The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound
Debate Rounds (4)
*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting this debate.
The Big Bang theory is unsound.
Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM that the Big Bang theory is UNSOUND and refute Con.
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE that the Big Bang theory is UNSOUND and refute Pro.
Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.
theory - a system of ideas intended to explain something.
unsound - not based on sound evidence or reasoning and therefore unreliable.
The chances of that happening are so small it is almost impossible.
10,000 characters is clearly not enough to contain the vast depth of Pro's argument.
Sarcasm aside, the big bang theory is *sound*, and Pro has not given any reason for us to believe that the big bang theory is unsound, instead, Pro has squandered 10,000 characters on two sentences with little impact on the resolution.
*The Big Bang Is Sound*
With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
All of this Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin.
The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation.
Using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform CMB radiation, we can get a massively accurate picture of the universe's origin.
The agreed to definition for Big Bang, in this debate, mentions the origin of the universe, and Pro found that to be troubling.
"The law of Conservation of mass from Laviosier states that matter may neither be created or destroyed your definition hints that matter was created."
The definition does not mention that matter was created, rather it mentions that the universe had an origin.
The terms "creation" and "origin" are not the same thing.
Creation is a temporal process that necessitates a series of events, one after the other, to go from Creator-->Created.
An origin is a point, not a series of points.
The universe had an origin, not a creation.
So origin and causation are not the same.
origin - the point or place where something begins
causation - the action or process of causing something
The origin of time is the origin of the universe, therefore no temporal processes or actions, such as creation, could have occurred without the universe, and this speaks to the universe's demonstrated ORIGIN not creation.
The origin of the universe therefore does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics...matter wasn't created or destroyed at the big bang.
The first thing that proves the big bang theory is unsound is that if it had happened then There whould be more lithium.
The Big Bang theory unequivocally predicts certain amounts of light element, including lithium, helium and deuterium, must be produced in the explosion that is hypothesized to have started the universe. For lithium, the prediction is 400 lithium atoms for every trillion hydrogen atoms.
However, astronomers have measured the abundances of lithium in old stars in our galaxy and they have not found the Big Bang predictions to be correct. They know the stars were formed very early in the history of our galaxy, because they have very tiny amounts of iron and other heavy elements that are produced by previously-existing stars. In most of these stars, the lithium abundance is only 160 lithium atoms per trillion atoms, far below the Big Bang predictions.
In addition, as more data became available over the last few years (as described by many researchers, including, for example, Sbordone, Bonifacio and Caffau) it became clear that the older the stars, the less the lithium. By now, eight stars have been discovered with less than one tenth the amount of lithium predicted by the Big Bang, and all are of the type of star that would not have destroyed any lithium. The star with the least iron of these, born in the very early days of the Milky Way galaxy, has less than 3% of the lithium predicted. (Ippfusion.com)
The second thing is-
Structures Too Large to Form in the Time Since the Hypothesized Big Bang
The Big Bang theory hypothesizes that the universe came into existence with an almost perfectly homogenous " even"distribution of matter, and that structures built up gradually from stars to galaxies to cluster to superclusters.
But larger and larger structures have been uncovered at earlier and earlier times. To cite just one recent example of many, last year a team of observers, Roger Clowes, et al, discovered a huge collection of quasars over 3 billion light years in extent, existing billions of years ago. This was, in their view, too large to have been created within the hypotheses of conventional cosmology. (Ippfusion.com)
Thank you Pro for that response.
I extend all arguments dropped by Pro.
Pro has more issues with the Big Bang:
"if it had happened then there would be more lithium...the Big Bang theory unequivocally predicts certain amounts of... lithium...must be produced in the explosion that is hypothesized to have started the universe."
In the early universe, a process called nucleosynthesis is responsible for the production of the light elements, including lithium. Elements heavier than lithium are formed from stars, so if the big bang predictions are correct, as Pro points out, there should be a particular abundance of lithium produced by the big bang itself, pre-stars, which could be confirmed by the density of ordinary matter at that point.
