The Big Bang Theory Is True

I. Potential Just because something has the possibility of being wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. That would be like saying that Faraday's Law might be wrong, so it is wrong, even though it isn't. This argument is fallacious. II. Antimatter There are two plausible explanations for this:1. There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter. While it is often thought that there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, some experiements show otherwise. For example, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. If this happened during the creation of the Universe, matter would easily predominate. [1]2. That annihilation was not total in those first few seconds: somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars and anti-galaxies. [1]Either way, this discrepancy does not disprove the big bang. III. Inflation First of all, the cosmic microwave background radiation is a wonderful proof of inflation, but I will post another. Inflation predicts that the structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitiational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations called a nearly-circle invariant Gaussian random field is very specific and has only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe). Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background experiments, and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey. These experiments have shown that the one part in 10,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index, 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, implying that it differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is an important confirmation of the theory of inflation. [2][3][4][5][6]Inflation is a very well tested idea. IV. Homogeneity of the UniverseThis existance of the Large Quasar Group (LQG) does not disprove either the big bang or the cosmological principle. The upper limit for the size of structures in the universe has gotten bigger as bigger objects have been discovered. In fact, "The researchers say this could undermine the cosmological principle, although it may simply mean that we need to revise upwards the size limit on large structures. "[7] Think of it another way. In an even larger scale, recent galaxy surveys show some large scale structures such as the Great Wall and the Voids. Can we conclude that our universe is inhomogeneous? Though more and more evidence points to the existence of the large scale structures, the answer is no. The reason is that the distribution of the largest structures may be uniform. [8] Here is a representation of this: [8]The universe is homogenous on the largest of scales. My opponent is cherry-picking using small samples of data without looking at the bigger picture. V. Galactic Evolution My opponent does not even touch this point at all here. He has not compared observations with predictions from theory and simulations, so his claims are baseless. When astronomers compare observations with simulations, there is no discrepancy between the data and the Big Bang paradigm. [9]Here is a graph of the distribution of galaxies in observations and simulations: [9]Note how the observations and simulations are remarkably similar. VI. Abundance of Elements We do achieve consistency in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis models with observed element abundances, given uncertainties in the measurements. The number of adjustable parameters needed to match this consistency is in fact not very large. The relative abundances of H, D, He, etc. depend on the relative numbers of baryons and photons in the universe. Therefore, given a measured baryon fraction the relative abundances are all predicted with no free parameters. This is a strong test of the standard model. [10][11]Here is a graph to show this, yhe predicted abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen, as a function of the density of baryons in the universe (expressed in terms of the fraction of critical density in baryons, Omega_B and the Hubble Constant, h): [[11]VII. Dark Matter First of all, most of my opponent's argument is plagarized from a blog named "Science Debunked" of all things, so I leave it to you, the voters, to decide on my opponent's argument's credibility. Anyway, there are numerous other proofs for dark matter: Rotational speed of gravities is sufficiently explained only by dark matter[12] Only Dark Matter predicts Type 1 supernova to be fainter than other cosmological models[13] Gravitaty lenses, especially the bullet cluster, can only come about with something having the properties of dark matter[14] It is the only theory that explains orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies[15] Dark matter is not a figment of scientist's imaginations. VIII. Hubble's Law My opponent has simply made a claim with no proof. Prove it. IX. White Hole Big Bang Theory My opponent's proposed alternative to the inflationary model is the white hole cosmology theory. "He [my opponent and Humphreys] fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else). .. Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e. g. , the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth. "[16] This theory has been discredited. Sources [1]: . http://www.newscientist.com...[2]: . http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov...[3]: . http://arxiv.org...[4]: . http://arxiv.org...[5]: . http://arxiv.org...[6]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)[7]: . http://www.newscientist.com...[8]: . http://www.physics.hku.hk...[9]: . http://world.edu...[10]: . http://scienceblogs.com...[11]: . http://www.astro.umd.edu...[12]: . http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...[13]: . http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...[14]: . http://scienceblogs.com...[15]: . http://www.nrao.edu...