Da big bang

[cmacq]

Again, what does this dubious big bang thiny and god have in common, other than Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Eduard Lemaitre?

[Moros]

About the size of the universe. I believe could say this:
imagine that the whole universe only consisted out of you (and that you for one reason simply would be able to survive), then the size of the universe would exactly be your bodies size. Let's say you walk (I don't know how you did it but you walked) a bit. The universe still remains as big, it doesn't grow, as you had nothing to move away from. You could say the universe moved with you. However if the universe only consisted out of us two. And you would walk away from me, the universe did expand, cause you had something to move away from. Because your position changed relatively from something else.
However if we wouldn't be able to see each other, and have nothing to relatively orientate us on. Now If I'd walk away from you, did you move? You could say you moved further from the middle of the universe. And I wouldn't even have noticed I moved. Nor did you for that matter.
Now you see it easily gets complicated. even with just the two of us. (And none of us is even female!). Now consider the fact that our universe contains an uncountable amount of 'objects', that space, nor time is linear and that everything is relative. Things become complicated, and it's hard to tell what is moving, what is not. How fast is this moving? How big is the universe?

[cmacq]

So then...

is that the natural, moral, or metaphysical aspect of quantum mechanics?

[Papewaio]

Actually as theories go the Big Bang (its sensationalist name after the fact) is fairly simple compared with say Gravity (Special Relativity) and Schrodingers equation (oh the joys of finding the 0 points on a tripal integral of sodium in a magnetic field... I still can remember the agony if not the how).

Anyhow the thing is to this theory is that not only was energy and matter created so was time. Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter... there is no time before the universe, it is a property of this universe.

Some of the other things that the 'Big Bang' Theory help us determine is the amount of neutrons to protons (decay rates), why there is so much hydrogen vs other elements.

And combine the 'Big Bang' Theory with what we know about star formation (main sequence stars and others particularly the giants) and creation of elements beyond carbon and then beyond iron it gives us information to the ratios of other elements. These then can tell us that our star is a third generation star (at least) because of elements with a proton number more then iron.

[cmacq]

Well then,

if time is indeed a physical entity...

...what are time's physical attributes?

[Moros]

what's the physical attributes of space?

You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.

Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?

Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.

[cmacq]

what's the physical attributes of space?

You could compare time as a sort of space. you can move in it, and it can be bend. The problem lies in the way we look at time, the way we percieve it. Could you imagine a 4D world with an extra dimension in space? No, because you are too used to your 3D world. It's the same with time, we're too used to our perception of time.
But just as there could be a universe with 4 dimensions in space, there you could as well have a universe without time. Why should there be time? Because you're used to the fact that there is time? Just as you're used to the fact that there's 3 dimensions in space, or that there's space? Space and time are nothing more and nothing less than properties of universe.

Also Time and space is very much connected, interwoven, what's the word?

Or to use a dull scifi quote: "free your mind". Cause that's usually the problem with this kind of stuff. It's hard to imagine such abstract things.

Actually, the question was not about space, it was directed at Papewaio's statement that 'Time is a physical entity just like energy and matter'...

Yet, as you say...

the problem with describing the physical attributes of time is, it's we humans that imagine such as an abstract. It is not that time has physical attributes, per se. Rather it is a process, that humans perceive within a relative context. If one changes the context, ones perception of the process is thus altered.

As we perceive it, time has no physical attributes, as a process that represents change, or in a greater context the interaction of energy and mass. Simply put, it is = in the mass–energy equivalence statement. Still, I'm very sure that I'm so incorrect.

One of my dull quotes: "a mind too free, is bound to wander."

Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?