Well, as I explained earlier, the WMAP is a probe that measures variations in the CMB from shortly after the big bang, and it has found that the predicted amount of lithium (amounts of lithium are based on the density of ordinary matter) is in concordance with observation and the WMAP.
Straight from NASA:
"The predicted abundance of...lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe...given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of [lithium] becomes highly constrained...the WMAP satellite is able to directly measure the ordinary matter density and finds a value of 4.6% (±0.2%)...this leads to predicted abundances [of lithium]...which are in good agreement with observed abundances [of lithium]...this is an important and detailed test of nucleosynthesis and is further evidence in support of the Big Bang theory."
Click the link below the image if the image doesn't work, but the observed abundance of lithium is the yellow line, the WMAP's measurement is the red vertical line, and the prediction of lithium abundance by the big bang theory is the red circle. Notice the red circle matches with the WMAP's measurement and observations of lithium amounts.
So, the big bang predicts a certain amount of lithium, in the early universe, and the WMAP confirms that prediction to be correct.
Pro also mentioned:
"[There are] structures too large to form in the time since the hypothesized Big Bang."
Straight from NASA again:
"The galaxies that we observe today grew gravitationally out of small fluctuations in the density of the universe...the WMAP satellite measures these small fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which in turn reveals the early stages of structure formation...(roughly 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably twice as dense as neighboring regions...the inner portions of our Galaxy (and similar galaxies) were assembled at this time."
We've had about 13.7 billion years since the big bang, and this provides ample time for large scale structures, like our galaxy, to form from density fluctuations which have been confirmed by the WMAP to have occurred within 1.2 billion years after the big bang. That's plenty of time.
Click the link below the image if the image doesn't work.
1. Going back to the argument about the Law of Conservation- matter cannot be created or destroyed. According to you The definition of the big bang theory is the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.
So my question is Where did the matter that was expanded upon come from? Since matter cannot be created or destroyed everything has to come from something else. SO WHERE DID THE MATTER THAT STARTED THE BIG BANG COME FROM. According to this simple logic, the big bang theory is unsound.
2. You stated
"Straight from NASA:
"The predicted abundance of...lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe...given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of [lithium] becomes highly constrained..."
Constrained means highly restricted- so You agree with me, and therefore your 1st Rebuttal Falls.
3. Your second rebuttal- the picture you showed was just guesses of the size of the galaxy's. Since we have no ability to time travel, there is no proof of that.
4. Now I like to go back to what I said about probably, and also mention the index card theory. The probably of this explosion is so low it is almost impossible. Now on to the Index card theory. Lets say that I got into an airplane, overhead Kaufman Stadium, and Dropped 20,000 note cards. According to the big bang theory it should spell put World Series Champs: 2015! on the baseball diamond. But that isn't going to happen. The note cards are going to go everywhere, because of factors such as wind speed and gravity. This proves the big bang theory to be on sound.
I have just proves all of my opponent's arguments wrong.
Thanks for participating in our debate, Pro; I'm ever enriched.
In case you missed it, here's what Pro missed:
1. Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is definitive proof of the big bang, a hot dense state, being the cosmos's origin, and Pro dropped it like a wide receiver without hands.
2. The variations in the CMB indicate that this hot dense state expanded to the current size of the universe, and Pro ignored it like a blind person at a silent movie about colors.
3. Origin and creation/causation are not the same, because an origin is a point and creation/causation are a series of points, and Pro abandoned it like a crack house in Baltimore.
4. The WMAP confirmed the big bang's predictions of nucleosynthesis (production of lithium) given the measured density of ordinary matter as indicated by the diagram of light elements from NASA, and Pro failed to acknowledge it like a Jew on Hitler's birthday.
5. Large galactic structures were born of gravity from small fluctuations in density, confirmed by the WMAP, which allots plenty of time (1.2 billion years) for large structures like our galaxy to form, and Pro avoided it like a vegan at a bull roast.
