Big Bang Foolishness

[ydoaPs]

SCIENCE VS. THE BIG BANG

 

Here are 42 reasons why the Big Bang is foolishness. These are scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:

 

1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.

 

2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.

 

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.

 

4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.

 

5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.

 

6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.

 

7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.

 

8 - No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.

 

9 - No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.

 

10 - No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.

 

11 - Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.

 

12 - No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.

 

13 - Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.

 

14 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.

 

15 - Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.

 

16 - Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.

 

17 - "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.

 

18 - Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.

 

19 - Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.

 

20 - Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.

 

21 - Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.

 

22 - Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.

 

23 - Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.

 

24 - Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.

 

25 - Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.

 

26 - There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.

 

27 - Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.

 

28 - Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.

 

29 - Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.

 

30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.

 

31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.

 

32 - Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.

 

33 - Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.

 

34 - Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.

 

35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.

 

36 - A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.

 

37 - The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.

 

38 - The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.

 

39 - Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.

 

40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.

 

41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:

 

According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)

 

But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.

 

42 - Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.

 

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Science%20vs%20Big%20Bang

[jackson33]

many of the things you have accepted as truths are in logic and a pleasure for me to read. you as a young person is what it will take to get science back into some sense of logic, rather than trying to prove an acceptable theory including other philosophy.

 

i need to warn you, there are a good many who will fight tooth and nail to validate BBT. much of you post i have used for years and there is always an answer when the theory itself is so altered to meet competitive views.

 

good luck...

[CPL.Luke]

actually a number of your first points address real problems in the big bang theory that are being worked on ie. what triggered the big bang? did the big bang really come out of a singularity? etc. scientific knowledge at present starts about a second after the big bang.

 

 

however the rest of your post about the formation of stars etc. is pure nonsense, there's a wonderful force in the universe, gravity.

[Sayonara]

These are not "his" points.

 

They are directly copied from the page he linked to, which is actually in violation of SFN guidelines:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22869

 

Rule 2c, plagiarism. Please ensure you cite correctly, not just give a link to the material you copied and pasted.

 

It would have been better to summarise the offshore content, provide the link, and prompt a directed discussion.

[ydoaPs]

Providing a link isn't citation? Did I ever claim it was my own work? I directly linked to the source, doesn't that count?

[Sayonara]

No.

 

You've seen enough people being wrist-slapped for this to know better than to argue the toss. And need I point out that you have not actually received a warning?

 

Give this thread a point.

[ydoaPs]

I don't remember seeing anyone get in trouble for it, but I see how it could be misconstrued.

 

I assumed it would warrant discussion without someone saying "discuss". It seems rather implied in a discussion forum.

[jackson33]

These are not "his" points.

 

They are directly copied from the page he linked to, which is actually in violation of SFN guidelines:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22869

 

Rule 2c, plagiarism. Please ensure you cite correctly, not just give a link to the material you copied and pasted.

 

It would have been better to summarise the offshore content, provide the link, and prompt a directed discussion.

 

few 18 year olds if any will come up with such a list. i have to assume he has chosen to agree with them and happen to agree with most in total. my warning apparently was warranted and he is off to the race...

[Sayonara]

Judging by the first two replies you have earned I would have thought you'd be only too eager to provide some kind of direction for such discussion, never mind distance yourself from ownership of the text.

[jackson33]

actually a number of your first points address real problems in the big bang theory that are being worked on ie. what triggered the big bang? did the big bang really come out of a singularity? etc. scientific knowledge at present starts about a second after the big bang.

 

 

however the rest of your post about the formation of stars etc. is pure nonsense, there's a wonderful force in the universe, gravity.

 

questions related to time required are at the root of BBT problems. to give an explanation this instant expansion theory was devised. for matter to disperse to required places, form and become what is known is not possible w/o it. my own opinion its not possibly when the BBT goes to a 50 BYO universe, as surely it will when light or something is detected from that distance. i am not sure you can explain in logic how an everyday regular spiral galaxy can form in any set time period, much less in BBT...

[bob000555]

SCIENCE VS. THE BIG BANG

 

Here are 42 reasons why the Big Bang is foolishness. These are scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:

 

1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.

as the gas compresses in the center the vacuum is forced outwards. Its like squeezing bubbles between your hands.

2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.

Gravity: imagine if the Erath became a trillion times more massive and gravity compacted the atmosphere to the point of fusion.

