All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

# Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Muted
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/18/2012 Category: Science Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 2,052 times Debate No: 27347
Debate Rounds (5)

 Con I decided to send this challenge early (since I have some time to write out the challenge). Please accept it, when you will. I doubt it is necessary to write out the rules, common conduct rules apply. For this debate, the definitions will be as follows: Evidence: Data gained through the scientific method, which uses testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. The Big Bang: The current most popular cosmological model of which I doubt a complete explanation is required. We will be debating from the singularity onwards. See [1] for more information. Should Pro wish, he may provide an explanation, which must be accompanied by equations, on how the singularity came about (Which he may do in the first round). Other than that, the Burden of Proof will be on Con. 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. Round structure: R1: Acceptance (Unless Pro wishes to use the argument two paragraph before) R2: Opening by Con, Pro may begin rebutting. R3-4: Arguments R5: Closing summary of arguments. No refutations may appear at this point. This is merely to consolidate one"s own arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...Report this Argument Pro My word kept,And not too late,I do acceptThis fair debate!Good luck to one!Good luck to all!I hope for fun,Without rude gall! Report this Argument Con Firstly, I would like to thank Torvald for accepting. Because Torvald has waived his right to explain the existence of the singularity, we will only be debating what happens after its occurrence. I will request that the remainder of this debate be made in prose form. :D I will present several lines of scientific evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. I will try to keep my language easy to understand for the readers. I do realize that some readers are unable to comprehend cosmological terms. As such, I will explain as many as I can. 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. Radiation has not have had enough time to interact with each other to such a degree. Inflation Hypothesis This has been partially addressed by Alan Guth.[2] He proposed that the singularity expanded, "inflated," incredibly fast in the past and then slowed down to the present speed. This means that the rate of expansion was much faster in the aftermath of the beginning. Now this creates problems of its own. There is no evidence that inflation ever occurred. Furthermore, it creates problems of itself. These problems include the "How did the inflation start? What was its cause? How did it slow down?" questions, which has to be addressed. However, there is no known cosmological force that could have started or slowed down this expansion. b. Untenable assumptions and bad data There is at least one untenable assumption in the data gathering. This assumption states that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. Although it may be true, it is untestable. What is untestable should be ideally discarded. Furthermore, WMAP data does not pass even the most lax of radiological standards [3]. c. CMBR can be explained as due to local radiation I will quote directly from the study and explain it somewhat. "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..." [4] It can be clearly seen 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 no SZE. We know however, that there is always SZE, so it logically must be due to the result of SZE on local radiation alone. Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK (Which is a puny number) So I will explain a little what SZE is. [5] SZE is "the result of high energy electrons distorting the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) through inverse Compton scattering, in which the low energy CMB photons receive an average energy boost during collision with the high energy cluster electrons". It is a scattering effect on radiation. II. Time dilation in Quasars Time dilation is the effect whereby events occurring far away appear to occur slower than nearby events [6][7]. This is caused by the lengthening of light pulse intervals as space expands. All events would be affected by time dilation, ideally. 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. [8] Even though the 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 [9]. However, time dilation in quasars is evidence against the expansion of the Universe. (I am personally for an expansion of the universe, however) III. Physical interaction of quasars and galaxies with different redshifts Halton Arp has made the observation [10] 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, only secondarily by its velocity. (See last picture of [11]) We can check this claim by analysing the pictures. Magnification of the pictures show, as stated in [12], that there is a "jet" of matter connecting NGC 7319 and the quasar, which is clearly in FRONT of the galaxy. Thus, redshifts might be explained to have been caused by youth, not by distance or velocity. IV. Rotation graphs This is an easy one. From [13], it is clear that standard Big bang models fail to account for the radius from center-rotation speed graph. What is most interesting is the remarkable flatness seen after a very rapid rise. This entirely contradicts prediction. This brings us to the most hypothetical explanation ever invented. Dark Matter (Which I think is a most fantastic idea). a. Dark Matter Dark matter is an ad hoc explanation for the miserable failure of the rotation curves. There is conflicting evidence, however. In 2006, dark matter was reportedly directly discovered [14]. However, in other models, dark matter is not needed and the "evidence" given is still correctly interpreted [15][16]. This shows clearly that dark matter is only required if one wants to hold to the Big Bang model, when in fact dark matter is not even needed in models that more accurately fit the data in that they have less variable parameters. Refutations come....Now. I hope I"ve explained terms sufficiently. 