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

Herald,

Doing word searches on Google and looking stuff up on Wiki is not the same as understanding it. The latter takes time, study and an open mind. It doesn't appear that you have devoted any of these to this subject.

Most dynamical systems in the word involve non-linearity at some level - and therefore the possibility of chaos. Friction and viscosity intrinsically involve non-linear terms in their dynamic equations as sometines do the existence of multiple modes of motion (as in a compound pendulum or a double decker highway with common vertical supports (as Clifornia discovered after the Loma Prieta earthquake). Chos and unpredictability are the result of positive feedback in these non linear terms and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that results. Despite that, remarkable progress has been made with less than perfrct mathematical models - that's how airplanes were designed, and how we got to the moon.

I think there is no doubt that things like the big bang can occur. Astronomers have already observed super nova explosions and forming black holes. in the heavens. Indeed we now have ample evidence thst these processes are what created the heavy elements in the iniverse.

At the present time the a big bang is the best available explanation for the observed behavior of the universe, that is consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. These therories are not yet complete, and new findings and new theories to explain uncertain elements of our understanding, continue apace. That, however is not a real threat to science or our continuing investigations of the mysteries of the world we inhabit. Indeed there is a evident pattern in the steady growth of our understanding of the universe over recorded history. New questions arise as our improving ability to observe and measure processes in nature produces new data. However the development of consistent theories to explain them continues, and there is an observably logical sequence in the development of that understanding from Newtons laws to Maxwell's ewquations, relativity and quantum mechanics. Where all this may end neither you nor I know.

My impression is that in these discussions you have offered only an odd collection of mostly misinformed contradictions (or apparent contradictions), many involving merely semantical issues, or at least distorted interpretations of the words and phrases you use. Notably you have failed completely to offer any self-consistent contrary interpretation of any of the processes you have so energetically criticised.

I believe you would be better off studying some of these issues and better informing yourself of the evidence and reasoning behind some of this material. You may even find the process very satisfying.

     ... and reading the logs of the searches and misinterpreting them to infinity is also very much different from originating the searches by yourself ... in order to verify something or to make some inference.
     The logs of the personal data are infinite source of career opportunities to various retards on the net, and this story that some government is keeping some data for security purposes is fable for idiots. The government is a very relative concept and it can change (incl. its allies) tomorrow, and the opportunities to misuse with other people's personal data in one's personal gain are infinite ... and obviously irresistible to many people.

     ... and how do you know that when you cannot even focus on the theme ... of the blog here, which is not about publishing irrelevant super-personal justified by some other reasons bullshit ... to infinity.

Stochastic to infinity with misrepresentations logical stochastic fallacies to infinity irrelevant strawman to stochastic infinity. Reading your posts is like trying to communicate with a random word generator that has a minute vocabulary.

     ... 'limited size of the seed' is the term for the generator.
     You are a free man in a free world and reading the posts that you don't understand and that you are not even interested in the theme of which is not mandatory.

As long as it's not mandatory...

     What searches - I have already clear history search record in Google, and do you know why is that - because these searches are for my personal use only ... and not for the purposes of you to misuse with them and to misinterpret them to infinity. Anyway.

     The idea is not entirely bad. I was wondering whether you understand at all, for example, the title of this thread, and whether you have the competence to discuss anything related to it.

Wonder away.

     Why don't you simply answer the question: what is your background in physics and math to striving in particular on this forum here? This question here is super-specific and requires ultra-super-specific knowledge in natural sciences.

I've taken university-level physics and calculus. How about you, Professor? What ultra-super-specific metrics did you apply to arrive at your vague mish-mash of a 45%/30%/25% god/ILF/alien-thingy?

     Everything depends on what physics and what calculus. If you dispute the modalities of the predicate logic, the probability theory and the issue of consistency when making formal models one starts wondering actually what math have you learned.
     As you have such solid background in physics and math, why don't you answer to the guy here on this blog: can he annihilate matter & antimatter before the existence of Time ... for the purposes of reviving & revitalising the Big Bang 'theory' to its former glory.

Don't dodge the question again with more word salad red herrings. Quid pro quo. What's your background/training in math and science?

Scratch that question. If you had been exposed to even remedial science and math, I wouldn't have had to teach you that the international science community has been using the metric system for decades now and that natural selection doesn't mean every survivor is a predator.

You are oddly inquisitive about the credentials of others here, while at the same time you have removed all doubt about your own complete lack of understanding of the related ideas.

     No, perhaps you don't understand something - you are making the word salads of red herrings all the time ... on various blogs, incl. this one as well.
     This blog here, for example, is about whether the Big Bang could have been launched by something else than the 'reverse implosion' of the Singularity - like annihilation of matter & anti-matter, and the guy here is asking whether this hypothesis is plausible. That is the question and that is the theme.
     ... and everybody else, who is speaking outside the main theme, and commenting the mental and educational status of the opponents with or without justification is the actual Chef of all Red Herrings ... so pls., don't blame the others for your 'cooking skills'.

So show us some genuine evidence in this THREAD that discredits the Big Bang theory 75% so that you can keep believing exactly "perhaps" 25% in it.

     You were explicitly told that this thread is not about the existence & non-existence of the Big Bang. The question here is whether, if we assume that the Big Bang is possible on the grounds of the explanation of the red shift and the CMB, there could have been some other causes for the Big Bang, except for the 'reverse implosion' of the Singularity. Where do you see here existence & non-existence?

     As far as the 75% disbelief in the Big Bang 'theory' is concerned, the justification could be for example the following:
     - it is inconsistent as a theory, and it is full of contradictions with the basic laws of classical physics and classical math logic;
     - it is implausible as interpretation of the physical events, on which it claims to be based; nowhere in any physical and computer simulation lab has been shown that an explosion can create 3-D space out of 0-D space, and that anything, whatsoever can appear out of nothing and out of nowhere;
     - it is infeasible in terms of its major assumptions: Infinite Temperature; Infinite Gravitation; Launching of the Time; Existence of Temperature (no matter whether finite or infinite) without heat carrier; Existence of Gravitation (no matter whether finite or infinite) without a force carrier; running in reverse of the physical processes that it is based on.
     - inability to explain how exactly has it structured the Universe by means of random behaviour and lack of any information source;
     - missing exclusion of the other possible explanations of the red shift and the CMB - nowhere has the Big Bang theory proved that it is the only possible and plausible explanation of the red shift and the CBM.

     IMV this justification is more than enough to assign as expert estimate 75% disbelief in the Big Bang 'theory' ... without any problems. At least to me it is enough ... and actually I don't engage anybody with that.