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.

fusion

4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.

you qussed it: fusion agene : as in the power of a billion H-Bombs

5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.

As the mass of fusing gas expands the concentration decreases thus slowing fusion

6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.

The same way gas giant planets hold them self’s together.

7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.

In the compressing mass things would ejecting solids to form planets.

8 - No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.

The afore mentioned giant star.

9 - No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.

you can only say this with certainty if you know the exact composition of the primordial soup so to speak.

10 - No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.

Gravity pulls the hydrogen in (response to question one). The compression becomes exponential as the central mass of hydrogen gets bigger and pulls in more hydrogen.

11 - Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.

Remember the universe wasn’t always 20 billion light years its constantly expanding.

12 - No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.

I suggest you learn how heavier elements are produced in stars.

13 - Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.

when a star explodes the heavier elements are attracted by gravity while the lighter ones float out to join another star .

 

14 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.

this has nothing to do with the big bang its just planets being held into the sun by its gravity.

15 - Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.

the fusing material was no longer dense enough to sustain fusion, until it gravitated together again(thus stars and planets)

16 - Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.

but a billion billion super novas in the history of the universe would work.

17 - "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.

all this proves is that the universe is miraculously unlikely not imposable.

18 - Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.

one man’s calculations versus scientific consensus?

19 - Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21

until qravaty recompresses it.

20 - Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.

A portion of the mass would have been converted to mass via e=mc2. When you consider a portion of a trillion trillion billion tons matter is a lot you can see how huge amounts of mass are missing

21 - Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.

Again I suggest you learn how heavy elements are formed in stars before it dies.

22 - Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.

When was this shown to be false?

23 - Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.

Not all the gas is the result of the big bang infact most of it is the result of latter stars

24 - Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.

Gravity yet agene the outward flowing gas is attracted into stars planets and galaxies.

25 - Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.

until its gravitationally recompressed by gravity.

26 - There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.

Not if you consider a trillion ejections and recompressions throughout the history of the universe.

 

I’ll respond to your additional questions at a later time.

[Edtharan]

1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.

First you argue that nothingness can not be squeezed, then you offer a "Thing" (ie Fog) which is not nothingness to prove your points.

 

That is called a straw man at best.

 

Actually, if we take the "Fog" we can compress it. We can see the dust and gas clouds in space get compressed and then turn into stars. So this actually invalidated your argument even if it wasn't a strawman.

 

What was compressed was "Space". This is the biggest problem with the entire list. You assume that only matter or something was compressed and that space (and time) was still there.

 

"Space" as being a "thing" that can be distorted, compressed and expanded is something fundamental to Relativity. Take light. If we use Newtons laws of gravity, light being massless shouldn't be effected by gravity. So it should always travel in straight lines in a vacuum. However, we see light distorted by massive objects (galaxies and such) so something else must be going on.

 

Relativity states that the light will travel in straight lines in a vacuum, but that space it's self can become distorted. A straight line to the light beam is not a straight line to you or me. So, relativity states that space can be distorted and these same equations state that space can be compressed.

 

This also applies to time. We know, from observation even here on earth, that the mass of an object (the Earth) can cause distortions in time. This has been measured by very accurate atomic clocks. As you approach a region where space has been distorted, time to is distorted.

 

In fact, relativity specifies that there will be a correlation between the spatial distortions and the Time distortions. GPS satellites rely on these calculations being very accurate. If they weren't, then the GPS system would be useless. Because of the GPS systems reliance on these calculations being correct, this makes these calculations one of the most tested aspects of any scientific theory ever.

 

So, space and time can be distorted. What if space and time was so distorted that it was compressed into a space of 0 dimensions. There would be no "outside" for this to "expand" into, there literally "nothing" that exists.

 

When most people think of Nothing, they think of empty space. But empty space is "Something". There is no "Time" for anything to happen as Time does not exist.

 

Our experiences have not equipped us to "visualise" this kind of situation, much the same way we can't visualise what an atom really looks like, or what the inside of a black hole would be like. However, the same mathematics that allow us to use GPS can be applied to the situation of if the universe was compressed into 0 dimensions. We can't visualise this, but we can use mathematics to work out what would occur.

 

Now, just because we don't understand something does not mean it couldn't happen.

 

I bet 500 years ago, people then would not have understood a computer, but does that make computers non existent? Understanding does not equal non existence.

