Strange

The difference is that we have a scientific theory, which describes what happens very precisely. There are, of course, some open questions and puzzling aspects but in general we have a pretty good model. All you have is baseless claims. There are no such models (and no need for one) as far as I know. And I don't see the relevance to the question. Is this your way of saying that your idea cannot explain the CMB? In which case there is no reason for it to be considered as a possibility.

Of course they can be measured and observed. Do you really think that people made them up for no reason at all? You may have heard of a guy called Faraday? And there are all sort of simple experiments you can do yourself. Go and buy a cheap compass or a magnet and some iron filings. And a battery and some wire. Or ...

Bazinga.

I don't think anyone knows. This is closer to philosophy than science. Both of these seem to be just issues of probability, not anything to do with quantum theory. As all the atoms in a box move around at random, there is a small possibility that they all happen to move in the same direction and pile up on one side, momentarily. This is so unlikely, there is no need to worry about it. Similarly, it is possible for a random collection of grains of sand to form a sandcastle. But, again, this is so unlikely that it will never happen. This sounds even less likely than the other examples. This sounds like the sort of thing that is used as an argument against evolution. I don't know that it does. There is some speculation that the big bang could have been triggered from a false vacuum state.

OK. Let me try and understand the disconnect here. (Or help you understand the disconnect.) Do you think that scientists just say, "Hey here is an idea: expanding universe!" And the other scientists go, "Hey cool. I like that. It must be true." That is not how it works. The way science works is by building mathematical models of how things work and then testing them against observation or experiment. If the model's predictions match the data, then it may be accepted as a good theory. A large part of the work of science is to try and use the dat to show their own model to be wrong (or to show other people's models are wrong). You have not done this. You do not have any sort of model, you are just making claims about time and the big bang. You need to somehow show that your ideas are supported, in mathematical detail, by the available data. The reason that time is generally (but not universally) accepted as part of the universe is that our current theories include time and they work. If you can build a theory (mathematical model) without time and show that it works as well (or better) then people may listen to the idea. No. I am trying to help you understand what you need for your idea to be considered. It certainly seems to be, based on current theories. It has the same status as the abstract concept of distance. I think I have already said, there are some hypotheses where time and space are emergent properties. But there is no evidence for that currently. So you are confusing the opinions of individuals for that status of science. We were not talking about the existence of time (which is, currently, a question for philosophy not science) but about your claim that "time started with the big bang". The big bang theory (i.e. science) does not say this. Even if some scientists are of the opinion that time started at the big bang, that is not science. It is opinion.

Science has an incomplete picture of everything! That is the nature of science. Also, just because scientific knowledge is incomplete, doesn't mean it is OK to make stuff up and claim it is as valid as scientific theories.

The theory works incredibly well when tested. That is the best we can do in science. Science doesn't say anything about "reality"; that is the domain of philosophy.

It is hard to answer, when you are not sure what the question is. But quantum theory is based on various types of symmetry, such as the matter-antimatter pairs that sensei talks about. More generally, there are symmetries in charge, parity and time. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/cpt.html Some of these symmetries can be broken, which is part of the explanation why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. However, that is not fully explained yet, so there are probably more symmetry breaking that we have not detected yet. A process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking is what leads to things like the Higgs mechanism.So symmetry is a very important factor in quantum theory, but also pretty complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

What evidence do you have for this? No one is judging you. Just commenting on the (unsupported) claims you make. Please provide some evidence that the scientific community assumes time began with the big bang, instead of just repeating your claim this it is true. Correct. I call it a straw man argument. And, because you have been told many times that it is not true, an increasingly dishonest one. Then you will need to provide evidence.

He is just speculating (and talking in very crude analogies). And it is "branes" colliding, not brains. And, yes, that is speculation. There is no theory that goes to "time zero" or before. The big bang model does not go back that far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

From your earlier post: The text on that image says: "Expansion slows then accelerates" and "Until about 5 billion years ago the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing because of gravity". So your own source shows you are WRONG.

