The Big Bang Theory Is True

I. PotentialYou are the one using faulty logic. Just because something is unproven does not make it wrong. My point was that Faraday's Law was a theory at some point, and eventually came to be proven. The same can be said for the big bang. All and all, many things that have been unproven at first, eventually came to be proven, disproving my opponent's objection here. II. Antimatter 1. This principle does not violate the big bang theory. Theories suggest that even if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created with the Big Bang, disparities in their physical properties, such as decay rate or life span, might favor a matter-filled world. This idea is a charge parity violation, which is an example of a kind of asymmetry between particles and their antiparticles that describes the way they decay. [1][2]2. My opponent makes no argument here. Inflationary cosmology models suggest that there may be more to the universe than can be seen from the Earth, if only for the simple reason that the universe is not old enough for light from the most distant parts of the universe to have reached us yet. If so, radiation from the boundary of matter and antimatter dominated regions may simply still "be on its way" to Earth, and so cannot be observed. [3]III. Inflation I did respond to my opponent's argument. The spectral index (mentioned in more detail in R3), ns is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest models of inflation predict that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98. From the data taken by the WMAP spacecraft it can be inferred that ns = 0.963 ± 0.012. This proves the principle of inflation that my opponent is trying to disprove. Inflation is not a principle of the white hole cosmology theory, therefore its existance can't be a proof of it; conversely, it is a disprover of it. [4]IV. Homogeneity of the Universe While I have proved that the homogeneity proves a principle of the big bang, I have never mentioned that the big bang proves homogeneity. My opponent has neglected to respond to this argument whatsoever. He has never responded to my argument that the CMBR's high degree of isotropicity is a indicator of overall universal homogeneity. To sum this argument up, on the grandest of scales, the universe is homogenous, which is a prediction of the big bang. [5]V. Galactic Evolution My opponent has not responded to this argument either. The galactic evolution models are in agreement with the predicted simulation from the big bang theory, thus proving the big bang. [6]VI. Abundance of Elements My opponent continues to ignore my argument here. There is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i. e. , before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too. He also fails to respond to my proof that the abundance of elements in the universe is asymptotes to zero as the atomic number of the element increases - another proof of the big bang. [7][8]VII. Dark Matter Now my opponent is just using ad hominem, incorrect at that, The paper he cites is a critique of the Standard Model of Cosmology, not a disproof of dark matter. Here is one quote from the paper: "This cannot be the case because the phase-space occupied by dark matter sub-haloes and the star-formation processes within them are uncorrelated. "[9] Not exactly a falsification of dark matter. My opponent fails to respond to the four proofs of dark matter I provided in round 3 also. VIII. Hubble's Law But the white hole cosmology theory is incompatible with Hubble's Law becuase Hubble's Law predicts the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which the white hole cosmology theory denies. In addition, space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous, supporting the Cosmological principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions. Hubble's Law further proves the principle of universal homogeneity. [10]IX. White Hole Big Bang Theory Let me simplify the problem. The problem is that white holes and big bang cosmology are two very different solutions to Einstein's general relativistic equation for gravity. White hole 'solutions' require a background space-time in which their particular curvature manifests itself, and within which the world lines of particles emerging from this type of singularity can be defined. Big bang solutions require no 'embedding space' a priori because unlike the 'local solutions' of white holes and black holes, the cosmological solutions are global solutions for the geometry of spacetime. There is nothing outside of them to serve as a background for world lines to be defined. You cannot convert the big bang singularity into a white hole singularity for the same reason that you cannot change a cat into dog. My opponent has not provided any solid evidence at all for his case, and the theory itself has been generally discarded. [11]Sources [1]: . http://www.exploratorium.edu...[2]: . http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru...[3]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]: . http://arxiv.org...[5]: . http://www.physics.hku.hk...[6]: . http://arxiv.org...[7]: . http://arxiv.org...[8]: Croswell, Ken (February 1996). Alchemy of the Heavens. [9]: . http://arxiv.org...[10]: . http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...[11]: . http://www.astronomycafe.net...;Note: Source 16 in Round 3 is this: . http://www.talkorigins.org...