Strange

I think you will find it is. Fluorine is extremely corrosive and would kill your pretty quickly if you tried to breath it. And replacing water with hydrogen fluoride would not be a good idea...

You are allowed to believe in both. Many people do, including some evolutionary biologists. One of the founders of the big bang model was a Catholic priest. Well, a lot of religious scientists (now and in the past) think it is pretty much our duty to understand as much as possible of creation or God's handiwork. Of course, we can't really know if God would prefer us to try and understand it all in detail or just stand there and go "wow". But my money would be on the former (after all, why would He/She gives us the ability to understand the universe if She/He didn't want us to use it). We have some very powerful tools for understanding infinity, so I'm not sure what this means. If you mean we can't imagine infinity, then so what. We can't imagine very large (finite) numbers either. Can you imagine the number of stars in the observable universe? I'm not sure we can imagine numbers bigger than about 7 (+/- 3 maybe). As I say, there are plenty of religious scientists. There are religious universities that do scientific research. The Vatican has a very professional observatory that does some ground breaking work. (They clearly also have a sense of humour as one of their instruments is called LUCIFER.) Some of it is supported by evidence (and is therefore likely to be correct) and some is contradicted by evidence (and is therefore likely to be wrong). Some does not have overwhelming evidence one way or the other. Or is outside the domain of evidence: "an eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek" is a philosophical/ethical question that I on't think science can say much about, for example. But why the (Christian) bible, anyway? Why not the Torah or the Quran or Buddhist sutras or the Upanishads or ... So we should not use any medications for depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, ADHD, Tourette's, etc. Even if they are effective and make people's lives easier?

They didn't need to go anywhere. If they all stayed in the same position in space, they would move apart as the space expanded. The same way the we can see distant galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light. They are not moving through space faster than the speed of light, so there is no problem.

No one things it is sensible to extrapolate back to an infinite density. Our current theories no longer apply before you get to that point. Maybe a theory of quantum gravity will tell us what happened. Or maybe we can never know. A gas will diffuse to fill the space available. And will cool as it does so.

There is no "beyond". The universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter.

Really? The universe has to match what you, a random individual on Earth, can imagine? Is this written in Genesis or Newtons laws? And why you? I am famously unimaginative; I'm sure I can imagine a lot less than you. So why is the universe limited to what you can imagine and not just what I can imagine? One the other hand, why shouldn't the universe be defined by what Leonardo da Vinci could imagine? Does the universe change with every generation as people with more less imagination are born and die? That is the stupidest statement I have read for a long time. (The rest of your post is just incomprehensible.)

Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this is the case. (Just asserting it to be true, with supporting theory or evidence is not scientific.) If all the sources of radiation are NOT black bodies (which they are not) then please explain (with appropriate references to standard physics) how it magically becomes a black body spectrum. You can only get a "reflection" of a black body spectrum if you have a source of a black body spectrum. What is this source?

The universe is not like an oven. So you need to explain what the source of this black body radiation is.

The volume of space may have been infinite (if the universe is infinite) or quite small, if the universe is finite. What's inside would have been the quark-gluon plasma that Mordred mentioned. But this is near or at the limits of where our current theories of physics can be applied. So you may not get anything much more specific. The whole idea of inflation (and the mechanism behind it) is still very hypothetical and speculative. We probably need a quantum theory of gravity to tell us more.

Note that there was nowhere for inflation to push particles "to", as all of space was homogeneously full of whatever particles existed at the time. It was just that the volume of space expanded very rapidly.

Really. So if you were seriously ill, instead of a good cardiologist or neurosurgeon (or whatever the appropriate specialist is) you would visit a carpenter because they had to learn medicine and are locked in the medicine box? Nonsense. All theories get criticised and tested. That is how science progresses. Yes. Of course. No they are not. No theory is ever 100% correct. You don't know anything about science, do you? Now is your chance. Hurry up before this thread gets closed for lack of any substantial argument. Your position seems to be: "the big bang model must be wrong because I don't understand it and am totally ignorant of physics and the scientific method". Not very convincing so far. Please present your evidence and the mathematics that shows the theory is wrong. (Vague and incorrect waffle about "infinity" won't get you anywhere.)