1. http://iopscience.iop.org... 2. http://prd.aps.org... 3. http://www.ptep-online.com... 4. http://arxiv.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...'dovich_effect 6. http://arxiv.org... 7. http://phys.org... 8. Ref. 6 9. http://arxiv.org... 10. http://electric-cosmos.org... 11. Ibid 12. Ibid 13. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu... 14. http://home.slac.stanford.edu... 15. http://news.sciencemag.org... 16. http://www.astrobio.net...Report this Argument Pro While I hate to be a bad sport, I feel obligated to point out that my opponent's entire round 2 argument is plagiarized from the November 10th article of 'Inarticulateresponses.wordpress.com,' right down to the sources [1] (he has made minor edits, yet the article remains almost verbatim). Furthermore, my opponent used an almost identically plagiarized argument in his debate last week with Microsuck, 'Evidence against the Big Bang.' [2] In both cases, he cleverly made minor changes to the paragraph headings, so as to confuse plagiarism checking engines (this may not have been intentional, but it certainly worked).While my opponent's stolen argument certainly does make interesting points, and I don't mind refuting it, my wish is to debate Muted on the subject of evidence for and against the Big Bang theory, not an anti-atheism wordpress article. I will gladly refute any non-plagiarized arguments that he is willing to make in the further rounds. As of now, however, I consider this round forfeited by him.Sources[1] http://inarticulateresponses.wordpress.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...Report this Argument Con see comments section. There is no need to appologize. Inarticulateresponses is my blog. I store my opening arguments, those i consider worth keeping, there. That being said, i would like to apologize for this ambiguity. I will furthermore not post any new arguments, although i have several. I did mention that i don't respond to arguments, but this is an exception. Please do not apologize for your accusations. In a form known as self-plagiarism, it is true. Back to you.Report this Argument Pro I recognize that my opponent desires no apology from me, yet I still feel the need to express an apology for my rude response, without all the facts. It is most humiliating.I will now make my case, with the request that, while my opponent is welcome to do as he pleases, I not be expected to debate in prose, which will put me at quite an inconvenience.CMBR DataThe Horizon ProblemI'm afraid that I do not understand what you've said, here. Please explain.Inflation HypothesisActually, you're mistaken that there's no evidence. Either that or you're using outdated information. The universe around us can be actively perceived as it rapidly expands, everything moving away from a central point. Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe is expanding, revolutionizing the perception of the universe, and, naturally, rallying much anger from parts of the establishment [1].You are quite right, about the problems of the theory; there's no way to know, as of yet, what caused the Big Bang, exactly how it happened, and, well, most of it. The theory is very empty, as of now, due to sheer lack of data. Because there's so little data, partly because of the extreme recency of the theory, much conjecture and supposition must be used to fill in the gaps. This unfortunately makes it look rather bad.Untenable Assumptions and Bad DataIs my opponent suggesting that currently untestable theories and hypotheses should be rejected? Were this suggestion heeded, science could be set back significantly.Before ContinuingBefore I continue with the debate, I feel obligated to point out that you (my opponent) have been making arguments with sources. For example, "Furthermore, WMAP data does not pass even the most lax of radiological standards [3]." Now, I think it should be pretty obvious that it should not be necessary for me to Robitaille's entire paper to competently understand what point you're trying to make here. You can't make an argument by posting a link to a paper written by somebody else. Given this, I shall be simply quoting such arguments that you make, and otherwise ignoring them as invalid (no offense).CMBR Can Be Explained as Due to Local RadiationThe study that you quote is six years old, and severely outdated. Allow me to quote the abstract of a 2012 analysis by Davide Pietrobon:We perform a joint analysis of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and Galactic emission from the WMAP 7 year temperature data. Using the Commander code, based on Gibbs sampling, we simultaneously derive the CMB and Galactic components on scales larger than 1° with improved sensitivity over previous work. We conduct a detailed study of the low-frequency Galactic foreground, focusing on the "microwave haze" emission around the Galactic center. We demonstrate improved performance in quantifying the diffuse Galactic emission when including Haslam 408 MHz data and when jointly modeling the spinning and thermal dust emission. We examine whether the hypothetical Galactic haze can be explained by a spatial variation of the synchrotron spectral index, and find that the excess of emission around the Galactic center is stable with respect to variations of the foreground model. Our results demonstrate that the new Galactic foreground component—the microwave haze—is indeed present. [2]Furthermore, I am not sure my opponent is entirely clear about what the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect is. Allow me to make a quick