If you believe that the BBT is correct then you should know that it must have edge on its farthest point.

@NR92 The Big Bang theory is based upon the observable universe, presuming an observable beginning and an observable "edge" of outer expansion. There are theories that suggest that this universe may be one of many universes which begin and end within a larger non-observable framework. If we contemplate that, does the word "finite" refer to the observable finite or the theoretical finite?

Realizing that Science has traditionally been limited to "the observable" - until String Theory.

not everything - just everything about the nature of the Universe. Todays scientists look so hard as to how the Universe "started" - their efforts are futile - the Universe has always been here.

Yep, just another form of trolling. Don't feed the trolls.

Agreed, but why do think that the Big Bang probably isn't correct? I am curious.

@Heraclitus For starters, here's an interesting article that appeared in New Scientist last month. It's written by Anna Iijas, who is a group leader at the Max Planck Institute and a visiting scholar at Princeton.
I'm not sure if non-subscribers can read the article: if not, let me know and I'll copy and paste it to you as a message.
[newscientist.com]

@Coffeo All I can read is the first couple of paragraphs, then it tells me to subscribe for the rest of it. However, I already see one false assumption. A bouncing universe CAN have a Big Bang, just a potentially infinite number of Big Bangs. The Bouncing Universe Hypothesis and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.
Nevertheless, I would appreciate the entire article. It sounds quite interesting.

@Heraclitus I do not see any such assumption in Ijjas's opening paragraphs. I have the article as a PDF file (minus the illustrations). This preserves the hyperlinks. I'll see if I can send it.

@Coffeo
Below is the false assumption. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

"The answer, thrillingly, may be that there never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end, repeatedly bouncing from an epoch of contraction to expansion, and back again."

@Heraclitus Sorry, but I do not see an assumption here. She is simply proposing an alternative.

@Coffeo I'm sorry but I do not know how else to say it than how I have said it before. The false assumption is that the Bouncing Universe Hypothesis and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. They are not. The Bouncing Universe Hypothesis has been around for decades and it used to be described as an infinite number of big bangs and big collapses, not as mutually exclusive options. So, therefore the phrase "there never was a big bang" was never used before in the Bouncing Universe Hypothesis.

@Heraclitus She is not ruling out any other options; merely suggesting a new one.

@Coffeo Well, I do not find it to be particularly new, except in the particular manner in which she presents it. Now, that I find that quite fascinating and intriguing. The problem is that it seems to raise as many questions/problems as it resolves. It is not clear how this long phase of ultra-slow contraction before the bounce occurs as it seems counter-intuitive to the science and data we have. Also, what is it that would cause dark energy to decay, and decay enough to make all this possible, as that is counter to our current understanding, incomplete as it is. I certainly hope there is more to this than a mere manipulation of the math to make the hypothesis come out correctly. Does she have ANY data to back this up or is it simply mathematical guesswork to propose a "new option"? A beautiful option to be sure, but the poet Keats aside, beauty is not truth. That is not logic, but rather wishful thinking. Also, there is a point at the end where she almost seems to disagree with her own option when she says "My guess is that the story is a little more circular. Neither bang nor bounce?" Is she really suggesting a rejection of the Bounce here? If so, why?

@Heraclitus I think, like all the other suggestions currently under consideration, it is work in progress. I am not the right person to answer your questions.

The Universe is infinite time and space, with matter interacting at a constant rate(which we call time). Simple right? the problem comes when they try to explain a beginning of the Universe when there wasn't a beginning.

Let us know when it's available please?

I am curious. Why do you think that the Big Bang is wrong? (In less than 160 pages, please)

@Heraclitus

Well, I leave you to read the first 40 pages. That reverse engineers the cosmos. The following 10 pages are the equations and program commands used to accurately measure quarks, neutrons and baryonic units.

But, while you wait. I leave you with a question. It will maybe help you question the big bang. If, at the beginning of time there was truely nothing, then nothing is infinite. It has no beginning, middle or end. There is no natural direction in an infinite realm of nothing. Where is the starting point for a universe to form?

Now, I do not agree with your comment at the top of the page. It is something humans can do. It doesn't require superior adequacies in math. This is to say, it doesn't require multiple dimensions. Nor does it require the ignorance of randomly moving particals. Yes it is solved using Newtonian physics, and it jives with Albert Einstein's works.

@Heathenman So, who says that at the beginning of time there was truly nothing? Seriously, what cosmologist or quantum physicist has declared that to be a principle of the Big Bang Theory? Nothing that I read in the past decades about the Big Bang Theory has stated that. On the contrary, I have always read that we know nothing about the actual instance of the Big Bang. I would not make that assumption at all and don't see why I should. If that is the only reason you are rejecting the Big Bang, then I think you are making a false assumption.

I really don't understand your last statement. I have said nothing about requiring superior adequacies in math or multiple dimensions. I have said nothing about requiring the ignorance of random moving particles. I have also not said anything about not solving equations using Newtonian physics. As for Einstein, he went way beyond the mere understanding of Newtonian physics in his theories of relativity which was my point.

