[b1rdman]

Originally Posted by Guille maybe scientists should called the big bang the start-now theory. The TOE will be obligated to have: 1) zero-start explenation and 2) now-future explenations. (not simply especulative, but with math and physics background) But I think that the big bang IS a very hepfull theory to undesrtand how the universe is and was, and why. I also think that maybe the numbers that your all using to disprove the big bang theory are incorrect and they don't seem very reliable. I think the big bang IS a correct theor, and it has been proved: 1) theoretically (Einstein's GR) 2) Empirically (Since 1921, there have been thousands of measurements that state that the universe IS in fact growing and accelerating).

I disagree with having a zero-start.
My ToE does not account for a zero start for everything, although it does have a zero start to the universe with undeterminable time frame.

It doesn't require so much a physics background so much as a biological one.

I'm loathe to call it a ToE so much as an HoE (Hypothesis of Everything), but in sticking with the spirit of the board, my ToE does account for expansion it also includes a cessation to the expansion, after the period of accelerated expansion. Again with an undetermined time frame...although I'm guessing it will happen somewhere between 146,154,820,000 and 596,588,316,000 years from now. Probably closer to the latter number.
Let me reiterate those numbers are pure speculation at this time. And unlikely to be proveable in my life time.

[b1rdman]

Originally Posted by battybat I see from Simon Singh's recently published book - Big Bang, that the latest estimated age of the Universe (back to the Big Bang) is approx. 13 to 14 billion years. There seems to be a consensus, from looking at the more credible science sites on the internet, that the furthest detected galaxies are over 10 billion light years away from us. Assuming we can look as far in the opposite direction, this means that we can detect at least two galaxies which are 20 billion light years apart. Moreover, they were this distance apart 10 billion years ago (because of the time their light took to reach us), which means that, assuming everything was in the same place at the Big Bang, they only had 4 billion years to get that far apart. I would think that this would be impossible, as one or both of the galaxies would have to travel at several times the speed of light for billions of years for this to happen. This seems, on the face of it, to be a serious flaw in the Big Bang theory, but maybe I'm I missing some obvious explanation. Can anyone enlighten me? Battybat

I don't find this so much a flaw in BB as in time frame. The apparent contradiction doesn't address BBT at all, only the assumed age of the universe, which I've often questioned. And my questions have increased recently given recent findings where mainstream science tends to say things happened faster than thought as opposed to increasing the age of the universe as would be expected.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by b1rdman And my questions have increased recently given recent findings where mainstream science tends to say things happened faster than thought as opposed to increasing the age of the universe as would be expected.

Hi birdman,

What recent findings are you talking of here?

[b1rdman]

I believe mid summer last year they found some older galaxies that seem to point to galaxies forming within 100,000's of years after the big bang, where originally it was believed to have taken millions. There are a few others that are along those lines, but I can't recall them at the moment.

I baffles me how all the models said it happened over millions of years, yet they find proof that galaxies existed earlier than expected and they bumped the speed at which they formed up rather the moment of beginning back. I could understand if they did both but to increase the speed of formation up while leaving the other (more flexible) timeframe relatively unchanged is silly, IMO.

I'll try and locate my sources and post links but that it the gist of what I meant.

[nabojka]

I think that most inportant fact is what was before big bang,in book "Short story of time" by Stephen Hawking we can read that pope have make a conferention where he said that ,what was before big bang is God creation and we can't reasearch it.I think that Church fear reation of people when we found out that universe dont need God to be how it is now.In my theory universe i create by black hole,but i still working on it.For me most big bang problem that it says something was created from nothing what can't BE DONE IN normal world.
And most inportant things is that near our univserse can be another univserse and that can never end.