Big Bang Critics

Silas would better answer this. I hypothesize:
1) The 'expanding universe' evidence supports singularity ... a central core of expansion (if that is what you're getting at).
2) Parsimony exists in singularity of expansion (i.e., it's easier to construe)
3) The Creation-Phenomenon begs *one set of rules*, not many.
4) Theists will construe one *Designer*
5) Etc.
(Please specify what you mean by singularity) Ah, the *Alpha-event-of-the-alpha-event*. Time eventually *eludes* scientists (as do quarks, light, life, and metaphysics)
(I’ll not respond again as my specialty is not astrophysics. I do *wish*, however, that great scientists (like Silas) would provide disclaimers (as do physicians) concerning the 'bounds of their big-bang knowledge')Edited by Philip, : a little refining

This current paradigm seems to *confuse* everyone but physicists (http://explorepdx.com/bitofsci.html):1) "Matter is substance; something we perceive" (albeit solid, liquid, gas).Metaphysical reality as well as physical seems invoked by the word 'perceive'. Hence the physicist's frustration.2) "Mass is an abstraction related to forces and interactions of matter with matter."Seeing matter is perceptual and metaphysical (by definition) I'm not convinced that matter truly remains the same, perhaps even in your isolated examples. However, matter might remain invulnerable from your philosophical viewpoint (I don't know).Then (*of course*) there's *The Reality of Antimatter* (Sun) "created and annihilated in stars every day"*Quoting Robert Britt (from 2003):
"To better understand the elusive nature of antimatter, we must back up to the beginning of time.In the first seconds after the Big Bang, there was no matter, scientists suspect. Just energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, particles of regular matter and antimatter were formed in almost equal amounts..."

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.

2ice_baked_taters, physicists (here) would appreciate more precise mathematical definitions to avoid abominable metaphysical inquiry.I’m already concerned that anti-matter (AKA *anti-mass* or something) data severely contradicts itself to physicists here and that you might hypothesize most anything about the beginning of the creation.My take herein is: that there’s just not much credulity to be expected from astro-physicists in this elusive area of science. My own disclaimer, thus. . A lot of *peculiar boundless* energy I’d speculate.1) Peradventure boundless/infinite energy to produce infinite space-time continuum(s)
2) Peradventure political-religious Energy from a singular Redeeming Designer that *makes the rules of the cosmos*I suspect astro-physicist Silas (though himself a “non-believer” 2 years ago) would agree somewhat with this.

---

DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.