All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# Evidence against the Big Bang

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Muted
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/5/2012 Category: Science Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 2,264 times Debate No: 26895
Debate Rounds (5)

 Pro As I feel that my arguments were not adequately responded to in our past debate, I will send this to Stephan_Hawkins should he accept. If he does not then this becomes open. The Big Bang theory: See [1] for more general information on this, although I do not believe it is required. Evidence: For this debate, evidence will be defined as the data collected via the scientific method. The scientific method can be paraphrased to "testable, repeatable, and falsifiable." According to the falsification criteria set by Karl Popper: 1. Theory T predicts O will not be observed 2. O is observed Therefore T is false. Rules: 1. No logical fallacies are allowed, I would especially like to mention strawman. 2. The definitions shall not be changed in any way. 3. The BoP is only on me. 4. No plagiarism. 5. If Pro uses any arguments outside of those in the following bracket, he will concede the debate immediately. (CMBR data, Time dilation in quasars, and redshifts in quasars {Within which there may be sub/minor-arguments}) 6. If Con does not respond to just one of these arguments, he must concede. 7. No trolling 8. No vulgarities There will be a period of 1 week voting, 72 hours arguments each person/round, 8k characters, and comments in the comments section is required for voters. Should any voter not provide a reason in the comment section, it becomes a vote-bomb and it is expected of other voters to counter that vote. There will be five rounds. 1st round will be for acceptance. 2nd-4th round will be for argumentation 5th round will be for closing. In the 5th round there can be no more than 1k characters. Should any of these rules be broken, the offending party must concede the debate and it is requested that 7 points be placed on the one who did not break the rules by the voters. Otherwise it is requested that a fair vote be made. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...Report this Argument Con I accept this debate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend the Big Bang Theory. I honestly am not that familiar with the theory as I am with biological theories, but I am very interested in learning mroe about the Big Bang Theory in this debate.I request that we have an agreed upon definition of the Big Bang Theory. I define the Big Bang Theory as follows:"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." [1]Also, I agree with the syllogism; however, I will bring this up:1. Theory T predicts observation O2. Observation O IS observed;3. Therefore, theory T has been given added support [2]Good luck and I am ready for this debate. References2. Note that there is no such thing as absolutes in science. Report this Argument Pro I would like to thank Microsuck for accepting this debate. He has somewhat scrapped rule 2, but I will let it pass since I did not define explicitly the terms. I. CMBR Data a. The horizon problem There is a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[1]. If indeed the speed of light c is constant, then this data creates a light-time-travel problem. This has been partially addressed by Alan Guth. He proposed that the singularity expanded, "inflated," incredibly fast in the past and then slowed down to the present speed. Now this creates problems of its own. How did the inflation start? What was its cause? How did it slow down? What opposing force was there? b. Untenable assumptions and bad data. This assumption is that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. This is untestable, and hence untenable. [6] WMAP satellite data, which is CMBR data, is also within the error range of radiological instruments. c. CMBR data can be explained as due to local radiation The ~70mK anisotropies, commonly regarded as proof of the Big Bang, can be attributed to other effects such as the Sunyaev"Zel"dovich effect. (SZE) [3] Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK. On the average of 31 clusters, no shadow has been detected. This shows that CMBR has a higher possibility of being local radiation and radiation is coming from within the clusters, rather than BR. II. Time Dilation in Quasars Time dilation is the effect whereby events occurring far away appear to occur slower than nearby events [4][5]. This is caused by the lengthening of light pulse intervals as space expands. BB predicts that all events would be affected by time dilation. Quasars, however, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth. Light signatures of 6 billion light years away (blya) and 10 blya were found to be the same. [6] Even though redshifts were drastically different, the time taken for the light to reach Earth was the same. So how does this have any reference to the Big Bang? Well, the Big Bang relies on the expansion of the Universe [7]. This is evidence against the expansion of the Universe. III. Redshifts in Quasars. Halton Arp has made the observation [8] that highly redshifted quasars can be seen to interact physically with relatively lower redshifted galaxies. From this observation, Arp claims that redshifts are caused primarily by a young object, not by its velocity. (See last picture of [9]) We can check this claim by analysing the pictures. Magnification of the pictures show, as stated in [10], that there is a "jet" of matter connecting NGC 7319 and the quasar. Thus, redshifts are caused by youth, not by velocity. The biggest evidence for Big bang universal expansion is redshifts. The evidence of redshifts in quasars due to youngness contradicts the other evidences. So this is rather a short debate opening, you may begin rebutting. (I propose that no addition of evidences be made, because according to the rules I cannot debate them :D) 1. http://iopscience.iop.org... 2. http://www.ptep-online.com... 3. http://arxiv.org... 4. http://arxiv.org... 5. http://phys.org... 6. Ref 4 7. http://arxiv.org... 8. http://electric-cosmos.org... 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid.Report this Argument Con Thank you, Muted, for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic. I appreciate your speedy opening statements and I will gladly begin to address them and refute them. I. CMBR Data A. The Horizon problem My opponent is correct that the temperature of the universe is extremely uniform. One of the basic assumptions of the BBT is that the universe is homogenous and, given the time between the beginning of the universe and decoupling, any imogeneities (like those expected from inflation) would not have much time to grow. We are still unsure why it started or what its cause was. Likewise, we are still unsure as to what the opposing force was, if any. Although we still have open questions, we are still reasonably sure that the inflation theory is correct because it makes predictions that have been confirmed, including [1]: “It should be highly uniform. One of the basic assumptions of BBT is that the universe is homogeneous and, given the time between the beginning of the universe and decoupling, any inhomogeneities (like those expected from inflation) would