The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Steady State Theory VS Big Bang

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,224 times Debate No: 33159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




I will be proving Steady State Theory/QSS is a superior cosmological model to the Big Bang. Subutai will be proving The Big Bang Theory as superior cosmological model to Steady State Theory.
Burden Of Proof is shared.
Evidence varying from:
Scholarly papers, ETC are welcome.
First round is for acceptance.
2 is for evidence
3-4 evidence/clash,
5 clash and final statements.

Good luck!


I would like to thank A.WitherspoonVI for challenging me to this debate, and I wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I Thank Subtai for accepting this debate and would like to take this round to introduce you all to the Steady State Model, the theory itself, and the theological and metaphysical support for this argument.

What is The Steady state Theory?
The first and most stark contrasts from other models(like the Big Bang) is the assertion that the universe is indeed infinite in both the realms of space and time.
The original model proposed by Cosmologists Fred Hoyle and Bondi states that the universe is expanding(constantly and indefinitely) causes the emergence of creation fields which create new matter. The thought was as the universe was indeed expanding and these creation fields would spring up as a result of this expansion and lead to the universe never changing its form. However as astronomical observations have caught up with theoretical cosmology the original theory needed to be reformed. This leads to the contemporary form of Steady State known as Quasi-Steady State(QSS)

Now For The Actual Theory
The Universe is infinite however it is not static. The Universe goes through an endless cycle of contractions and expansions. We can observe that we are currently in a period of expansion from the observations of Hubble and many others indicated by the further a galaxy is away, the faster they are moving away(AKA Red Shift). The (QSS) History of our universe was no great single cataclysmic event but an eternal cycle of creation events. These Creation Events are sometimes referred to as mini-bangs. These “minibangs” occur from situations of high velocity particles(perhaps Planck Particles) in relation to extreme gravitational fields. This results in the pouring in of matter to the universe. Whether or not matter is simply created by these events or has an origin different in space time is unfortunately still speculative. However unlike Big Bang in which the universal creation arose Ex Nihilo these creation events occur for a set of universal physical laws that have always been so and always will. Untitled

What you are looking at here is two very distant galaxies going through what very well may be a creation event. We observe an elliptical galaxy which has very high radio emission fire a jet which is directly inline with another galaxy. One could come to the conclusion the conditions here for a QSS creation process are very high as we have strong gravitational and radio forces followed by a jet of of matter and the creation of another. Professor Hoyle cites this very same piece of evidence and comes to the same conclusion. galaxy.

Back to the cyclical nature of the Universe. If you notice in the diagram below we can see that the universe is subject to an endless balance of heightened creation then expansion over time. The rate of creation decreases as we move forward in time. This would explain why we do not observe creation events in regions closer to our galaxy(and thus closes to our own time) rather than creation events like we will find far-far away and long ago in time. This decrease in creation would logically lead to an eventual deterioration of the universe. We can note that stars further away are actually predominantly younger, this is an indicator that the QSS cosmological model of the universe as shown below is factual. The reason for this being as we move back in time we see more creation and recent development(younger stars and objects) but today we have a greatly reduced level of creation and recent development.^^ Professor Burbidge

Metaphysical Analysis and the Planck epoch

Aside from the scientific theory behind QSSC and even the earlier version of Steady State are metaphysical and theological arguments and reasoning:

I. The Steady State Model unlike Big Bang would not require “ex nihilo nihil fit” which literally means from nothing comes nothing.
For The Big Bang all of the universe came into creation from one incredibly small point.
with that is the obvious question of what was the trigger? What caused this Big Bang?
The Vatican and most Muslims would maintain that the creator triggered this event.
However a proponent of Big Bang Stephen Hawkings maintains that the Big Bang created time as well as space. This means that there would have been no time for a creator to trigger the Big Bang. Consider that the event happened for no reason. It simply occurred at a given point for no seeable reason and this point began to exist when? Thus we are lead to the conclusion Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit that this event happened for no reason and arose from nothing. By nothing I do not mean simply the lack of matter but the very lack of matter itself. As Big Bang proponents today have not yet found an explanation or reached a consensus these questions and the existence of Ex nihilo nihil fit are very much so pressing and troublesome. However in the Steady State Model and QSSC such metaphysical problems are non-existent. As the universe is infinite in time and space and there simply is no beginning there is no creator, no trigger, no arising of something from nothing as creation of matter happens as result of universal physical forces. Universal Physical forces are still a problem for Big Bang proponents as I will explain in the last section of my argument for this round.

II. The Planck Epoch
The Planck Epoch is the big bang model the very early universe, this Epoch is interesting as if one read of it because of how it tells us everything we know about physics is wrong. It is stated that the universal laws of physics arose at a very high temperature. If there can indeed be a certain point where all the universal forces so familiar to physics and cosmology can be overridden then that model should seem to every man with knowledge of physics to be unsatisfactory. Much like creation events in The Steady State Theory, this period is still very much speculative as we do not have the ability yet to test the conditions required. However I argue that the very fact that the laws of nature can be disregarded at a certain time is far more troublesome.

I would like to give the floor now to Subtai, he will explain his theory and then I expect we are going to have an interesting clash.


I would like to thank A.WitherspoonVI for presenting his arguments.

In this round, I will attempt to prove the Big Bang Theory (BBT) through a series of prediction/proof analyses.

