what caused the big bang?, page 2

You have some flaws in your logic. I admit that you bring up good points, but the Big Bang theory is fairly specific, although there are still points that need work.

"Ugh no...the Big Bang did not come from a Singularity."

Yes, that is what they refer to the entity that exploded (something so compact that it was believed to be smaller than a single atom).

"Not the way you describe it anyways, please do not link "Black holes" to white holes, white holes do not exist, there are no such things."

White holes are theoretical. White holes are what we know of as worm holes. They are the linkage between two extremely powerful gravity sources that pierce spacetime and have a small opening in between. White holes are thought to be possible, but never seen.

"Anyways...the idea of the Universe forming from a singularity is preposturous, as before the Big Bang there were no dimensions of space."

That's what a singularity is. That is why they refer to it as a singularity. It is not the exact same singularity as a black hole (or I suppose it could be) but it has many of the same technical characterists of what we believe a singularity produces.

"Therefore a universe could not have been created in any "place"...any time is debatable, but it could be assumed that there is no "time" either before the big bang."

Right, because the existence of those dimensions are negotiable.

"So before the big bang there is literally nothing."

This is not certain in science or philosophy. As I said, the idea of the singularity is used. This links to the Oscillating Universe Theory, which has some problems as well. Brane/Braine theory just approaches the problem from a different angle. It believes that we are an accident that occurred in between two membranes of sorts. Although the idea is sometimes linked with holographics, the whole theory is very odd and I believe some problems with the theory have been formally posted... I believe I read them a year or two ago.

"The best theory, but also the most confusing I've heard of, is the "Braine" theory...named after the man who came up with it.

I think it is in some way tied to string theory."

Yes it is, but it moves away from the hyperspace created by the superstrings and introduces the theory of the two membranes instead. I believe the idea is a visual plane of existence between two complex surfaces that define our dimensions (or what we call the universe). I probably should not comment because it has been so long since I read the article on it.

"Last I read it was being wondered whether it would be oscillating or not."

Oscillating universe theory is considered a separate theory altogether, related to expansion theory.

"Frankly, I don't believe the universe is "expanding"."

That's a dangerous opinion to take.

"Because the universe is not created in any point in space, it IS space, we can't comprehend with the mind what's beyond space//time. So technically we aren't "expanding", but rather the volume as we know it is increasing."

I believe we've already begun. It involves the Theory of Imaginary Time. It uses complex math to calculate portions of the universe that exist outside of the element of regular time. I believe it helps to determine what may be found in blackholes and before the universe was born... as well as theorize a death. Also, as I said in my previous post, there is a theory that says we may be inside of another greater universe.

"Does this mean an expansion?
Not necissarily."

Have you heard of "red-shift?" This means that we are expanding because the stars and galaxies are all moving in a given direction ever since what we call "The Big Bang."

"If our speed is proportional to time, then the radius of the universe is not a distance but a time...15 billion years."

No, the radius is a distance and that radius is proportional to the amount of time it has been traveling outwards from the theoretical center.

"The volume coicides with the velocity x time, not a physical distance."

What? Velocity is distance/time. If you multiply that by time then you get distance (time cancels). So you are completely wrong. Volume is not a measure of velocity or time, it is a measure of 3 dimensional space.

"We are no larger now than we were before, though we can say that in the first trillionth of a second I think it was, the universe was the size of a Grape fruit of now..."

Yes to the second part. We are extremely large at this point. We continually get larger, which also coincides with the new VSL theory.

"However, this isn't a "physical" way of looking at it but a conceptual way."

Apparently, because your "physical" math is wrong.

"A way to look at it to remove the idea of "expansion and space"."

Didn't you just say that the brain was not capable of such things?

"Because you can't expand into nothingness, a vaccum is not nothing, it has dimensions and time..."

Wrong and Right. We don't know if you can expand into nothingness... but why not? What's to stop you from expanding into something that is truly empty? The vacuum of space does have dimensions and time, yes... and some say virtual particles (I believe this to be aether).

"We won't be any further from the point we're at now...but objects will be farther from us. In the future."

No, we are hurdling through space at a generous clip. Again, study red-shift.

"Like-wise they won't be any further from their current location, but we'll be farther from them."

You act like we are the center of the universe and don't move. We are actually closer to the outstretch, as far as I know (quite far from the "center"). We will all technically get further apart, but because of large gravity sources (suns and blackholes), we tend to stay together in groups.

"Because of TIME. It is this "physical" necessity of space, that makes us think we are expanding distantly."

Yes, we are physical beings and exist inside of space. Perhaps you are a transdimensional being, but the rest of us peon humans have things called "bodies" to contend with. Time is either the physical fourth dimension or part of the physical fourth dimension.

"But we are really just expanding Temporally...the distance is all apart of the math that governs our universe."

We are going forward in time, yes. We are also going forward/outward in space. You must believe in the time theory that all points in reality are just "slices" of time, like movies film. This is a controversal theory and not widely accepted as being correct.

"In fact what would be an equation to determine the distance between 2 objects based on time."

Where would you like me to begin? Have you heard of a word called velocity? or perhaps acceleration? Going down the line you have snap, crackle, pop, and jerk, if I remember correctly. This is all calculus here.

"Either way, all I'm saying is remove yourselves from the idea of space and distances, and start thinking on the scale of time and speeds."

Time is a variable used to determine speed. Distance is a variable used to determine speed. Space is a way to determine distances, time need to travel distances, and speeds.

"Speed being a constant expression of energy used in a certain amount of time."

Huh? Where are you throwing in the variable "E?" Speed=Velocity=distance/time. Energy has a component of velocity (E=mc^2, where c is the velocity of light). I'm sure you could derive Energy in other ways, but I still think you are taking the physics out of context.

"So technically, nothing is moving...it is all energy used in a given amount of time."

No and Yes. Stuff does move. We use "time" as a way to measure how much it has moved, but it is moving. If stuff didn't move, time would be irrelevant. It is all energy, because matter is a form of energy.

"I want to hear some comments on this before I write more about it...the theory is bubbling in my mind but I'll just go in circles without outside inputs, questions, and debates on what has been brought up already."

Be careful with time theories crossing into physics theories. Time is considered more of a philosophical subject, like right vs wrong. If you base a theory on time alone, you are doing philosophy. If you are basing it on the movement of mathematical objects (mass/matter/energy) which can be calculated, then you are doing physics. I know, because I've had enough calculus based physics and theory study and philosophy to know the difference.

Try again.