 

Now, we don't have a perfect understanding of what occurred at the big bang, and that is a bad name as it conjured up in peoples minds something like a big firework on new years eve. We don't know what exactly occurred to change this 0 dimensional "nothing" in to the universe, but there are a few ideas (theories).

 

One of them is that when you get down to what is called the Planck Length and the Planck Time, things like position and before and after have no real meaning. This in interesting as this means that a Cause can occur after the Effect.

 

In terms of the Big Bang, the Effect (the change from nothing to something) can occur before the cause. The cause can exit in time and space and occur after the effect. In essence, The universe can create it's self. This fits with the known laws of quantum mechanics.

 

Now the transition between 0 dimensions and >0 dimensions is a breaking of symmetry. Also known as a phase change. Under the known lawns of quantum mechanics, such a phase change would release a lot of energy. A lot of this energy would go into "pressure". Not pressure on matter, but pressure on space. This pressure would cause space to expand. That is counter the force that is compressing it. Some of the energy would be released as other things.

 

What are these other things? Well photons for one. Once you have mass you have gravity. Gravity would counteract the pressure that is causing space to expand and this initial "inflation" would slow.

 

Now this expansion is not occurring into something, what is happening is that their is more distance between objects. There is nothing that we will have encountered that really give a good analogy as to what this is like. The best is a balloon, but it is a poor analogy as the balloon is expanding "into" something (the outside air). But as the best analogy we have it will have to do.

 

Also as the universe got bigger, this pressure will become less and less and this would also slow the expansion of the universe. Some theories actually have the energy contained in this pressure as becoming the matter that we see around us. This too would be a kind of phase change, although not the same, we can use an analogy from experiences we will have encountered to help us here, this would be similar to how water vapour condenses out to form clouds and fog as the air cools. As the expansion of the universe reduced the pressure, it condenses out as matter.

 

This matter would not be the matter that you or I would recognise. It would be exotic particles (that may not even exist any more), but after time this would have settled down into the matter we know today.

 

A lot of this energy would also have been released as photons. This would make the Universe a very bright place. These photons would have had a massive amount of energy, and the more energy a photon has, the higher the frequency.

 

A few decades ago, some engineers were working on a microwave receiver for radar. However, they were getting an annoying "hiss" of noise. They tried pointing it in different directions to eliminate any near by sources. As the direction the antenna was pointing made no difference to the level of the noise, they could rule out any local source of it.

 

There were a few pigeons living around the antenna and they though it might have been pigeons dropping in there causing this noise. So they kept cleaning it out and scaring the pigeons away, but the noise remained.

 

Eventually they gave up and asked around. This problem came to the attention of a particular scientist. This scientist was working on the Big Bang theory, and had reasoned that there should be a lot of left over light from the big bang (for the reasons I stated above). However, what he had done was to take into account the expansion of the universe and how that expansion would have effected the light. As the universe expanded, the light will also have had it's wavelength stretched out, red shifted as it is called.

 

He calculated that it should be a specific frequency within the microwave band. And guess what. This was the exact same frequency of the noise these radar engineers had discovered.

 

The "Noise" was all around because the universe is all around us. The light from the big bang would be coming at us from all directions, so no matter which way they pointed that receiver, they would get this background hiss that is the fading "echo" of the big bang.

 

And why did they initially think that there had been a point where the universe was a single 0 dimensional point? Well, if you take a look at the universe as it is today, then everything is moving away from everything else (taking into account the effects of gravity which can pull nearby things and stop this expansion locally). If you then "rewind" this situation, everything at some point must have been in the same place. Press "play" again and you see a rapid expansion that then cools and forms matter which forms clumps which form galaxies which form stars which form planets which form us...

 

2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.

Actually it wouldn't have been "pushed" into that point. It started off in that point and was "pushed" out.

 

And there is such mechanisms that can compress space and energy into a 0 dimensional point. It is called gravity.

 

There is no repulsive force with gravity. It always attracts. Unlike a magnet which has a north and south pole. With a magnet if you put North pole to North pole they repel. Gravity doesn't do this. If you put gravity near gravity, you still get attraction.

 

This gravity bends space and time. If you have enough of it, you can bend space and time to a single point. We call these black holes.

 

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.

The phase change from a 0 dimensional point will provide energy in the form of pressure. This will cause space to expand.

 

And, it wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion.

 

4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.