I. Homogeneity of the Universe

While the universe is not homogeneous in small regions, the universe as a whole is relativity homogeneous. This was a predicted result of the Big Bang Theory and his been confirmed by the WMAP probe:


This ties in to the thing known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), shown below:


The CMBR is isotropic (the same) to roughly one part in 100,000, further confirming universial homogeneity. This spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K.[3][4]

II. Galatic Evolution

The above information leads into my second point. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe.[8][9]

III. Abundance of Elements

Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen.The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.[5][6]

Here is a graph showing the abundance of elements in the universe (abundance versus atomic number):


Notice how the abundancies roughly decrease asymptotically as the atomic numbers of the various elements go up. This further confirms the predictions of the Big Bang Theory with regards to the abundance of elements in the universe.

IV. Dark Matter and the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect

In addition to the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, photons from the CMBR can also be subtly affected by the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The basis for this effect is gravitational redshift, one of the most basic predictions from GR and first demonstrated experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. The basic idea is that, as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy and when they exit they lose energy. Hence, scientists refer to photons "falling into" and "climbing out of" gravitational wells.

As CMBR photons pass through the foreground large scale structure, they pass through many such gravitational wells. If the depth of the well is static (or rather if the depth of the well is increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe), then the net energy change is zero. All of the energy they gained falling in is lost climbing out. However, if the universe contains dark energy (or has an open geometry), then the universe expands faster than the gravitational wells around massive objects can grow. As a result, the CMBR photons do not lose all of the energy they gained falling into the potentials. This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies.

Following the release of the WMAP data, studies measured this effect using galaxies selected in a number of different ways. The signal-to-noise in any one of the measurements was not very large. However, taken together (and combined with the WMAP observation that the geometry of the universe was best fit by a flat universe), they provide significant evidence that this effect is real and is best explained by the standard Lambda CMD model of BBT.[1][10][11][12]

V. Hubble's Law

Hubble's Law states that v = H0D where

  • v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
  • D is the comoving distance to the object,
  • H0 is Hubble's Constant, measured to be 70.4 (errors +1.3, -1.4) km/s/Mpc
The only plausible explanation for this is the expansion of the universe, which we are currently expericing. It is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang Theory, and its validity is great proof of the Big Bang Theory.[13][14][15]

VI. Stellar Age

If the BBT were to be true, there should be no stars older than approximately 13.5 billion years. The oldest stars known fit nicely into this model. the globular cluster NGC 6397, Panquini found an age of 13.4 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. Other studies like Krauss and Hansen obtained similar results with related methods: 12.2 and 12.1 billion years, respectively, with errors on order 1 to 2 billion years.[1][16][17][18]

In addition, we should see differeniations in different stellar generations. Stars create the denser materials. If so, newer stars should have more metallicity the younger they are. This is indeed observed.[19]

Generally, the youngest stars, the extreme Population I, are found farther in and intermediate Population I stars are farther out, etc, as shown here:


This organization is observed in galaxies throughout the universe, and is another important proof of the BBT.


[2]: Weinburg, S. The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe.
[3]: Spergel, D.N. et al. (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology"
[5]: Kolb, E.; Turner, M. (1988). The Early Universe.
[7]: Croswell, Ken (February 1996). Alchemy of the Heavens.
[9]: Bertschinger, E. (1998). "Simulations of Structure Formation in the Universe".
[11]: S. Boughn and R. Crittenden, A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-scale Structure in the Universe. Nature 427 (2004) pp. 45
[17]: L. M. Krauss and B. Chaboyer, Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology. Science 299 (2003) pp. 65

Debate Round No. 2


In my research I discovered that QSSC was refuted a decade ago by a Mr. Wright. I will not debate something that is false. I urge you to vote Big Bang and all Steady State Proponents to accept that we were wrong. Thank you.


Ok. I wasn't really expecting that. I thought pro's beginning case was reasonable, but I guess he's changed his mind. Good debate anyway. I love these astronomy/cosmology debates.
Debate Round No. 3


Well I read a paper by a cosmologist N. Wright and I realised that he rebuffed all of the points I had outlined and was preparing to introduce. Was fun though.


Thanks for your time.
Debate Round No. 4


And thank you, I urge you all to vote Con. If you ever want to debate Socialism or Mao, political islam, or communal living hit me up I will gladly accept.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
It was more of a metaphysical appeal in reality
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
I don't see how the SS gets around a beginning still- since entropy accumulates from cycle to cylcle making each larger and longer than the one before it. As you trace the cycles back in time the wold have to get smaller until a first cycle is arrived at which would be the origin of the universe. Plus I believe astronomers estimated that on the basis of current rad levels in the universe that the universe couldn't have gone through more than ~100 previous cycles.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
Ah I see, were you able to find the images?
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
It's fine. I'm not sure if you know this yet, but here is the process:

Step 1: The first thing you have to do is save the picture you want to use in your argument to either your computer or a folder on your desktop where you can access it later.

Step 2: When you are on DDO, there is a tab that says "My Photos" which is under the account menu. Under that tab you can create a new photo album or use an already existing one to upload your photos

Step 3: Simply upload any photos you want to use in your arguments to the photo albums by clicking the "add" button. There are many ways to add photos to an album but this is the simplest

Step 4: Make sure the photo was successfully uploaded. Sometimes you have to do it twice because it didnt work the first time around

Step 5: Now in the debate you are in, click on "Rich text" at the top left corner of the box where you type your arguments. Scroll to the place you want to insert the picture.

Step 6: In the Photo Album, "Copy" the photo, not the URL just the photo, then simply "Paste" it into your arguments where you want it.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
I am so sory the images did not work, they worked until I posted Image 1:

Image 2 can be found in the latter link to Professor Burbidge's website showing the cyclical model of the universe.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
That's fine. Take your time.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
collecting all necessary data is proving difficult but rewarding :D
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
Just so you know I am not forfeiting you can see the work in progress here
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: concession.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "I urge you to vote Big Bang"- Pro. Interesting arguments from the SST side anyway.