not have much time to grow.” “It should have a blackbody spectrum. As we said before, prior to decoupling the universe was full of plasma and photons were constantly scattering off of all of the ionized matter. This makes the universe a perfect absorber; no photons could leave the universe, so they would put the whole universe (or at least that part that was causally connected) in thermal equilibrium. As such, we can actually describe the universe as having a unique temperature. In classical thermodynamics, photons emitted by a blackbody at a given temperature have a very specific distribution of energies and, as Tolman showed in 1934, a blackbody spectrum will remain a blackbody spectrum (albeit at a lower temperature) as it redshifts.” The fact is, the inflation theory solves the horizon problem. Although there are open questions about the inflation theory, we can still be reasonably sure that inflation did happen. B. Untenable assumptions and bad data. I could not find anything in your study to show that the prediction is untestable. C. CMBR data can be explained as due to local radiation Once again, I could not find anything in your study that shows that CMBR data is explained due to local radiation. Moreover, I do not fully understand the gist of your argument. Please expand in the next round. II. Time Dilation in Quasars This effect can be easily explained. 1) The speed of light is constant in a vacuum; and 2) The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which causes light from distant objects to redshift (i.e., the wavelengths become longer) in relationship to how far the objects are from earth. [2] III. Redshifts Quasars My opponent claims that redshift is caused by youth and not by velocity. However, the tired light model fails for several reasons: 1) It fails the Tolman surface bright test; 2) There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon’s energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed; 3) Finally, the tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This dilation is consequence of the standard interpretation of redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. [3] Finally, talk origins notes the following [4]: The Big Bang model explains other observations in addition to expansion red-shift and the cosmic microwave background. the abundance of light elements, predicted from reactions that would occur during the first three minutes of the Big Bang. the darkness of the night sky (Olber's paradox) isotropy and homogeneity -- the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions, and our location isn't special. radio source and quasar counts vary with age, showing the universe has evolved. Good luck and I await your next response. References and Footnotes http://www.talkorigins.org... http://phys.org... Wright, Edward L., 1996. Errors in tired light cosmology. http://www.astro.ucla.edu... http://www.talkorigins.org... Report this Argument Pro I would like to thank Microsuck for such a comprehensive response. I. CMBR Data A. The Horizon Problem In your attempt to answer the objections to Inflation theory, you have committed the grave error of circular logic. The inflation hypothesis was created to explain the horizon problem [1]. To claim that uniformity is a verified prediction of the inflationary hypothesis is thus circular reasoning. [2] The same problem plagues the second prediction. Is there any inflationary hypothesis prediction that is not circular? No. B. Untenable assumptions and bad data. My apologies. The source is actually 2 from R2. As I said above, It was assumed that the foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. This is untestable. The same source also shows that WMAP data fails radiological standards. C. CMBR data can be explained as due to local radiation My apologies for the ambiguity. I will cite the study again. [3] This time, I will quote from the study directly, possibly they will be more articulate. "The WMAP Q, V, and W band radial profiles of temperature deviation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) were constructed for a sample of 31 randomly selected nearby clusters of galaxies... The profiles were compared in detail with the expected CMB Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE) caused by these clusters, with the hot gas properties of each cluster inferred observationally by applying gas temperatures as measured by ASCA to isothermal $\beta$ models of the ROSAT X-ray surface brightness profiles, and with the WMAP point spread function fully taken into consideration. After co-adding the 31 cluster field, it appears that WMAP detected the SZE in all three bands. Quantitatively, however, the observed SZE only accounts for about 1/4 of the expected decrement. The discrepancy represents too much unexplained extra flux: in the W band, the detected SZE corresponds on average to 5.6 times less X-ray gas mass within a 10 arcmin radius than the mass value given by the ROSAT $\beta$ model. We examined critically how the X-ray prediction of the SZE may depend on our uncertainties in the density and temperature of the hot intracluster plasma, and emission by cluster radio sources. Although our comparison between the detected and expected SZE levels is subject to a margin of error, the fact remains that the average observed SZE depth and profile are consistent with those of the primary CMB anisotropy, i.e. in principle the average WMAP temperature decrement among the 31 rich clusters is too shallow to accommodate any extra effect like the SZE." From this we see that it is an either or situation. Either it is totally CMBR, or totally SZE. Therefore, CMBR data can be explained wholly by SZE or there is no SZE. We know however, that there is always SZE, so it logically must II. Time Dilation in Quasars The explanation given is no explanation at all. You have just explained time dilation in general. The point of my argument remains unaddressed. As such, I will not repeat myself, and I request you to go back to my opening round and address this argument. II. Redshifts in Quasars You have just refuted the idea of tired light. That is not my argument. My argument is that quasars have physical interactions with lower redshifted galaxies. This has been observationally verified (See the previous round). Thus, redshifts cannot be due to distance. If it is not due to distance, then what is it due to? I cannot refute you other points as I have restricted myself. 1. http://prd.aps.org... 2. I will like to add a caveat to the rules. If rule 1 is broken, there is no need to concede. (Should you agree) The change does not apply to other rules. 3. http://arxiv.org...Report this Argument Con Microsuck forfeited this round. Pro Extend all arguments.Report this Argument Con I resign this debate. My computer crashed and deleted my arguments. Please forgive me for the forfeit. Report this Argument Pro okayReport this Argument Con Vote pro.Report this Argument
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Arguments up later this afternoon.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Depends on how one interprets it. I apologize for the ambiguity, that was my fault.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
"This shows clearly that it is NOT the ABSENCE of verification, but the contradiction of predictions.