There was no pushing "Nothingness" outwards. There was the creation of more distance (space).

 

5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.

One word: Gravity

 

If you throw a ball up on the moon, there is no friction to slow it down, yet it slows down and even returns to you. The reason: Gravity.

 

6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.

Again. Gravity.

 

If you get enough stuff, then gravity will be able to compress a gas. If this was not true, then Earth would have no atmosphere. The atmosphere is a gas, but yet is stays clumped here on Earth and doesn't go drifting off into space. Gravity clumps it to the Earth. Lucky for us...

 

7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.

Yes, again. Gravity. Think about it. The mass that makes up a Star exists as gas floating around in space. It still has the same gravity as it is the same mass. A star has a lot of gravity, our sun holds planets in orbit of it and it even is effecting the motion of other stars nearby in our galaxy. So this powerful force that is gravity, a star has that much gravity, then why can;t the gas cloud that would form into the star have an equal amount of gravity. It contains the same mass?

 

So we have gravity pulling this gas into a smaller and small space. It heat up and eventually fusion starts to take place. We have a star.

 

8 - No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.

Fusion in stars can make atoms up to carbon. When a star goes supernova, atoms with weights higher than carbon can be formed.

 

This should get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

 

Go ask an astronomer at your local observatory and they will be able to fill in the other details.

 

9 - No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.

No it is quite possible. There is a thing called resonance that allows it. The "energy" gap is filled by the temperature of the star it's self. It is actually quite complex, but it can and does occur. If it didn't we could not be here.

 

10 - No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.

Not push, pull. Gravity again. It is quite powerful if you get a lot of mass together.

 

11 - Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.

No. it didn't "reach" the edge, it was already there. As space expanded, it too the matter along for the ride.

 

It is like a balloon. If you sticky tape two small circles of paper next to each other when the balloon is only partially inflated, and then blow up the balloon the rest of the way, the circles didn't move as they were stuck to the same bit of the balloon, but now they are further apart. As the space between the matter expanded, there was more distance between the pieces of matter.

 

12 - No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.

Yes, in the stars. Supernovas produce all the heavier elements and they do it in a flash.

 

13 - Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.

Yes they can. The sun does have other elements in it that are not Hydrogen. The reason the Rocky planets don't have much hydrogen and lighter elements on them is they are not heavy enough to hold onto the lighter elements. It's this gravity thing again.

 

As a molecule becomes heavier it moves slower. The escape velocity for Earth is around 9km/s. This works out that a molecule with a weight of around 10 or more would be retained by the Earth where as lighter molecules would escape. Hydrogen has a weight of 2 and Helium has a weight of 4. Therefore Earth doesn't hold onto these gasses and the composition of Earth will be different from the sun 9or even larger planets like Jupiter).

 

14 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.

You are forgetting Gravity again. Am I seeing a common theme here?

 

15 - Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.

No. Super Novas are going off right now. There was one seen only a few centuries ago that occurred in this galaxy. We see them all the time in other galaxies. They haven't stopped so this argument is a complete and utter red herring. Super Novas are still occurring.

 

In fact, they use a type of Supernova called a Type 1a (where a binary star system has one of the stars pulling matter off of the other one until the point is reached where a critical mass is reached that causes the star to go supernova). These supernovas, because this critical mass is the same for all the stars in this situation, are all the same brightness. This makes them useful for determining the distance to a star in a distant galaxy, and for calculating the red shipf of it (as they are also the same "colour".

 

16 - Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.

Yes, they were much more common a long time ago. This is because there was not many of these heavy element around. Most of the matter that is tied up in these heavy elements was hydrogen originally.

 

17 - "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.

What is meant by "Too close"? Too close to what?

 

18 - Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.

The interesting thing is, there is something missing or assumed in such "calculations". Guess what, we are not even sure exactly how much mass is in the universe. So, how could this "scientist" give such conclusive results? If you don't know the mass and don't know the exact rate of expansion, then how can you make such a statement? I have heard of such "calculations" ranging from "the universe would have collapsed instantly" to "the universe doesn't have enough mass to have slowed it down to what we see today". In every case of these "extreme" results, the scientist in question has neglected something or has made assumptions which are critical to the results.

 

19 - Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.[\QUOTE]

No, Gravity can hold gasses together. Friction is not needed. And besides, the gasses can provide friction to it's self and release energy as radiation (it heats up - try compressing a gas and it heats up, expand it and it cools down. This is how refrigerators and air conditioners work.

