The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Big Bang Theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 85857
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Con

The Big Bang Theory says that the universe came from a little spec of matter about the size of a sugar cube or a pea (don"t ask how they determined this, they won"t be able to tell you). That this spec of matter started expanding, slowly, then the particles from it were dispersed, and formed hydrogen atoms from those particles, then these hydrogen atoms formed nebulas, which formed stars, which blew up and chunks of matter flew everywhere, forming rocks, which smashed together and formed planets.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
So let"s separate this into 5 parts of the creation of the universe:
Part #1; the Spec:
Where did this spec come from? Let"s examine this, you got a spec of matter, containing all the gravity in the whole universe, and it-expands? All the gravity in the universe isn"t strong enough to hold off this force that doesn"t exist causing it to expand? Where did this force come from? Where did it go? If it was still here, the earth would fly around in little bits, it doesn"t have the gravity of the whole universe, and that isn"t enough to hold a spec together that is under this force, how is the earth able to?
Part #2; the particles:
And how did these particles form? Each exactly like its own kind, with trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power and so on of these particles, every particle in the universe without fail, each come out exactly like other particles of their types?
Every electron is equal in mass to every other electron, every down quark is exactly equal to every other down quark, every particle equal EXACTLY to every other particle of their type.
How?
Part #3; the atoms:
So now we got 12 types of particles, none irregular. Then these particles get together to form hydrogen atoms, no other type of atom, just hydrogen, again, each one turns out EXACTLY ALIKE, without fail, each hydrogen atom has 1 proton, 1 neutron, and 1 electron.
First these quarks go together just so with a specific type of quark to form only two particles proton and neutron. Then these two particles know to go together just so, to form a nucleus, then the electron knows to go into its orbit just so, and this is process repeats trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power etc.
Part #4; the nebulas:
So now we have trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power etc. of hydrogen atoms, all dispersed across the universe, then they all pull together to certain spots to form nebulas. What is pulling them together, no one knows. First there is a force so powerful it"s stronger than all the gravity in the universe condensed into a spec, pulling things outward, you would think the hydrogen atoms would fly into outer space into oblivion. Instead, this force even more powerful just cane into existence somehow, and it is even stronger than the original force, which was stronger than all the gravity in the whole universe! Then it pulls these hydrogen atoms together to form stars, why these stars don"t just keep absorbing the hydrogen to get bigger, why, if they are so close because this force is pulling everything to these points, that all the stars don"t pull together into one big star, no one knows.
Part #5; the planets:
After the stars formed, they blew up, and flung chunks of mater everywhere, these chunks of matter then formed giant rocks. These giant rocks crashed together even though they were going away from the same points. Then they formed planets, which somehow ended up in an orbit of another star, and this repeated again and again and again indefinitely!
Conclusion:
It"s too farfetched.
condeelmaster

Pro

Thanks for the challenge! Good luck!

First I have to clarify that not understanding science doesn't mean science is false. That being said, let's begin.

Part 1

Where did the spec come from? Actually it can be two things. 1) It didn't came from anything. Maybe there was nothing before, just that eternal spec. I know what you are thinking, but what created that spec? Well, nothing. It is not illogical to think it may be eternal and without a genesis. Like if it was a sort of "god". God also is eternal, according to its believers. 2) It came from a previous universe. What seems more probable nowadays is that universes expand, then get togheter again, and expend again, in a kind of cycle.

I should clarify that forces aren't things but actions. Asking "where did all that force go?" is like asking "after I greeted you, where did the greeting go?". Obviously absurd.

"you got a spec of matter, containing all the gravity in the whole universe" This isn't scientifically right. In the singularity, non of the laws of physics applied, so gravity didn't existed. A deeper explanation: Gravity is an interaction between two body. In the singularity there was a single body (singularity!hahah), so no gravity.

"All the gravity in the universe isn't strong enough to hold off this force that doesn't exist causing it to expand?" Actually gravity is a rather weak force so this isn't illogical.

" If it was still here, the earth would fly around in little bits, it doesn"t have the gravity of the whole universe, and that isn"t enough to hold a spec together that is under this force, how is the earth able to?" This is almost a joke. That force is the one which makes the universe expand. The gravity serves as a way of keeping bodies arranged in a certain way, but they still move cause the universe is expanding.


Part 2

"And how did these particles form? Each exactly like its own kind, with trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power and so on of these particles, every particle in the universe without fail, each come out exactly like other particles of their types?
Every electron is equal in mass to every other electron, every down quark is exactly equal to every other down quark, every particle equal EXACTLY to every other particle of their type.
How?"

