The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

I. What is the BBT The big bang theory (BBT), is the idea that matter was once contained in a single point known as the "positive space container" (PSC). The gas within the PSC was ionized into Plasma. Following fission and overheating commited by plasmatoic reactions, the PSC exploded, in a event known as the big bang. The idea is that the original plasma is starting to cool down. By it cooling down, we are seeing the beginning of space itself starting to end. The model looks like this. II. Protonic ErrorsThis is the main fallacy in the BBT theory. For all matter to be contained is the PSC, we have to be of the assumption that something exists beyond it. A fact that constantly shoots down the theory that a big bang is expanding the universe. For the original Quantum Fluctuation to have taken placed, there must of been something outside the PSC for it to expand into. People call this source, anti-matter. Scientists make the baseless claim, that when anti-matter and matter collide, they form a containment chamber. Once again, this is just another theory stacked on to the already fallacious BBT. When we put anti protons, or the substance of anti matter, and collide it with positive protons, consisting of positive matter, we create energy. When the Nuetron and Positron (The anti matter equalivalent of proton) meet, they create energy. This interaction is known as a Antiproton ring. This energy is extremely low scale in power, but is believed by BBT theorists, as they don't actually all agree on how the bang happened, to be the cause. When the Ionized gas hit touchdown with the positron, we create fission. Or heat. This is where the BBT starts sounding more like a science fiction tale rather than a legit theory. The matter condensed within the PSC pushes back anti matter, to expand the context of the universe. This is a fallacy, for another contention I'll get to later. The main error, and one I'm sure he can't explain, as even Stephen Hawkings couldn't, is how the fissions hit en masse, all at the same time, to make an initial boom. If Stephen Hawkings can't answer such a huge gap in logic, then Subutai can't prove the BBT happened.C1: Unanswered Questions regarding the BBT - How did trillions of reactive fusions occur at the same time during the big bang? (Hint: Nobody Knows)- In a full contention, how does anti-matter contain positive matter? (Hint: Nobody knows)- As in depth as possible, why was the positive matter contained in the PSC in the first place? (Hint: Nobody Knows) - How did multiple forms of matter react all within the same condensed space? (Hint: Nobody Knows)- Explain in depth, why did all sides of the PSC explode at once, and not just one edge? (Hint: The premise itself is fallacious)- Please give ample reasoning, why was anti matter only outside the PSC? (Hint: Nobody Knows)Expanding on question 5, this is no doubt a ridiculous fallacy within the BBT. It defies all form of basic understanding on how things work. The idea relies on all heat combusting everywhere, but anyone who has taken physics knows this defies the laws of gravity. Heat builds up upon the sides of a object. If you ever sip hot soup, the edges are always the hottest part to eat, not the center. Observe. As you can see, the red and greenish colors are centered around the edge, whereas the more moderate light yellow heat signature is condensed in the center of the human body. If it seems like I'm getting off track, I'm not, because this correlates to a very important point. That if the big bang were to have happened, all matter would of expanded in one direction. If that were true, then we could litterally just fly to the starting epicenter of earth (if we had a spaceship with unlimited gas). I will equate it to this gif of an immolated man. Look at the way the heat touches his body. Heat doesn't burn from the center, but is reacting to his skin, where fluids flow out. This is the correct physical role the BBT would take if it were true. The BBT is of the assumption that the hottest elements of ionized gas combust from the center, when in reality, heat is busting from the edge. If anything, physics show that the world would condense if the BBT were true, and given we have observations of an expanding universe, the BBT just got even more fallacious.Not to mention, that if the BBT were true, then there would be a center of the universe where "nothing" exists. Not anti matter or matter, meaning not only has the theory defied the laws of physics, but the laws of reason and philosophy.C2: Unanswered questions regarding the BBT- How does the BBT defy the laws of physics and still work? (Hint: It doesn't)- Is it feasibly possible for all matter to have linked from different directions? (Hint: It isn't)- What is your answer to the fact that there would be gaps of nothingness in the universe? (Hint: You can't)III. Negative Space ErrorFor the BBT to be true, we would need to be of the assumption that a second layer exists beyond the PSC. As for the universe to be contained, there must be a universe outside containing it. This is known as the NSE, or negative space error. Nothing can exist at one point, as space is finite in the BBT. Which is a fallacy, as it is impossible for "nothing" to exist. "Nothing" is always something. Which is why I drew a model regarding the NSE. This hasn't been answered by any scientist. It can't be answered, as it isn't feasibly explainable. It is litterally, the epthany of all human reasoning and understanding up to this point, therefore, it cannot be true. If it were, then you can count me a mad man,as I cannot attempt to grasp this Hubbert fan fiction to the slightest. C3: Unanswered questions regarding the BBT - How can something exist outside the context of the universe? (Hint: It isn't possible)- What is containing anti-matter? (Hint: Nobody knows)- How does the first bang push back the borders of the universe that existed before it? (Hint: It can't)IV. Contextual RealitySomeone in the comments brought up an intresting point, and I hope he isn't opposed to me quoting it."Expansion leads to logical inconsistency analytically. To wit, if there were something outside reality that were sufficiently real to contain the "expansion" of reality, it would be contained in reality. That's a contradiction; ergo, the hypothesis is false.The cosmos can"t be expanding in any absolute sense, because there"s nothing for it to be expanding into. Therefore, we must invert the model in a way that "conserves spacetime"; the total "amount" of spacetime must remain constant. When we do so, the cosmos ceases to resemble a balloon inflating (extending outward) over time, and instead becomes an inward superposition of sequentially related states. The best way to think of it is in terms of a cumulative embedment of Venn diagrams (of state) on the inside surface of a sphere of extrinsically indeterminate size."Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless." - Dylancatlowhttp://www.debate.org...If you didn't understand what he said, then this debate is over, because I couldn't of put it better than that. The BBT relies on the fallacious reasoning that the universe is without a fixed point. That one can actually expand beyond reality. First rule of philosophy, nothing is outside the bounds of reality. Not even an omnipotent god can escape reality, pending one existed. The BBT is breaking philosophical context itself, but its fallacious reasoning.V. Conclusion I have to wrap this up now, but I think I summed up more than one fallacy in the BBT. The BBT, even admitted by Einstein, is just a theory that explains the observations the opposition listed. I don't plan on arguing the hubble observations or radiometric data, which I told my opponent not to use. Mainly for the reason that these things connect to 1000's of arguments, and not solely the BBT. I can connect all of them to numerous theories. Is the universe expanding? Most certainly. Is it do to some law breaking explosion that happened light stars away, most certainly not.VI. Video 1 There were 5 more arguments I wanted to make, but I'm out of characters, but I did have room to fit a HTML to a video. I encourage you to watch it. It makes a mind blowning contention on how cosmological allignments don't fit, and many of the impossible plamotic reaction contentions. He explains that all the underlying theories are just a million ideas trying to make a impossible theory make sense.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.quora.com...http://www.nasa.gov...http://www.icr.org...http://www.plasmas.org...http://www.britannica.com...http://www.abovetopsecret.com...Rapping up, the big bang is nothing more than 1,000,000 tacked on theories explaining one idea that doesn't even seem plausible.