explanation, for the sake of the laymen who are basically unfamiliar with SZE. To put it in simple terms, SZE is occurs when high energy electrons provide ambient photons with an energy boost, distorting the pattern of Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation [3] [4]. Understand that without CMBR, there is no SZE. SZE is itself an effect that only affects CMBR, so claiming that "Either it is totally CMBR, or totally SZE. Therefore, CMBR data can be explained wholly by SZE or no SZE. We know however, that there is always SZE, so it logically must be due to the result of SZE on local radiation alone" is a total fallacy. Your own explanation of the SZE, which occurs well after you've tried to make a semantics point based on it, disproves your own flimsy argument.Time Dilation in QuasarsYou have stated that time dilation and quasars don't add up to current understanding of the universe, and taken the opportunity to list four sources for elementary information (only one of which was worthwhile). However, I do not see any explanation of how this is relevant.On a sidenote, your use of "blya" shocked me, because I accidentally skipped over your explanation of it as an abbreviation for 'billion light years away,' and 'blya' in Russian loosely means 'bitch,' and certainly wasn't something I expected to see in this debate!Physical Interaction of Quasars and Galaxies with Different RedshiftsYour argument here is based on unfounded conjecture, made to explain a mysterious observation by Halton Arp (by the way, you're doing that arguing with sources thing again). This is not testable, and, according to you, should be rejected.Rotation Graphs"This is an easy one. From [13], it is clear that standard Big bang models fail to account for the radius from center-rotation speed graph. What is most interesting is the remarkable flatness seen after a very rapid rise. This entirely contradicts prediction. This brings us to the most hypothetical explanation ever invented. Dark Matter (Which I think is a most fantastic idea)."Dark MatterSeveral of your arguments seem to be based on 2006 information. To explain quickly, both to my opponent and to the audience, current understanding of dark matter, here's a not-so-brief definition:We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution. [5]Now, the first hint for the existence of dark matter was discovered by Jan Oort, in 1932, who found that the mass of the galaxy must be more that can be seen. Fritz Zwicky then made a further discovery, in '33, that agreed with the observations of Oort. [6] Some scientists opposed to the concept of dark matter have proposed that the perceived effects of dark matter are caused by gravity of normal matter, and that Newton and Einstein simply failed to fully predict its effects on an intergalactic scale. However, this proposition fails to explain the massive collision of the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 observed by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and dark matter can successfully do so, without creating necessity to overthrow Newtonian mechanics and relativity. [7]Sources[1] http://skyserver.sdss.org...[2] Analysis of WMAP 7 Year Temperature Data: Astrophysics of the Galactic Haze, Davide Pietrobon, The Astrophysical Journal[3] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'dovich_effect[5] http://science.nasa.gov...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.nasa.gov...Report this Argument Con First of all I will like to explain my sourcing policy. The number of sources to me does not determine the source vote, so I am not sourcing to get that point. I am sourcing more to give further information which are of strong connection to the case. For you to dismiss any argument, you will have to show some sort of invalidity within it. Invalid means contradictory. My arguments are not. You may not dismiss an argument if you are unable to explain it. As I will concede should any argument be explicable, so should you.I. CMBR Dataa. Horizon ProblemThis problem, which I had assumed you to be familiar with, basically states that CMBR violates the upper limit on the age of the Universe, which is around 14-15 billion years. Stretched to the max, it would be around 15 billion years. This problem basically states that the time for radiation to become so uniform has not have had a chance to occur, at all. I hope this explains, if not, see wikipedia.b. IHYou have sadly confused inflation with expansion. I hold to expansion, which I consider a fact, though it can be called into question (See Ref. 9 of previous round). A simple way to recognize the difference would be to consider the following comparison.Hubble---ExpansionGuth --- InflationAs can be seen clearly from this, my arguments are not directed at expansion, but at inflation. I am talking about inflation, which is the hypothesis that the Universe expanded very much before reducing to it’s current expansion speed. No evidence.c. UntenableI would like to reply to your direct question with a yes. We should discard untestable hypotheses. This is because I have defined evidence as data gained through the scientific method, which requires that the data be testable.All my major arguments have been replied to, thanks. I will attempt not to do so in the future. Maybe not citing a source at all would be good.d. CMBR Data and SZEI have somewhat change the header here. I think you have failed to get my point. My point is that SZE is an effect on local background microwave radiation. This would make it appear cosmic. To give a better explanation, I will use information from inside the article. I have taken the liberty to include the .pdf version of the article for you to read [1].So, from the article, we can see clearly that predicted values of SZE were not fulfilled. (Section 2 and 5) The article clearly states that the clusters themselves are a possible source of emission to account for