This could mean a few things. 1) Coincidence. Not too much to explain, just luck. 2) A deterministic Universe. In the words of Hawking: "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. " 3) Multiverses exists. Some scientists, like Michio Kaku, propose that the universe divides in each choice. For instance, when you flip a coin the universe divides in two: in one universe you get tails, in the other heads. This would mean that there are plenty of universes, this is the one where electrons are equal and so on, but in other universes things are way different.

Part 3

The creation of atoms is scientifically explained. They formed like that because of the laws of physics. They formed like that because it was the only way. Is like saying "the key entered the lock horizontally, that's amazing! Why didn't it enter vertically". It isn't amazing, it entered horizontally because that was the only way of putting the key in the lock.

Part 4

What pulls atoms togheter is electromagnetic force. Atoms don't get pulled all togheter because of attraction and repulsion forces. Some get togheter because of they attract each other, and some don't because they repulse each other .

Part 5

This part doesn't give any reason why the big bang is illogical. However keep in mind that, although it's called big bang, it wasn't an explosion so things expand different than in an explosion.

Conclusion

There are plenty of reason to believe in the Big Bang. Though it has some flaws, It is the better system proposed. If Con doesn't think so, then I invite him to show his own theory.

Sources and reading suggestions for Con:
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

"Where did the spec come from? Actually it can be two things. 1) It didn't came from anything. Maybe there was nothing before, just that eternal spec. I know what you are thinking, but what created that spec? Well, nothing. It is not illogical to think it may be eternal and without a genesis. Like if it was a sort of "god". God also is eternal, according to its believers. 2) It came from a previous universe. What seems more probable nowadays is that universes expand, then get togheter again, and expend again, in a kind of cycle."

That's ridiculous, for one, things don't just "always exist", next off, if this spec has all the gravity in the universe holding it together, then how does it get pulled apart? And where does this force go, allowing for this mass to pull back together?

"I should clarify that forces aren't things but actions. Asking "where did all that force go?" is like asking "after I greeted you, where did the greeting go?". Obviously absurd."

No, the laws of physics are not malleable, something pulled this spec apart, where did this power go? Where did it come from?

"you got a spec of matter, containing all the gravity in the whole universe" This isn't scientifically right. In the singularity, non of the laws of physics applied, so gravity didn't existed. A deeper explanation: Gravity is an interaction between two body. In the singularity there was a single body (singularity!hahah), so no gravity.

The gravity of this spec held itself together.

"All the gravity in the universe isn't strong enough to hold off this force that doesn't exist causing it to expand?" Actually gravity is a rather weak force so this isn't illogical."

All the gravity in the universe, equivalent to trillions upon trillions of black holes.

" If it was still here, the earth would fly around in little bits, it doesn"t have the gravity of the whole universe, and that isn"t enough to hold a spec together that is under this force, how is the earth able to?" This is almost a joke. That force is the one which makes the universe expand. The gravity serves as a way of keeping bodies arranged in a certain way, but they still move cause the universe is expanding."

You didn"t answer my question,
If this force is powerful enough to hold off all the gravity in the universe, how is the earth not getting pulled into oblivion?

Part 2

"This could mean a few things. 1) Coincidence. Not too much to explain, just luck."

Coincidence? No, too farfetched, every one of them equal, no, not a chance.

"2) A deterministic Universe. In the words of Hawking: "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "

OK, this doesn"t prove anything, Steven Hawking is NOT credible, his theories violate every law of common sense, and I found a quote that explains this situation perfectly:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."- Nikola Tesla (Smartest man ever to exist)

"3) Multiverses exists. Some scientists, like Michio Kaku, propose that the universe divides in each choice. For instance, when you flip a coin the universe divides in two: in one universe you get tails, in the other heads. This would mean that there are plenty of universes, this is the one where electrons are equal and so on, but in other universes things are way different."

"The creation of atoms is scientifically explained. They formed like that because of the laws of physics. They formed like that because it was the only way. Is like saying "the key entered the lock horizontally, that's amazing! Why didn't it enter vertically". It isn't amazing, it entered horizontally because that was the only way of putting the key in the lock."

A key was designed to enter horizontally, atoms could have attached in any other way, but they go by one distinct design.