@Heraclitus

Okay,

Lets focus on the first part. An infinite realm of nothing.

If nothing has borders, it is not alone. Then there is something. This opens questions concerning matter. Can nothing come from something, or did something already exist and it formed matter?

This then goes further. If something existed, which then formed matter, where did it come from? How did it form?

However far you go down the rabbit hole, you are always going to end at the same point. This being the question how does nothing form something.

If there is nothing, nothing has no borders. It is infinite.

@Heathenman OK, let's focus on the first part of the first part. What is your definition of nothing. This is not a simple or trivial question. And until you come up with a comprehensive definition of "nothing" it makes little sense to discuss it further.

Parts of the Big Bang theory are correct - mainly the positions and age of galaxies. Where it is wrong is thinking the Gravity effects time, and that space expands.
Time is a constant - its unaffected by gravity, speed, or any force of the Universe. There was no beginning of time.
Space is actually the absence of matter - and physically it can not end. Space does not expand - matter moves through space - space does not move.

@gater Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist.

Wrong - space is not created - space extends forever, always has.

@gater based on what?

Please, don'r give me I think, its obvious or be resonable... Modern physics says that the space is being created, not just being filled. If you want to discuss about it, show me articles and science. Otherwhise you are just believing in something the same way religious people believe.

@Pedrohbds Based on understanding what time and space are. You will never understand the Universe until you accept that time and space are infinite - its not a theory - its fact.

@gater based on what article/observation is it a fact?
Saying it is a fact does not prove anything, it is just as a religous person saying god is a fact because it is obvious...

Modern physics says that space is expanding and not being filled, and time inside the event horizons has no meaning as we know it so if Big bang is correct, all was inside an event horizon so speak in time makes no sense until a new description of time arises that can describe it inside the event horizon.

So unless you say to me that general relativity and quantum mechanics are bullshit (and then the discussion ends here because makes no sense discussing it outside the modern theories), you must accept the results that they give.

Our experience as humans is limited, it is too easy to make mistakes when generalizing the universe according to our common sense. You cannot be a specialist in all fields, but once the guys that really study it agree on some point, or you study as much as them, write an article, prove them wrong and collect your Nobel, or for the sake of whoever you care do not spread unscientific ideas.

@Pedrohbds Logic is a tool of science - todays scientists haven't learned how to apply logic. Space is infinite - we know this with logic. Space is either finite or infinite - and you can not make a logical argument that its finite - all of the logical arguments say it has to be infinite.
But when you understand the true nature of space - what it is - you know that physically it can not end.

@gater so.. you really say quantum mechanics is bullshit based on your logic that is based on your limited observations?
Ok, discussion over, I am not here to fight against science deniers.

@Pedrohbds When did I say that? What I will say is the scientific community is filled with people that accept Einsteins theories because they are too stupid to grasp the truth.
Gravity has no effect on time - and its retarded to think it does.

@gater Ok, I am waiting for you to collect your Nobel and prove me and the scientific community wrong

@Pedrohbds Maybe we could speed up the process - you could nominate me

@Pedrohbds You don't seem to realize how stupid is it to think time can slow or stop. Its completely unfounded, there is no evidence to make that claim - Einstein theorized about it because he didn't understand gravity or time.

Space is not curved.

@gater citation needed

@MattHardy space is infinite, hence no shape - Aristotle

@gater I can't find that quote. I look forward to you providing a reference to where he said that. For example I can provide this link to where Aristotle asserts that some insects "are not derived from living parentage, but are generated spontaneously: some out of dew falling on leaves" [classics.mit.edu]

@MattHardy Actually he used the term "borderless" - however he was speaking Greek so the translation might be off a little, but the concept remains the same.

@MattHardy Maybe you can explain to me how a finite Universe works - what lies beyond the border?

@gater I already explained it to you. The surface of a hyperspere is borderless but not infinite.

@MattHardy Sorry, you're living in fantasyland.

@gater no need to apologise. I live in an amazing world on the surface of a globe the surface of which is both borderless and finite. However since I'm not confined to that two dimensional surface I can also see things above and below that surface. One example of something above the surface is the GPS satellite. I really enjoy these, not just for the practical benefits. An interesting fact about GPS is that the incredibly accurate clocks, which are fundamental to their purpose, need to be adjusted for both special and general relativity. Turns out that the required adjustment is an exact match with that calculated from Einsteins theories. This provides us a powerful confirmation of Relativity. In my fantasy land is very satisfying. I would guess that for you people who live in an Aristotelian world, this incredible coincidence must be almost as confusing as how come insects can spontaneously appear from dew without parents.

@MattHardy Is a GPS device made of matter?

@gater Oooh I can't wait for this one... Yes it is. And?

@MattHardy As I said - gravity effects matter - that's what time dilation is - its when you don't get an accurate reading of time because gravity has slowed the device.

@gater ooh this is interesting you're almost accepting one of the predictions of General Relativity. I'd say that if gravity slows the device and your reading of time shows that Gravity slows the device then that is accurate but maybe that's just semantics. What about special relativity? Do you accept time dilation and loretz contraction can be observed due to differing velocities?