 

20 - Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.[\QUOTE]

Visible mass. Not all mass emits light, or even interact much with other matter. Take neutrinos for example. In the time you read this sentence millions of them will have passed through you and not one of them interacted with any of the matter that makes up you. There are other forms of "Cold Dark" matter like Neutrinos and some of it is massive. In fact, because it is massive, it bends space, this bending of space is detectable and recently scientists have managed to compile a map showing where this mass is, and not all of it is visible. It is "Cold Dark Matter".

 

See here: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10903-dark-matter-mapped-in-3d-for-first-time.html

 

21 - Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.[\QUOTE]

They have found organic molecules in these gas clouds (that based on carbon chains). They have identified Water, Silicone, and other elements too. Your information is wrong.

 

22 - Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.[\QUOTE]

No. The reason that stars go BANG in the first place is because of these heavier elements building up in them. If they didn't they wouldn't explode but just go on fusing Hydrogen into Helium.

 

23 - Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.[\QUOTE]

Hang on. in point 21 you just said that ther wa no other elements in these gas clouds. Self contradiction is not a good way to support your argument.

 

Besides, these gas clouds have been contaminated by the heavier elements produced in the stars and then distributed by supernovas.

 

24 - Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.[\QUOTE]

Let me remind yo of an old friend. Gravity.

 

Just remember Gravity Sucks. It doesn't push. Get a lot of matter together and Gravity really Sucks.

 

25 - Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.[\QUOTE]

No, again and again: Gravity.

 

26 - There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.[\QUOTE]

No. You are thinking of the Big Bang as a kind of Firework. It wasn't. It is the expansion of space. Matter condensed out of the pressure of the energy from the phase change from the initial 0 dimensional point to the >0 dimensions that exist. There is no "outer Edge". It is not expanding "into" something. The distances between parts of space are increasing. It is not an explosion.

 

An explosion is an analogy, not what actually occurred.

 

27 - Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.[\QUOTE]

What theory is this? I have never heard of such a theory. If it exists, it is not a commonly accepted one.

 

28 - Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.

The stars spin because the sloud of gas and dust that made it up had one side closer to the centre of the galaxy than the other. This will induce a force that will cause the side closer to the galactic centre to move faster than the out side. This will induce a rotation. As the cloud collapses under gravity, it gets faster (just like an ice skater pulling their arms in during a pirouette).

 

As it spins it will flatten out into a rough disk shape with a large bulge in the centre. This bulge will be come the sun as it collapses and the rest of the disk will turn into planets, asteroids, comets, and so on.

 

29 - Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.[\QUOTE]

What exactly are you talking about here. Me mass of an object is not related to how fast it spins. I can have a 10kg fly wheel spinning at 100 revolutions a second or I can have the same wheel rotating at 5 revolutions each second. ther eis no relationship between the mass and the speed of rotation.

 

If it is the stars you are talking about, then that is caused (as I explained above) by the rotation of the galaxy, the galaxies rotation is caused by other galaxies and all this was started because the universe is expanding and this change the position of clumps of gas in relation to each other. So, it has been explained for a long time.

 

30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.[\QUOTE]

No, they should have rotation, the gas clouds that they formed from started rotating because they were moving around the galaxy.

 

The gas, as it contract, will increase its rotation speed, just like that ice skater.

 

31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.

There are many mechanisms that can cause very high spin stars. If, during it's formation, another star passed close by, that could give an extra "push" to the gas cloud's rotation and the resulting star would have a very high spin. The person who came up with this "Theory" obviously doesn't pay attention to their telescope.

 

32 - Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.[\QUOTE]

The universe is not an ordered place. Stars have near misses. In a few million years Earth is going to have a near miss with another star, this will come so close that it will be less than 2 light years away (currently Alpha centauri is 4 light years away). There are stars we can see that have had even closer near misses. And along comes our friend Gravity. The gravity of a passing massive start (say a blue giant) could knock another lighter star (say a yellow main star like our sun) in any direction.

 

As for planets orbiting backwards, well an early solar system is a chaotic place. The think a Planet the size of Mars actually hit the earth and knocked a chunk off (we call it the Moon). This Mars sized planet is no longer in the solar system, we don't know where it went). So is a Mars sized planet can be moving around in the soar system, larger planets can too. As these planets move around, they will knock other planets around too (because of their gravity, not necessarily an actual collision). Also, the gas and dust cloud that forms a solar system is not an orderly place. Nearby stars disturb it, forming planets, etc, etc.