"What pulls atoms togheter is electromagnetic force. Atoms don't get pulled all togheter because of attraction and repulsion forces. Some get togheter because of they attract each other, and some don't because they repulse each other"

Why is it that the proton and the neutron attract to make a nucleus? By logic, if it just "happened", the proton and the electron would form the nucleus, but instead, it"s the proton and the neutron.

All you have done in this debate was cite un-credible "scientists", insult my intelligence, and try to "prove" your point with things that go against every law of physics.
And all you have proven is that you are an incompetent debater, both on edeb8.com, and debate.org.
condeelmaster

Pro

Firstly, I have to point out the hostility of Con's speech, which has to be taken into account during the voting period.

Part 1

"That's ridiculous, for one, things don't just "always exist""

A recognised christian saying that things don't just always exist is quite contradictory. Con believes that god always existed and no one created him. Why is illogical to think that the same could have happened with the Universe?

I know must explain to Con what a force is. A force is the measure of the amount of interaction between two bodies.
Nothing pulled the spec apart. What happened is that the spec had the necessary amount of energy for the little pieces of the spec to repel one another. The energy of the spec allowed the little pieces to apply forces to the other pieces, thus separating.

"The gravity of this spec held itself together."

Sorry to do this, but I must enter in a more complex level of science. Before the Big Bang there was no space, because space is created by energy and the energy was on the singularity. So the "spec" was held together because it hadn't nowhere else to go. Then energy appeared and space was created. And the expansion of the energy makes the expansion of the space possible, thus the expansion of the universe.

"All the gravity in the universe, equivalent to trillions upon trillions of black holes"

I'm not sure if this is totally right. However, gravity is still a weak force. If you compare gravity to the electromagnetic force you will see that the difference is of about 40 orders of magnitude. This means, if gravity is equal to 10 to the power of 18(trillions) of black holes the electromagnetic force is equal to 10 to the power of 58 black holes.

"If this force is powerful enough to hold off all the gravity in the universe, how is the earth not getting pulled into oblivion?"

Con is not taking into account point of application. Gravity makes the earth hold together and the planets spinning around the sun and so on. The force that expands the universe is applied to the whole universe. Gravity is more "specific" while the force which expands the universe has to "cover" more space. This is rather complex and quite difficult to explain in a few words.

Part 2

Con stated that Stephen Hawking isn't credible, but without any argument. The He proceeds to state that Nikola Tesla is the smartest man to ever exist. This is obviously subjective, and Con didn't argument this opinion, which makes it worst.

"Why is it that the proton and the neutron attract to make a nucleus? By logic, if it just "happened", the proton and the electron would form the nucleus, but instead, it"s the proton and the neutron."

This denotes the little to none experience of Con in Physics. If electromagnetism attracted protons and electrons the atom would collapse because of the clash of protons with electrons. Protons apply a force to the electrons called the "strong force", which prevents the collide thing. Summarizing, Protons and electrons attract each other but the strong force prevents them to collide, causing the electrons to spin around the protons.

"All you have done in this debate was cite un-credible "scientists", insult my intelligence, and try to "prove" your point with things that go against every law of physics."

I quoted some of the best scientists, not only recognised by me, but by the whole scientific community.

Also you didn't answer invitation: if you think the big bang is wrong then propose other system.

The last statement is rather insulting and doesn't provides anything to the debate. This is the classic fallacy known by the name of ad hominem. You attack the person who makes the argument when you can't attack the argument itself. However I invite you to compare my statistics with your in both site and the think if I'm an incompetent debater and you are the best. (For the record: I have a 67% wining ration while Con has a 35% wining ratio at the moment of writing this speech)


Arguments in favour of the Big Bang Theory


Red shift of Galaxies

We can observe that galaxies are moving away from us, making logical to think that the universe is expanding. Then ff we go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.

Microwave Background

When the Big Bang happened the Universe was very hot. If this is true, there must be some kind of radiation track left behind. This actually exists and is the microwave background, a sort of glow that fills the entire universe and is viewable by us.

Looking into the past

Remember that light coming from far distant galaxies takes a long travel to reach us. So when we look at those star, we are looking at the past. And in doing so we can see that the universe has changed a lot, which fits the theory of the Big Bang

Elements Proportion

The Big Bang Theory predicts the amount of each element that should exist. If we study the proportion of the elements here in Earth and in the other galaxies, we can confirm that the proportion is the same predicted by the Big Bang Theory.




Conclusion

The Big Bang theory is empirically and rationally proved. As far as science is concerned, It is the most reliable cosmological system. Con wasn't successful in refuting the theory and I gave different arguments in favour of It.
The resolution is confirmed.