Do you dispute with my example still?"

No, but the way you first worded did imply absence of verification.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
I don't mind disagreement. Want to take the debate?
Posted by GreenTeas 4 years ago
I disagree. It clearly has the potential to be falsified, even if that falsifiability is outside our current technological or scientific understanding. The Big Bang Theory embodies a description of natural phenomena that, if they occurred, would leave evidence of its occurrence. If some new breakthrough in quantum theory demonstrated that the steady-state theory is correct and an inflationary event could not have occurred, the Big Bang Theory would be falsified.

Moreover, the "Big Bang Theory" is not a monolithic theory lacking nuance. There are numerous Big Bang Theories with different criteria and differing explanatory power.

And, many of these variations of the Big Bang Theory have already been rejected because they do not fit with scientific data and understanding. For example, the chaotic inflation scenario replaced prior inflationary theories that rested on untenable propositions, in light of our growing understanding of physics.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
It is my position that the Big Bang Theory cannot be falsified. That it will change constantly to fit the data. Which is not too big a problem for me. I'm just wanting to present evidence against the current Big bang model.
Posted by GreenTeas 4 years ago
Is your position that existing scientific evidence is capable of falsifying the Big Bang Theory?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Oh, I forgot to state. If you still dispute this, send a challenge. After all, wouldn't it be an easy win for you?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
In the HYPOTHETICAL example of the ravens. You are taking me out of context.

When I stated that O is not observed, I am saying that the prediction does not come to pass.
Consider the example of eclipses. They are regularly predicted. And just as regularly fulfilled. In the hypothetical situation that they are not fulfilled the theory is then falsified.

Let me put this in the same form as the falsification principle I gave.

1. Theory T predicts that (an eclipse would occur on day X) (This is the prediction O)
2. An eclipse does not occur on day X
Therefore the theory is false.

This shows clearly that it is NOT the ABSENCE of verification, but the contradiction of predictions.

Do you dispute with my example still?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.