 

33 - Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.[\QUOTE]

Again, A passing massive star can fling another star in all sorts of directions.

 

34 - Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.[\QUOTE]

No, there is no evidence that the universe is rotating. If the universe is rotating then Relativity states that there would be a universe sized Time machine that would allow us to visit the past and return to the future. As this doesn't exist, there is no overall rotation of the universe.

 

35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.[\QUOTE]

There are events,when particles decay, that don't produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter. If you have ever had a Positron Emission Tomography scan (PET scan), then this is the exact thing they are using. There are certain particle decays that produce Positrons (antimatter electrons), but these decays don't produce Electrons.

 

36 - A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.[\QUOTE]

There was no matter for it to destroy. Matter is a result of the big bang. The universe was initially too "hot" for matter to form. As the universe cooled down (the pressure from the phase change) as it expanded, the matter condensed out much like the water vapour condenses out as the air cools. Yes, initially, the universe would have been too "hot" for matter to form. but it has cooled down as it expanded. Once it was cool enough for matter to remain, matter could form. before this time, matter did not exist.

 

37 - The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.[\QUOTE]

Gravity will do this. It tends to pull things towards any small aggregation, which has more gravity, which pull in more matter, which has....

 

38 - The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.[\QUOTE]

The recently compiled map of the Cold Dark Matter explains this nicely. Where there is a congregation of CDM, there are clusters and super clusters of galaxies.

 

39 - Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.[\QUOTE]

Have you ever heard of something called "Brownian Motion"? It is where particles bump into one another (yes even in space this will occur) and knock them into different trajectories. This Brownian Motion will cause temporary clumps of matter, these have gravity, which pull in more matter, which has more gravity, which pulls in more matter and so on. As this move through the universe, it cause eddies and ripples in the gas, and these ripples and eddies will drag in more matter and these will form clumps, which will cause more ripples and eddies, and so on.

 

40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.[\QUOTE]

The matter of this universe didn't "Rush in" to a point. The point existed and then it expanded. There was no inrushing at all. This is a strawman.

 

41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:

 

According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)

 

But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.[\QUOTE]

For a very simple reason. The elements created in the initial population II stars have already contaminated all the gas and dust in the universe. There are so many of these elements flying around now that any stars that form already have these heavy elements in them, thus there can;t be population III stars as these would require an area free from heavier element contamination and there no longer is any such a place.

 

42 - Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.

No, according to theory, the older stars should be in the centre of the galaxies.

 

Not a single one of any of these points is correct. They are all misinformed and the person who wrote them has no inkling of what has been going on in astronomy for the last 100 years or more. They are full of red herring and strawman logical fallacies and baseless claims (which seem to be just made up on the spot to support their arguments).

 

This is complete and utter nonsense and they have no idea of what the Big Bang theory is about at all. It is not an explosion. It is an expansion. And it is still going on today.

 

They either are lying to you, or they really have absolutely no idea about astronomy at all. And if they have no idea about astronomy, then they should not be making the claims that they are.

 

For the record. I am an amateur astronomer and have been for over 20 years. I have looked through telescopes and seen many of these things I have talked about in the above response. I understand the theories (even if I don't know the maths), and have talked many times to people who work as professional astronomers about these subjects.

 

And I can say categorically: The person who wrote this article has absolutely no real knowledge about astronomy, just misinformation and half remembered high school teachings (or they are deliberately lying).

[Royston]

And I can say categorically: The person who wrote this article has absolutely no real knowledge about astronomy, just misinformation and half remembered high school teachings (or they are deliberately lying).

 

Brought to you by 'Creation Science Facts'...just scroll to the top of the article. I'm not entirely sure what we're supposed to be discussing here, isn't it glaringly obvious that a creationist site will attempt to refute science (badly)...not exactly breaking news.

[Red_Ninja]

lol.

 

Hard science there, from people who dispute radiometric dating, believe dinosaurs and man coexisted, believe the grand canyon was made during the biblical flood and last but not least, that the world is 6000 years old because they've added up a bunch of people's ages in a book.

 

Round of applause.

[RoyalXBlood]

I like you, Edtharan.