New sources

Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

"A recognised christian saying that things don't just always exist is quite contradictory. Con believes that god always existed and no one created him. Why is illogical to think that the same could have happened with the Universe?"

As Rabbi Mizrachi explained:
"Albert Einstein proved that without an object there is no time. So with physical tings time applies and there has to be a beginning and an end.
But with spirit, this does not apply, this is why when you go to sleep, your spirit separates from your body, and time no longer applies.
This is why you can have a six month long dream in only 4 minutes, or a 5 second dream over 8 hours.
With spirit, there is no beginning and end, time does not apply. But objects must have a beginning."
G-d is a spirit, hence this law does not apply to him, plus I am more a Jew than a Christian now, we Jews use proof to establish things, not "faith."

"I know must explain to Con what a force is. A force is the measure of the amount of interaction between two bodies.
Nothing pulled the spec apart. What happened is that the spec had the necessary amount of energy for the little pieces of the spec to repel one another. The energy of the spec allowed the little pieces to apply forces to the other pieces, thus separating."

Then how did they get pulled together in the first place if they repel each other?

"Sorry to do this, but I must enter in a more complex level of science. Before the Big Bang there was no space, because space is created by energy and the energy was on the singularity. So the "spec" was held together because it hadn't nowhere else to go. Then energy appeared and space was created. And the expansion of the energy makes the expansion of the space possible, thus the expansion of the universe."

So there was no space that it could go, there is many flaws with this:
1.This would mean that the universe is expanding because space is being created to allow these objects to move, by this logic, the universe is expanding because space is still being created, hence the universe is not infinite as Steven Hawking claims.
2.Energy cannot be "created" by nothing.

"I'm not sure if this is totally right. However, gravity is still a weak force. If you compare gravity to the electromagnetic force you will see that the difference is of about 40 orders of magnitude. This means, if gravity is equal to 10 to the power of 18(trillions) of black holes the electromagnetic force is equal to 10 to the power of 58 black holes."

From itself? How did it get together in the first place?

"Con is not taking into account point of application. Gravity makes the earth hold together and the planets spinning around the sun and so on. The force that expands the universe is applied to the whole universe. Gravity is more "specific" while the force which expands the universe has to "cover" more space. This is rather complex and quite difficult to explain in a few words."

Finally you offer an explanation.

"Con stated that Stephen Hawking isn't credible, but without any argument. The He proceeds to state that Nikola Tesla is the smartest man to ever exist. This is obviously subjective, and Con didn't argument this opinion, which makes it worst."

Nikola Tesla"s theories are all realistic and can be tested, Steven Hawking"s apply only on a chalk board.

"This denotes the little to none experience of Con in Physics. If electromagnetism attracted protons and electrons the atom would collapse because of the clash of protons with electrons. Protons apply a force to the electrons called the "strong force", which prevents the collide thing. Summarizing, Protons and electrons attract each other but the strong force prevents them to collide, causing the electrons to spin around the protons."

The strong force is the nuclear force. Even so, why is it attracted to neutrons? And, you know my theory, it was G-d, and I can prove it.

Redshift of galaxies is wrong because you are assuming it started at a certain point, rather than a universe that was less expanded.

Microwave is wrong because it"s outer space, there"s going to be radiation.

Looking into the past makes no point whatsoever.

Elements proportion is wrong because you cannot measure all of these elements.
condeelmaster

Pro

I get the Rabbi Mizcrachi argument but it has some flaws. It's based upon certain that are not proved.

1º assumption: Einstein talked about a physical object. An object is basically a thing, but things can be physical or not. So there is a not proved assumption.

2º assumption:"with physical tings time applies and there has to be a beginning and an end." No reasoning here. Also, I will ask Con how to end matter(????)

3º assumption:"when you go to sleep, your spirit separates from your body". There's no reasoning showed to support this.

As you can see, this argument is biased and invalid.


Sorry for the Christian thing Con, I just read your profile, and there you say you are Christian. However, my argument applies to Jew, Christians and any other religion.



"Then how did they get pulled together in the first place if they repel each other?"

Because before that energy wasn't there. Read my argument carefully please.



"So there was no space that it could go, there is many flaws with this:
1.This would mean that the universe is expanding because space is being created to allow these objects to move, by this logic, the universe is expanding because space is still being created, hence the universe is not infinite as Steven Hawking claims.
2.Energy cannot be "created" by nothing."

