[GoC (OP)]

Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

Plank's time is the smallest of motion'

The BB 13.6 Billion years is a drop in the bucket compared to BH's reaching over 30,000 AU. The two are incompatible. Which one is observed and which one is theory?

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

 Time for me is a simple causality that has no purpose except that as a tool for us.
 It has a huge effect on space, but again only from our perspective.

 You see time for me is basically inevitable, it starts to occur on and from space at the moment, that by any means, a "scale" is set.
  Everything once was frozen, and suddenly "do not know why" kinetic energy took place and bang.
 At that very moment everything within the event was at the speed of light, all the photons, for ordinary reasons the environment was not suitable for entropy to exist.
  At the moment mass started to occur, entropy started to "locally" affect the within BB volume.
  This caused time as we know to appear.

 You see we predict the universal expansion or wherever has a "speed" and a "time" on which it happens.
  But thing about PI, why is always there as it is?
 It's because a perfect circle does not need time to expand or contract or do anything. It's cheating,
  If the environment "space" is the thing ruling the "time" and "speeds" within "its" universal balloon, us, and if it's indeed a expanding circle(more like a bubble or hurricane flat disk) its irrelevant.

 -A expanding circle/radius, does not need "time" not "speed" to expand or contract.

 Drawn a circle on a sheet of paper.
 Mentally watch this circle expand or contract into a smaller or larger radius.
  Now the trick, our situation thinking about it.
 "A cone"
 Imagine now that you are looking to the circle trough a cone, where you eye is on the small side of it and the cicle is on the other, from here on out your looking to the whole "universe" the sheet of paper can't be seen from your perspective but it's simultaneously there, outside of you field of view.

 Do you realize where the "speed" or "time" the circle did or took to "expand or contract" was only presented on the "distance". Those illusions where happening only on the cone, when you pictured the circle expanding the cone get larger. When you pictured the circle getting small you cone was getting small.
  The circle(universe) could indeed be expanding and contracting, but such things as speeds and times were presented only on the "cone" from with you were looking, and it was happening backwards for you too.
 So I ask, motion first, time first, does it mater?
 The question is:
Which one was universe from the cone perspective?
 The whole circle at one end, or the electron at the center of you very eye at the other side?
 Both were and none!
 The only thing defining that the electron is not the planet is gravity, inside out, or outside in, and that is determinate by gravity. If gravity in the shore was to be stronger than gravity on the hill, everything would be running imploding "as everything is" but from outside in...

 it's irrelevant, but the concept remains.
  If the cone had the same exact "scale" on both ends of it?
 I ask with that in mind.
 Would there be time on that spiral?
or only speed of light, like a wormhole?
 Like on the photon configuration when the entropy of the electron is not presented?
 One must be the larger end and the other must be the other, and both must be different.
 At this moment, with different scales in between point A(electron) and point B(photon), scales are set, time starts to occurs.
 Increase the scale (if volume is presented/available) and one is to then reach our scale.

  Time, speed, charges, sizes an any other motion or vector happens only on the cone and because of the cone(Distance)? Interaction moves everything...
 Does any of this make sense?

[smart]

The big bang theory is the cause and effect of quantum mechanical motion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_paradox

[GoC (OP)]

The big bang theory is the cause and effect of quantum mechanical motion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_paradox

I have generally found theories cannot cause nor affect physics.

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU. Our suns volume as a BH would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. Our suns life cycle is about 10 billion years. Larger suns have shorter life cycles but what is average? 13.6 billion years old for the universe is the equivalent of suggesting man only existed for 6,000 years on the earth. Our galaxies BH is about 4.5 AU. How long was the galaxy around before the first sun turned into the first BH? Our inability to view past 13.6 billion years may be spectrum waves are not distinguishable as images past that point. If we follow relativity GR could be the cause of red shift and less SR. Accumulated dilation can be viewed as the lensing effect on a galaxy. This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.

[PhysBang]

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.

I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.

This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.

Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.

[GoC (OP)]

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.

I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.

I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?

This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.

GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.

Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.

History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations ... In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an ... who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this 'big bang' idea" ... Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a ...

Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.

Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.

What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.

[impyre]

Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

I thought their answer was relatively insightful. I'm sure there's been leftover motion since the big bang. Momentum can be responsible for motion, but so can outside forces. Of course, this is bearing in mind that motion is indeed relative and that so too can accelerations be relative. The fact that it can all be relative doesn't change the fact that motion and acceleration clearly exist.
If your question is "what causes things to move relative to their own reference frame?", that can only be outside force resulting in acceleration.
If your question is "what causes things to move relative to my reference frame?", that could be either force or momentum.
If your question is "what allows things to move?" I'd probably argue in favor of some other posters and say time.
If your question is "why are the laws of physics what they are?" .... who knows.

[PhysBang]

I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?

First, you haven't provided us with any source for your claim. Nor have you provided us with any reason to believe that there should be any upper limit on black hole size. You are, again, demonstrating that you don't really care about evidence.

GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.

Please see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.

Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.

I made no insult. It was the case that Fred Hoyle was trying to smear the primordial fireball model of cosmology (as it might have been known at the time) by calling it the "Big Bang" theory; Hoyle admitted this much. It is also true that Hoyle's theory failed to match the cosmological evidence. I know that the moderators here accept a certain amount of anti-Catholic bigotry and attempt to dismiss points because a Catholic may once have made a similar point, but that Georges Lemaitre did seminal work in cosmology means neither that the current theory has Catholic content nor that it doesn't match the evidence.

Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.

Given your tenuous grasp on the relationship between conclusions and evidence, I can accept that you might have a negative assessment of me.

What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.

Again, I have no idea what kind of reasoning you are attempting to employ here and I have no idea what your source is for your claims about black holes.