I'm not sure, i don't know what you can do. Maybe you can fly or build a rocket. But if you compare a normal guy to a buddha or enlightened person in any age, you won't get much further than inadequacies. The buddhas idea of an end goal might be less than what is currently possible, less than what the times allow for today. By saying that people can do less than a religious genuis already puts them under the bar and on the same scale. Today people can likely do more, go farther, than was possible back then when the guy did his practice. And about reality, there is very little evidence for it. Senses provide immediate information, but that is filtered through the brain first, so that the image made from the senses is really quite the distortion. The mind has to play connect the dots, so to speak. If a person can go beyond this limitation, then they may have grounds for saying something is a reality. But as far as i am concerned, it is one that is quite far removed from the everyday transactions of touch and feelings.

You can post all this theoretical and metaphysical hypothesis all you want i will always stand by the scientist who simply say "we don't know YET"

i have to agree, the most honest statement to date... science is a learning tool, to prove or disprove the reality they speak of...

Well "Big Bang Theory" is kind of difficult to debunk since it's a journalistic expression and doesn't really describe anything but an off hand description of one single observation which *supported* (not debunked) the current standard Cosmological Model, Inflation Theory.
All that is actually known about Inflation Theory is to a point, referred to as 'the Photon Veil' a few miliseconds into a spatial inflation and construct by entropy (escaping perfect order creates subatomic structure in a virtual particle field).

All of it adheres to both macro and subatomic theoretical math at the heart of all the hard sciences and all correlate with each other and physical observation. Part of the entire equation is complex evolutionary diversity, the basis of modern evolutionary theory whether applied in earth sciences or cosmological ones.

It is referred to as the Big Bang Theory but it is a rather misleading term. One should use the term Inflation Theory when suggesting they've given the topic research.
At its core Inflation Theory in fact describes a string of black hole universes in a cyclic creation hypothesis, but since observations cannot penetrate the Photon Veil the math can only deal with or support theories regarding a few miliseconds into Inflation, to now the present. Not before, and of course not after.

That's why the theory stops at "the big bang", but actually it doesn't. It stops a few miliseconds into Inflation where the mass-energy was already expressing itself.
And in fact the strict allusion of the Theory is a cyclic universe, forming a singularity upon achievement of perfect entropy within a virtual particle field and starting all over again with total collapse/inflation. Of course this process would take trillions upon trillions of years for one cycle.

very well spoken...

But there most probably was a "Big Bang" to start inflating Things!
If you intercept a Bullet hundred Yards in it's Flight,it stands to Reason that a Powdercharge has initially reacted on it!

I think the important point is that the universe is not a bullet. A number of cosmological models variously based in Relavity or other assertions all competed among journals but what counts is physical observation (for which theories must provide a mathematical prediction that is testable and reproducible to become math theorum, or "scientific theories", it must absolutely agree concisely with physical observation).

What happened was the anisotropic CMBR was detected, which one cosmologist off-handedly mentioned to journalists (Nature magazine, a scientific journal really, more than a magazine), "...it's as if it was residual heat from a terrific explosion which happened everywhere in the universe at once."
Hence the resulting math-theorum which described the process in summary detail with diagrams and figures (ie. "scientific theory"), was herefore referred to by journalists, science journalism and the media community as "the Big Bang Theory."

It is not an accurate description.

Actually, current measurements indicate sufficient expansion to propel the galaxies into cold infinity with no "big crunch" to recycle. The universe will die a cold lightless death as the last of the stars burn out and continue their path away from each other.

Of course we may be one of an infinite number of big bangs and some may collapse back into one giant black hole, but that doesn't appear to be our fate.

I'd bet on the infinite "bumping branes" with infinite variation in energy to create infinite universes in an endless hyperspace foam.

so,what is the "Accurate" Description?
That it started of it's Own Volition?
Just Up and Expanded one Day,for lack of anything better to do?
Obviously the Forces holding it together weren't as strong as those opposing them!