1) The universe is indeed infinite, space isn't.
2)Is true that energy can't be created. As Lavoiser said "In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes.”
As Einstein showed, mass can become energy. That's what the famous E=mc2. Matter can become energy in that proportion (the amount of Energy(E) equals the amount of mass(m) times the square of the speed of light (c2).



" "I'm not sure if this is totally right. However, gravity is still a weak force. If you compare gravity to the electromagnetic force you will see that the difference is of about 40 orders of magnitude. This means, if gravity is equal to 10 to the power of 18(trillions) of black holes the electromagnetic force is equal to 10 to the power of 58 black holes."

From itself? How did it get together in the first place? "

Your statement isn't even related to mine, so there's no much to say.


"Nikola Tesla"s theories are all realistic and can be tested, Steven Hawking"s apply only on a chalk board"

Again, bias and subjectivity.


" you know my theory, it was G-d, and I can prove it."

Con just throws this but never explains how can he prove so. Just another empty statement.


"Red shift of galaxies is wrong because you are assuming it started at a certain point, rather than a universe that was less expanded."

The thing is this: there are two possible scenarios . 1) If you go back in time you will reach a singularity. 2) you will reach a static and smaller universe. Of this two the former has more sense, because the two would imply a universe that appeared fully formed from nothing.


"Microwave is wrong because it"s outer space, there"s going to be radiation."

LOL. why there is going to be radiation? because you say so? Nop, radiation appears because of the hot state of the early universe. If the early universe was cold, there would not be a radiation source.


"Looking into the past makes no point whatsoever."

I will teach some physics now. I know this is from school but is important to clear this out. Light travels at a certain speed. Light doesn't go directly into our eyes. In our daily experiences, the distances between the source and our eyes is short compared to the speed of light, so we cannot feel the difference, we feel like we are seeing the actual moment. On the other hand, when we look into the outer space, distances are big enough to delay light. For instance, if a star 1 light year from us explodes today, we will see the explosion a year from now. When we get to see the explosion, we will be looking into the past.



"Elements proportion is wrong because you cannot measure all of these elements."

Yes we can! hahaha the old obama style hahaha.
Jokes aside, we can measure elements using the light spectrum. This is all in the science books. Its from school.


Conclusion:

My arguments were not debunked so my point is still proved. Resolution confirmed.


Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

1). Your entire argument against Rabbi Mizrachi"s argument lies around "there is no spirit", this is off topic, and should be saved for a different debate.

2). I am considering all the evidence, after I make a conclusion off of this, I will decide to remain Christian or convert to Judaism.

3). You say that energy didn"t exist before, how did it come into existence? This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

4). The universe is the objects that exist in space, if space is not infinite, the Universe CANNOT be infinite either.

5). What caused this mass to translate into energy that wasn"t there before?

6). I was asking you how the spec formed in the first place when all the mass therein repels itself and spreads out naturaly.

7). I was not being biased and subjective, it is true; we can prove Nikola Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity, we cannot prove Steven Hawkings theories, not one of them.

8). I can prove that G-d created the universe, but it is off subject and you are going to have to challenge me to a separate debate on it.

9). Now we can see who has the biased, you just are assuming that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic, I will not go into it too much, I will save this for another debate, but if you want proof the Torah is divine, go here [1], [2].

10). There would be radiation because of all these stars blowing up, super novas.

11). I know we see into the past this way, but how does that prove the Big Bang?

12). I know my physics, we can only see so far, and only on the surface of planets, not under the crust.

[1]. http://www.divineinformation.com...
[2]. https://www.youtube.com...
condeelmaster

Pro

1)

You are conceding this point to me then. If you can't prove what you are saying, then don't say it.

2)

I wish you make the better decision for yourself. However you didn't refuted me. So another point you are conceding.

3)

First law of thermodynamics basically says that the change of energy of a closed system is the same as the work applied to it. Doesn't have anything to do with my statement.
Energy isn't created but transformed from matter. That's how atomic bombs work.

4)

The space can be finite, but infinitely expandable, thus the universe must be infinite. The universe contains the space, so space can be finite and universe infinite.

5)

Instability. The singularity was very dense, thus very unstable. The instability caused the matter to transform into energy.

6)

This argument is based upon the assumption that things have to be formed by something. The spec could have not a genesis.
However, an explanation to this could be the existence of other universes. In a multiverse, the collision or separation of universes gives origin to new universes. Also, quantum fluctuations prove that maybe the universe collides back to form a singularity and a new universe (Big Crunch). Multiverse model and Cyclic model both accepts the big bang and both are valid, well proved explanations of the nature of the universe.

