The Big Bang Theory

Now I did have a huge long paper using all 8000 characters trying to prove my point, and show that you are wrong, blah blah blah. But something did not click! I kept looking all over the place and even information in children science books show what you are saying is completely wrong. I began to think where did you get all of this absurd information from and I decided to check out the website you cited that claims how the Big Bang Theory won't work and BANG just like that all my questions were answered! I don't know how oblivious you could have been to use a website whose title and information is dedicated to proving you wrong like what! My contender used the website http://scienceblogs.com... as can be seen in his arguement above. Now what disappoints me is you must be one who just copy and pastes any information you see to try and prove something wrong. Now I urge all of you reading this and my contender to read that full article or even the points which my contender pointed out! Now in the following I am going to copy and paste the title of the website and all of the information from my contenders 1 point on down Why not? After all, I do, and I"ve got your ear. Let"s take a look at what science has to say about these so-called scientific objections. 1. The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can"t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science. Theoretical extremes happen all the time. The one example used to show how ridiculous the Big Bang is " black holes " definitely exist. (I"ve even written about that, too.) But this isn"t even a scientific objection; it"s just a repetition of earlier inaccuracies coupled with the lie that "there is no definitive evidence that it" ever happened." Check out this article for some simple, straightforward, but comprehensive evidence for the Big Bang, which no alternative has successfully explained. 2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. It sounds like the author is upset, in his own particular words, as to how the Big Bang got started in the first place. That"s actually a good question, and one that we didn"t have a reasonable answer to until 1979. Although we aren"t 100% sure of it, our best theory for that is called cosmic inflation, which details what happened before the Big Bang and tells us how the Big Bang resulted from it. The one major test that"s been done of the theory " detailed measurement of the scalar spectral index " is as close to a smoking gun for inflation as we"ve gotten so far. But it isn"t a problem with the Big Bang, its a limit to the scope of the theory. 3. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. A vacuum does have no density. (No matter density, at any rate.) A total vacuum is the opposite of infinite density. But it is not said, by anyone, that "the nothingness got very dense, and that it why it exploded." Rather, the very hot and dense stuff, the moment it began to exist, was hot and dense, and that forced it to expand. 4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms! As people have been stating for nearly a century, it isn"t an "explosion" at all. It"s called the "expanding" Universe for a reason. It was neither a chemical nor a nuclear explosion, it"s a continuous and rapid (but gradual) expansion. This has been known since the 1920s, thanks to Edwin Hubble"s great discovery. 5. There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn"t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding. It isn"t magic, it isn"t a push, and it isn"t a pile of emptiness. The Universe expands due to the definition of space. And this is one of the most fascinating things about it: if you take General Relativity as your theory of gravity, and you say that space is " on average " full of stuff (matter and energy) everywhere, you only have two possibilities. Either your Universe is expanding or it"s contracting. Nothing else is even theoretically allowed. Ever since the observation of the 1920s, it"s been demonstrated that the Universe is expanding. Although there"s still some uncertainty about how it"s going to end, every single one of the possibilities starts with a Big Bang, and comes forward in time to give us an expanding, cooling Universe. So there"s not only a way to expand it, the expansion of your Universe is unavoidable. 6. Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. Of course there can"t be heat without energy; heat by definition is a form of energy transfer! But the question you"re asking, in other words, is "why is the early Universe so hot?" This goes back to the same question we answered earlier: where did the Big Bang come from? The Big Bang will take us all the way back to the beginning of what we call "the radiation era", which is where matter flying around at ultra-relativistic speeds and photons " particles of light " were the dominant constituents of the Universe. So where did all the energy that started the Big Bang come from? We know, from the answer to question #2, that we"ll want to look at what cosmic inflation says. (And if you want something that violates "common sense," you"ll love inflation!) And it says that, while the Universe was undergoing its period of exponential expansion (i.e., inflation), it wasn"t matter or radiation that was driving it. Rather, there was energy in the vacuum itself that caused it. But there isn"t anywhere near that amount of energy in the vacuum today. So what happened? That vacuum energy (on the vertical axis) decreased down to zero (or almost zero), but that energy had to go somewhere! Where did it go? Into matter, photons, radiation, etc., but there was so much of it! So the matter and energy that was created was born hot, and hence sometimes we call it not just the Big Bang, but the Hot Big Bang. (And the process by which inflation ends and the Universe gets hot is called Reheating.) 7. The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow. Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. continue reading on the website he used. He used a website that contradicted everything he stated. with that being said his last argument is completely invalid. Thank you.