So, I extend those particular arguments, and maintain that the Big Bang theory is sound.
"Going back to the argument about the Law of Conservation, matter cannot be created or destroyed...the definition of the big bang theory is the rapid expansion of matter...that...marked the origin of the universe."
Expansion and creation are incongruous terms, so there's no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, according to the definition of the Big Bang.
"SO WHERE DID THE MATTER THAT STARTED THE BIG BANG COME FROM. According to this simple logic, the big bang theory is unsound."
Well, the Big Bang is the expansion of matter, not the creation of it, so the Big Bang needs not explain "where the matter that started the big bang came from."
It needs only to explain an expanding hot dense state, and this has definitively been done, thanks to the WMAP.
But I'll quench Pro's thirst for knowledge.
*Quantum Fluctuations (QF)*
In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.
I have to make this point perfectly clear.
These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case.
This is what nothing is.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
That's a great video that explains what nothing is.
Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured their effect, in current space, in detail.
However, when there was no universe, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.
Without the universe, in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition, which was a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity thanks to QF.
These quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang and is the origin of our universe.
From nothing (QF) to something (The Big Bang).
Matter is an expression of unstable QF.
"[Con] stated, 'the predicted abundances of [lithium] becomes highly constrained'...constrained means highly restricted- so [Con] agrees with me, and therefore [Con's] 1st Rebuttal Falls."
Restricted predictions can still be correct, and this was confirmed by the diagram that Pro dropped.
Pro, the WMAP confirmed the predictions of lithium amounts, restricted or otherwise.
So, I don't agree with you, Pro...you can't just assert things like that, it's wack.
Pro adds on:
"The picture you showed was just guesses of the size of the galaxy's. Since we have no ability to time travel, there is no proof of that."
This is why dropping the WMAP arguments hurts Pro heavily.
Anyone that actually read my round 2 and round 3 arguments, can fully grasp that measuring the CMB with the WMAP allows us to see into the past, a kind of time travel if you will, because we can trace the radiation and inflation back in time.
Using this method, we know about how old the universe is and the age of large scale galactic structures.
Therefore "the picture," which is a diagram of galaxies' formations from NASA, isn't just guesses; they're realized measurements of the WMAP.
"The probably of this explosion is so low it is almost impossible."
The big bang is not an explosion, it's an expansion/inflation, and the "probability" of it being true is extremely high because of the measurements of the CMB indicated by the WMAP.
Then Pro attempts the "index card" theory:
"Lets say...an airplane overhead Kaufman Stadium...dropped 20,000 note cards. According to the big bang theory it should spell out World Series Champs: 2015! on the baseball diamond...that isn't going to happen...the note cards are going to go everywhere, because of factors such as wind speed and gravity."
I fail to see this analogy's relevance, but I'll try to use it to show the error in Pro's logic...
So, Pro is equating the 20,000 note cards on the airplane to the hot dense state of the big bang.
The big bang is not claiming that the note cards, when dropped, will spell out "World Series Champs," instead, the Big Bang is claiming that the note cards we see on the baseball diamond, in the structure they are laid out currently, are a result of being dropped from the airplane, which at one point had all of the cards densely held together.
The big bang is taking into consideration all of the factors like wind speed and gravity, and using those measurements to trace back the falling (expansion) of the note cards (hot dense state).
Sorry Pro, you have not "proves all of your opponent's arguments wrong."
I reject this resolution, because the Big Bang is clearly sound, and pro has given us no reason to believe otherwise.
Con has failed to answer my attack on their case. And since the rule is silence is compliance, the obviously agree.
EVERYTHING HAS TO COME FROM SOMETHING. My opponent has stated that matter just expanded.
The big bang is a theory of origin, and since there was already the matter that was expanded upon, the big bang isn't even the beginning. The whole idea of the big bang theory is a violation of the laws of science. Which are never broken or violated. So this proves the big bang theory unsound.
I would like to thank you for your time and ask for a pro vote today.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.