7)

Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity has already been debunked by science. Einstein did it in his book "Ether and the Theory of Relativity". Michelson and Morley did the same with their experiment. The atomic bombs did the same too (mass can be converted to energy!). Tesla was a good engineer but a rather unsuccessful physicist.

8)

Again, if you don't prove what you say, don't say it because it has no value as an argument.

9)

"Now we can see who has the biased" Watch out for grammar errors! I can't have the biased!

I can argument that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic. As far as I'm concerned, al things form gradually. Plants, humans, rocks, mountains, the earth, a TV, etc. Ergo, the Universe must have been formed in a gradual way.

10)

Yes, but not that much radiation.

11)

That we can see the expansion of the universe and al the other effects of the Big Bang.

12)

If you know your physics, then you should know that the chemical composition of a star can be totally measured. The reflection and refraction of light depends not only on the crust but on the whole body, thus light spectrum describes the whole body.


Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

1). I can prove it, but in another debate which I would be happy to settle with you. Challenge me to this debate and post the link to it in your next argument.

2). I just corrected your misconception, it has no further relevance to this debate.

3). you said that "energy came", I thought you were trying to say that this energy just came into existence.

4). you aren"t making any sense, please develop your points more clearly.

5). Thus you cannot say it was made that way, because then it would remain even if the mass was out of balance. Hence you must say that it was formed, but how?

6). I addressed this in point 5, the spec could NOT have always existed, otherwise it would stay in balance. It had to be formed, our universe is known to expand, but not to "crunch", quite the opposite. So how was this spec formed?

7). How did Einstein prove it wrong? Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity states that gravity is electromagnetism. This explains why we haven"t found any gravitons, and why if you de-magnetize something it is less heavy.
I don"t know what mass being able to be converted into energy has to do with any of this. Except you backing my point that Einstein"s Relativity can be proven.

8). I told you, I can prove it, but in a separate argument, I thought I posted links to some proof, did I not?

9). you said "I can argument that a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic", so watch your grammar yourself.
I can argue that it IS realistic, but to do this I will need to prove that G-d created the universe. However, this must be settled in another debate, which I would be happy to do with you.

10). Enable to prove this wrong you must give me a real calculation of how much radiation would exist in space given it all came from Super Novas.

11). something that you discover that does not disprove the Big Bang and could happen with it. Is not proof of the Big Bang, for this you need something that not only does not conflicts with the Big Bang, you need something that could not happen any other way.

12). you cannot measure all the bodies in the universe.

I would be happy to resolve these issues in another debate with you;
1). is there a G-d?
2). Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity.

I will challenge you to #1, for the audience, here is the link:
http://www.debate.org...
You"re going to have to challenge me to the Tesla"s Dynamic Theory of Gravity debate, I can only challenge you to 1 debate at a time.
condeelmaster

Pro

Rebuttals

4)

The universe contains the space. So the universe can be infinite while the space is finite. That's it.

6)

I will proceed to explain the Cycle theory and the Multiverse theory , both give solution to this, while accepting the Big Bang.

Cycle theory says that the universe is part of a cycle. the cycle starts with a Big Bang, then the expansion, then the expansion is so that the universe stars to get together again, then the big crunch, and we go back to the beginning.

Multiverse theory says that there are many different universes at once. The collision off two of them creates the big bang and a new universe.

7)

Tesla's theory is based upon two pillars: (1) energy is just an ability of the matter, so matter can be transformed to energy and energy can't be transformed to matter. (2) there's no vacuum but a aether.

Einstein disproved the energy thing with his studies in the energy-mass conversion, and the atomic bombs are the empirical prove that mass can be transformed into energy. Many experiments disproved the aether thing confirming there is a vacuum that has nothing.

9)

My grammar was alright in that sentence. I proved that "a universe that is fully formed from nothing is unrealistic". Read carefully next time.

10)

Supernova radiation decays quickly. So all the microwave background cannot be supernovas exploding.

11)

Is indeed evidence. Like if you see that all the streets are wet that's evidence of rain. Maybe someone threw some water in the streets, maybe it isn't rain. However wet streets are evidence of rain. The same with what I mentioned about the big bang.

12)

Not directly but yes with statistics. The same procedure we use to know what will people vote next election without asking everyone: statistics.


Final conclusions

I gave 4 separate pieces of evidence in favour of the Big Bang. On the other hand, Con pointed out some "flaws" which were all explained and refuted. The resolution is confirmed. Vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.