Interesting points against the big bang theory.?

Question

So who lit the match?

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.
2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.
3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.
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.
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
6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space

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

Not claiming to be a cosmologist or anything like that, just thought it was interesting. Nice to know atheists can act like Christians when their beliefs are challenged though.

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.
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).
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.
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.

Answer 1

Also, where did all that gas and stuff come from?

It is silly to believe in The Big Bang THEORY!

I mean really, "In the beginning there was nothing, and then it blew up." How intelligent it that?


loj

Answer 2

Your postulates are gravely incorrect:

1. You can pack fog into a minute area with the appropriate amount of gravity. Look at Jupiter. If you were to go a few hundred miles into its atmosphere, that fog would crush you like an ant!

2. That is why it is called a singularity. A mass so great that it's own mass crushes in on itself.

3. You're dealing on a sub-atomic level. There are particles that make up the protons, neutrons and electrons. What happens when those particles get pulled together that they touch. I think something like this is your golden match!

4. Mass can be created with energy. Einstein proved this. With so much potential energy stored up in the singularity, the explosion would jettison an immense amount of energy and matter!

5. I believe #4 answers this.

6. Gasses do clump together. Our sun and every star that you see in the night sky were all formed by gasses coalescing together. A gas particle has a weak amount of gravity associated with it, but there is still enough there that over billions of years a star can be born.

Answer 3

Scientists said they have found the best evidence yet supporting the theory that about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe suddenly expanded from the size of a marble to the size of the cosmos in less than a trillionth of a second.
A team of researchers used data collected by a NASA satellite measuring microwave radiation to offer direct, experimental support for the theory of "inflation" put forth 25 years ago -- that the expansion of the universe, commonly known as the "big bang," began with a single burst of repulsive energy acting in a tiny fraction of time. The expansion continues today but at a much slower rate.

This new image of the universe indicates "warmer" and "cooler" spots. The white bars show the "polarization" direction of the oldest light.
"We can measure the sky to tell what powered this expansion," said Goddard Space Flight Center astrophysicist Gary Hinshaw. "It's really amazing, actually. I was in graduate school when the theory was first proposed, and I've been working on it ever since. It's gratifying to see the idea hold up now."
Hinshaw is a member of a team monitoring data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a satellite launched in 2001. The findings were announced yesterday at a Princeton University news conference and will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.
The theory, developed by Alan H. Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, holds that during the universe's first moments, inflation produced a sudden burst of heat and light that left an afterglow about 400,000 years after the event. The first stars were formed about 400 million years after the big bang.

The original afterglow has been cooled by the universe's expansion until all that is left is a faint microwave "signature."

"You're looking out to the edge of space and time," Hinshaw said in a telephone interview. "It's like trying to see a car's headlights through the fog."

The NASA probe has two imagers 140 degrees apart that take measurements of microwave radiation in space, then image new slices of the heavens as the satellite rotates to a new position. The readings were averaged as they were taken, and by repeating this process every six months, the team built up enough information to see through the fog of time and focus on the early afterglow.

What the team found was a pattern of light and temperature of differing brightness and intensity. "The light is polarized, like when it bounces off the hood of a car," said astrophysicist David Spergel of Princeton. "We measured temperature differences in 2003, but with three years' more data we were also able to measure polarization."

The result is a pattern of fluctuations that Hinshaw compared to a ship bobbing in a short, choppy sea even as it rolls periodically with longer swells. The theory of inflation predicts what the ratio of chop to swell should be, he said, "and the astonishing thing is that it's doing exactly what was predicted."

Answer 4

Essentially you are outlining the argument of the un-moved mover, or the un-caused cause, or whatever you wish to call it.

I don't see how this invalidates the big bang if you are a theist. The simple answer is that God set the Big Bang in motion.

As an atheist, however, I will give an alternate explanation. In my view attributing creation to a god seems to extend existence by one unnecessary step. The argument usually goes something like, "Since the Universe exists, something must have caused it to exist. That something must have existed without a cause. the uncaused force must be God." My rebuttal is simple.

If you claim that God is an uncaused force, then you are obviously allowing for the existences of forces without cause. Therefore, the universe does not require a cause. Q.E.D.


Also, some of your points (e.g. 5, 6) do not seem to take gravity into consideration.

Answer 5

That's interesting, for a non-big bang believer you've managed to touch upon some of the unresolved questions regarding the theory. Like are we in an open or closed universe. Some say its open and will expand forever, others say that it is closed and eventually contract down to a single point of infinite density. Upon that contraction, it will create a new big bang and the Universe will begin anew.

Congratulations on your ability to think these questions, keep it up. If you ever get tired of bashing science, there may be a place for you in it (science is very tolerant).

Answer 6

I didn't bother reading your ranting since it is irrelevant.

The "big bang" is a theory that postulates energy & matter collapsed and eventually "exploded" much like when you squeeze an inflated tube.

But, it is an untestable and unprovable theory so it cannot be debated. Especially by people who have limited intellects, i.e., "thumpers."

The universe has always existed in some form and the "big bang" did occur as an event based on the fact the visible universe is expanding.

The universe is "life" and it is eternal and infinite. No supernatural entities ("Gods") required.

Answer 7

It's more of a nexus than a bang. There's another universe on the other side. Oh, and matter is just difference. The big bang was just very rapid differentiation. If you think about it other than mathematically you get poetically confused. Study some philosophy of language, then actually learn science. It helps.

Answer 8

Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.
gravity
as for what caused the big bang, couldn't God have caused it.
If there was no big bang then how do you explain the expansion of the universe?

Answer 9

According to the big bang theory, once upon a time (a good way to start a fairy tale) there was nothing. Then either another identical piece of nothing collided with the first one, or the first one reacted with nothing, either of which caused a chain reaction and an explosion, thus creating everything.

Answer 10

Interesting points. I don't know anything about physics, so I have to take your word for it. However. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophies, to quote Shakespeare. Perhaps God did it (which is what I personally believe), or perhaps there are facts about physics which we do not yet know and the Big Bang banged all by itself. I enjoy the points that you have made.

Answer 11

Since the Big "Bang" (which wasn't so much a bang as a sudden exapansion) happened in such a finite period of time (literally in less than a second) it could be said to have happened in an instant. This, in my mind, supports that the Universe was created.