Was it electrostatic or gravity that held the tiny dot together?Then the potential energy became kinetic energy and gravity formed from mass so now the hypothesis is will gravity win over kinetic energy,
"the big crunch" or will kinetic energy win over gravity "the big chill"?

guess we won't be around to find out!

true dat

Neither. Electrostatic doesn't apply at that scale and so far, gravity doesn't explode. We don't know but the most logical answer appears to be kinetic from one source to create the kinetic energy that became our Universe. See M theory and the "Big Freeze"

Begin Quote:

Future of an expanding universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Big Freeze" redirects here. For other uses, see Big Freeze (disambiguation).

Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario is popularly called the Big Freeze.[1]

If dark energy—represented by the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[2] or scalar fields, such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space—accelerates the expansion of the universe, the space between clusters of galaxies will grow at an increasing rate. Redshift will stretch ancient, incoming photons (even gamma rays) to undetectably long wavelengths and low energies.[3] Stars are expected to form normally for 10**12 to 10**14 (1–100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. And as existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker, one star at a time.[4] §IID, [5] According to theories that predict proton decay, the stellar remnants left behind will disappear, leaving behind only black holes, which themselves eventually disappear as they emit Hawking radiation.[6] Ultimately, if the universe reaches a state in which the temperature approaches a uniform value, no further work will be possible, resulting in a final heat death of the universe.
End quote:

Measurements (as I stated above) indicate a big chill finish.

what happens when a galaxy leaves our field of view? would another replace it coming into our field of view?

Depending upon the rate of universal expansion, the velocity of the departing galaxy could exceed the speed of light (relatively speaking)in which case it's light would no longer reach us. Nothing would replace it.

i guess we'll know if one does come into view...

No "big crunch" is required for a cyclic, black hole universe. And actually the very term "big crunch" is a non-sequiteur based upon the premise that "a big bang" is the standard cosmological model, it is not. Inflation theory is. This simply cannot be overstated because conversational falsification by logical process attempts to falsify an inaccurate presumption when the premise is a big bang creation theory. A big band creation theory is pseudo-religion, not science. Observation and math elicits only a period of inflation to now, no bang, no start, no finish, no crunch, etc.

The allusion is a heat death. Now apply GR to a heat death of the universe, what do you get? A virtual particle field. Ever heard of Brownian Motion? It is the consistent observation that any field, which by definition functions as per fluid dynamics, experiences particular variations of extreme. That means a virtual particle field continually creates particle-antiparticle pairings, thus the theorum of how an area of "nothing" still retains the potential to form subatomic particles if the conditions to form them presents itself. The condition is that a particle-antiparticle pairing will depart, thus leaving a subatomic particle or antiparticle (irrelevent to a cosmological model).

Now you have a great big space of "nothing" and a single subatomic particle in it, which is caused by there being nothing (function of a virtual particle field). This is the condition you have in a universe of total heat death.

Now, according to GR, what is the result of any amount of mass in an infinite space where there is no other mass-energy whatsoever?
It collapses.
The entire infinite space collapses into a singularity around the mass. It is the very function of spacetime.

So complete heat death = singularity -> inflation.

Okay, so I don't think that the Big Bang Theory, or whatever you want to call it, can be debunked as it is ill defined and more of a catch all phrase for an event before the expansion that is known of today. I started out with this post thinking that one could argue one or many big bang events, but now see that it is a sort of misnomer. Whatever you want to call the period that observations lead back to, I do not see a sharp begining or anything other than some happening that is performed according to a comprhensive physics. As simply as a stone throw or bounce is described by current physics, so too even the massive scales. Yet is an extremely ambitious word, but I agree readily with the first part- I do not know how it went down.

Vanaheim: Nice summary of arguments and following conclusion.

i don't dis-count the BBT, just i don't think it happened quite like that... i don't know why they think the background radiation can confirm anything... seems like something confirms something else, but opens up something else that doesn't fit...

The backround radiation is just something that people don't know what to do with. It came in the construction kit without any mentions in the instructions or a ready function, like an extra screw.