It does not match the rate of expansion, which I assumed it was supposed to show. If it is just a graph of the inverse square law, then that is correct in Newtonian gravity and a good approximation in GR. Plus, as Mordred has noted, it is dimensionally wrong. Great! Most of the following are still unanswered: 1. What does "space is banging" mean? You said "I am saying that the spatial expansion could be the Big Bang, rather than massive bodies receding from one another dimensional space is expanding" This is correct. (Although you said it "flies in the face of Hubble" which, obviously, it doesn't.) So we can consider that one answered (even if I am not sure you understand what you said). 2. What is the theoretical basis for this? As you seem to accept space is expanding, we can assume you accept that GR is the theoretical basis for this. So we can take this one as answered. But ... 3. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating? 4. What is the physics behind this? You have not yet given an answer to this. 5. Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation? You have not answered this. It should be simple for you to show the connection between your inverse square law and a linear increase in velocity with distance. 6. What is the source of the CMB in your model? You have not answered this. And it is critical to any cosmological model. 7. Can you show that the amount of acceleration, and the time it started, is constant with your model? You have not answered this.

No one is arguing with that. However, hypotheses and theories are based on mathematical models and evidence. You do not have either of these. Well, OK: you have a trivial graph. The graph does not match the evidence and therefore it is WRONG. The fact that nothing is ever definitively proved in science does not mean that you can make up nonsense and claim it is equally valid. Especially when it is contradicted by the evidence. Neither your graph nor a steady state model are consistent with the evidence. Therefore they are WRONG.

Congratulations on making a correct statement. Even a broken clock is right occasionally.

The observations show that it has only recently started accelerating. It has not been accelerating for 13.8 billion years. That is impossible. The two models are mutually contradictory. And one of them is falsified by the evidence. It could. But that is not what the data shows. Why are you ignoring observation and making up random nonsense. That is not how science works. How so. The observations have been repeated and extended over the decades. Where do you propose the errors in the observations come from? That doesn't really mean anything. Again: THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE DATA. Therefore it is WRONG.

Hyptheses and theories need to be supported by evidence. You have totally failed to do this.

I don't need to be. It is not relevant. Your model produces results that do not match observations. Observations show that expansion started accelerating relatively recently. You say your model says something different. Therefore your model is wrong.

Therefore the model is consistent with the observations. As your model produces different results, it is WRONG.

You have not quantified the rate of expansion or acceleration of expansion in your model. You have produced a graph which is not consistent with observed data. You have failed to answer 7 basic questions about your idea. Specifically, you are unable to account for the CMB. I fail to see how the complete absence of science in your posts could be considered "doing well". The model is based on observation. If your hypothesis produces a different result then it is WRONG.

You can't just say that. You are proposing a new model. You therefore need to do at least as well as the current model. The current model predicts the exact nature and temperature of the CMB. If you cannot do the same then your idea fails. I am not being abusive. I am just asking you to (a) provide details of your model and (b) show how well it matches observation. So far you are doing pretty badly on (a) and haven't even attempted (b). You don't even seem to understand the problem.

Why do I need to come up with an experiment? You have provided an equation. We have observational dat (Hubble's law). All you need to do is show that your equation produces the results that match observation.

That is probably the only answer you can give to all the questions. Basically, you don't have a clue and are just making stuff up.

No it is not. Just to be absolutely explicit (as you don't appear to know what the big bang model is about), the big bang model describes the (ongoing) evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about the universe being created. It says nothing about time starting (which is a pretty meaningless concept anyway). Perhaps you need to learn some basic concepts before trying to come up with your own.

What is that supposed to mean? Now, about those questions you keep avoiding: 1. What does "space is banging" mean? 2. What is the theoretical basis for this? 3. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating? 4. What is the physics behind this? 5. Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation? 6. What is the source of the CMB in your model? 7. Can you show that the amount of acceleration, and the time it started, is constant with your model?

Why would it take millennia? We know the average density of the universe. We know the distribution of galaxies and their masses. If it is gravitational redshift then you should be able to show the calculations that support this. I can't see how it is possible, but I would be happy to be shown. On the other hand, if all you have is a baseless guess, then it is pretty pointless. Why? (You might want to think about the temperature of the CMB, when preparing an answer to that.) Now, about those questions you keep avoiding: 1. What does "space is banging" mean? 2. What is the theoretical basis for this? 3. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating? 4. What is the physics behind this? 5. Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation? 6. What is the source of the CMB in your model? Is the fact the you are unwilling/unable to answer these an indication that you don't actually have a scientific hypothesis? 7. Can you show that the amount of acceleration, and the time it started, is constant with your model?