You said "I found that it is possible to use embryo-genesis in order to transform a snake into a whole new species." So I assumed that YOU had found a way of doing this. I asked where YOUR work on this had been published. I did NOT ask you to post completely irrelevant links to what someone else has done.

But, as the big bang model is the only theory that (currently) fits all the evidence, that is about as good as science gets. I look forward to you presenting an alternative explanation for the CMB (that also fits all the other evidence: Hubble's Law, baryon acoustic oscillations, the proportions of hydrogen and helium, the amount of dark matter, etc. etc.). Your new theory will have to provide a very precise mathematical fit to the data in order to be considered. As some of the brightest minds of the last hundred years have failed to come up with an alternative, I won't be holding my breath. Based on past experience I expect some vague waffle about Newton and little in the way of detail. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Then please explain the source of the CMB.

It might do. But that is missing the point. You can, in principle, have a volume with nothing in it. (The fact that it is not possible in our universe is irrelevant.)

It doesn't matter how often you repeat that, it still won't be true. The big bang model works equally well whether the universe is infinite or finite. Apparently not. You have had the evidence explained to you in minute detail many times over many years. You stiller fuse to accept it. I don't know if this is because you are monumentally stupid or you just wish the universe behaved in a different way. Either way, we are all wasting our time. The CMB. (As you have been told already.) And his theory COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CMB. So it was abandoned in favour of the only (current) theory that can explain ALL the evidence.

It is, I believe, possible to choose a coordinate system where space does not expand but, instead, time changes. This is not generally used because it is not a very intuitive model and causes complications such as the speed of light changing over time. It is therefore simpler to stick with the coordinate system where space expands.

An "argument" is not a disagreement. It means providing a series of statements, using formal logic, that lead one from a set of premises to a conclusion. There isn't much point in this discussion as I, and others, are discussing logic and you are discussing ... well, I'm not sure what.

It wouldn't be terribly space-efficient. Bearing in mind that we can store the contents of thousands (millions?) of bits of paper on a DVD.

Yes. Some people have "perfect pitch" - an ability to recognise the absolute pitch of a note. I think it is pretty rare. I'm not sure how much an indicator or advantage or disadvantage it might be in a musical career (being aware that the whole orchestra is out by a quarter tone could be an immensely frustrating experience!)

Then why doesn't the length of 1 metre vary depending on what is in it?

Yes, I didn't say that. If you are asking about the content of space around an object, then that content will be displaced by the object moving into that space. (With a few exceptions such as neutrinos and X-rays, which will continue to pass through the object as if it weren't there.

Well, of course, it can. But there are some technical problems. For example, lets say you want to store a value in analogue form. You could do this by filling a glass with that volume of water, or marking a stick at the position corresponding to that number. That might be OK if you are storing numbers between 0 and 10, or maybe even 1000. But how accurately can you fill the glass or mark the stick? And then how accurately can you measure it. Imagine trying to represent the contents of Wikipedia as a single number and store that as a mark on a stick ... Some flash memory devices use three or four level storage instead of simple 0 or 1 (as a way of increasing storage density) but that is approaching the limit of "analogue" storage, in terms of the accuracy with which the voltage can be sensed reliably (if you end up having to add more error detection and correction then you lose the advantage). How do you store it on paper? I was reminded of the Long Now Foundation's Rosetta Project http://rosettaproject.org

Maybe you should learn about some of the scientific theories about the possibilities for an infinite universe, instead of just repeating the same nonsense that you been told is incompatible with the evidence. One very simple example, that even you might be able to understand, is the idea that the universe undergoes continuous cycles of expansion and contraction. (Currently, the accelerating expansion makes that seem unlikely.) Combining quantum theory and gravitation will probably create other possibilities.

Electron orbitals?