the discrepancy. It is clear from this that the authors do not consider SZE solely a result of CMBR, but of emissions, period.I have now clearly showed that my argument is not flimsy, and is in fact a possible explanation provided by the authors.II. Time dilation in QuasarsUnfortunately, you have not replied to any portion of my arguments here. You have sidetracked the debate. I have clearly given data and interpreted it in the simplest terms possible. I don’t see how at all it is invalid. You will have to explain or refute my points. A note as to my sources. Two of the references were primary sources, one a news article, the other, the journal article of which a free pdf is available. As, however, I cited all relevant data, it was not entirely needed. One of the reference was an ibid, and the last was a reference to an article on expansion, on which these data put into doubt.III. Physical interactionsYou have failed to respond to my arguments here. You have also failed to show how it is invalid. The physical interaction explanation is not based on unfounded conjecture, nor was it a mysterious observation. Before actually replying to my arguments, which are valid, I suggest reading up on “physical cosmology.” Physical interaction is a widely used explanation in the cosmological world and to dismiss it because you cannot explain the data well is to dismiss a whole branch of science.IV. Rotation GraphsYou have not exactly responded to this argument. Nonetheless, I will respond to the argument regarding Dark Matter (Hereafter, DM)a. Dark MatterYou have appealed to history. So shall I. Once upon a time, people thought there was a planet called “vulcan” because they had no explanation for a certain phenomena in their cosmology. We shall therefore only focus on the evidence. The only evidence proffered by you is “...the massive collision of the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 observed by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory...” What interests me is that you use the same tactic you accuse me of (No offence here, by the way)Before I end, though, I must inform you that your source is also from 2006. You said this about my arguments, “Several of your arguments seem to be based on 2006 information...” This implies that my arguments are outdated, which they are not. Please don’t point a finger when you’re doing the same. I will end with noting that this phenomena you claim can only be explained by DM is actually explicable by other models such as MOND. As you have not given specifics of how other models cannot account for this, neither will I. I will merely cite the link [2][3]. It also very well explains this phenomena. Your assertion that DM is the only model to predict this correctly is thus groundless, to say the least.All being said, I will request you not to ignore arguments unless you can show it to be invalid, which you cannot.3. http://arxiv.org... (Ref. 2 and 3 taken from wikipedia article on the Bullet cluster)Report this Argument Pro I sincerely apologize, but, due to a significant increase in business, I shall likely be unable to participate in any debates. Since it is more sporting for me to concede than forfeit, and because I legitimately do wish to continue this debate, I simply request that we continue the debate at a later time, with the arguments of this one transplanted, so as to continue from this point. I left this late, in the hopes that my schedule would somewhat clear up, but have been unable to do anything about this schedule. My reiterated sincere apologies.Report this Argument Con I urge a vote Con for arguments, and conduct Pro for his very gracious concession. I had several more things to say which I will not do so now that he has conceded due to time constraints.Report this Argument Pro I likewise urge a Con vote, for I have had to bow out of the debate.Report this Argument
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
That plagiarism scare in the middle was certainly a good way to wake up the reader.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
I'd be delighted to have a 2.0, but not now, and not immediately after this debate. My schedule is becoming increasingly busy, and I have much less to time spend on this site.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Torvald, can we have a 2.0? I feel a strong desire to continue this fascinating debate.

Emospongy, remember Pro is usually on the left side, so click all the left dots.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
I will be giving all seven points to Pro because of Con's blatant plagiarism.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Ha, it certainly does have the volume and contentious nature for a ten round debate! No need to apologize for your opposition, everyone has ups and downs. I often feel like I have more downs than ups. Oh well, c'est la vie. Or is it 'le vie'? Oh, and about my 2006 source, yes, I do have one source that's a little outdated, but it said what needed saying very well. I wasn't criticizing you for having multiple 2006 sources (though that does potentially inconvenience you, since that's multiple outdated sources), just pointing it out.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
it appears to be a problem with the url. I cited the same article. Anyway, my apologies, I'm not giving a very good opposition. I hope, though, that we can continue this debate. Ten rounds maybe?
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
D'oh! Confounded formatting. Source four is supposed to be the Wikipedia Article on Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
that being said, i request that we be able to use R5 as a full round.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
it would be very unfair if i posted new arguments for R3, seeing as responding to my opening would take up most of your space.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.