of biology, ideas about evolution, and the observations of early geologists in the 19th century combined to provide better understandings of the formation of earth's land massses, mountains and the many changes that have occurred in the planet’s evolution. The discovery of sea shells in the soils of mountains in Scotland led early geologists to speculate that the earth was billions of years old and not the thousands that had previously been assumed. Even in the late 19th century one of the world’s most prominent physicists, (William Townsend Lord Kelvin) resisted this, claiming the sun could not possibly last that long based on then known sources for its thermal energy and radiation.

The next century saw a rapidly growing understanding of physics, biology , chemistry and geology, with theories in each growing and becoming more self-consistent; and increasing direct observations that confirmed them; all of which indicated that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, and the universe many more. Key elements of this understanding included better understanding of the nuclear structures of the various chemical elements; the discovery of nuclear radiation in some elements and isotopes; and an understanding of the various decay patterns they undergo and the rates over which these decays proceed over time. The observed relative abundance of various radioactive elements and their decay daughters on earth, together with their known decay rates gave us reliable estimates for the age of the earth that were increasingly consistent with the speculations of early geologists. Einstein's relativity theory; the work of nuclear physicists and precise observation of the radiation patterns of the sun and stars confirmed the real source of their energy, the fusion of hydrogen and even heavier elements and the attendant release of nuclear energy in huge amounts compared to the potential of the chemical & gravitational processes previously assumed.

Meanwhile astronomers and cosmologists developed theories for the likely organization of the universe and its continuing evolution. The discovery that our own galaxy, the Milky Way is but one of billions more like it, and evolving theories about star formation and destruction, based on observed supernova explosions and white dwarfs , gave rise to new speculations about the creation of solar systems that continues today. Hubble’s observation of the measurable Doppler “red shift” in all stars confirmed both the continuing expansion of our universe and the unperceived curvature of space. This was also confirmed with the confirmation of Einstein’s General Relativity theory, which, apart from the famous cosmological constant, has also been since confirmed. Together these led to speculations about a “Big Bang” origin (if that is the right word for it). One of the key elements in that theory and the known laws of physics is that there should be detectable omnidirectional background microwave radiation remaining from that explosion. It was indeed discovered by some Bell Labs physicists over three decades ago. All things considered, that’s a pretty reliable theory.

Like all scientific theories it is subject to change and revision based on observed data that conflicts with its predictions. . Harold has provided us no such data. It is also used by some to imply certainty about the actual origin of our existence that are well beyond the reach of the theory and indeed the limits of science. There are loonies on both sides of these issues

Actually he was wrong . He did ground breaking work but others have found errors .

Indeed, but the sad thing is that so many people here don't care about evidence. They prefer knee-jerk contrarian rhetoric.

In fact "singularity" is simply a term of art used by mathematicians to refer to the point about which the value of a mathematical function becomes anymptotically large without limit - an infinity in less precise language. The mathematical definition of a singularity is something about which nothaing can be said - totally undefined.

Points in the mathematical sense have no dimension. I suspect that black holes do.

You'll have to use the term "stochastic" 9 or 11 times to get Herod's interest...