The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

Before I begin, I would like to comment on my opponent's objections that my arguments are not "clear". To begin, anyone with a rudimentary science background should understand my arguments, and second, I need to use complex words to make my argument. Also, my arguments made the point that they were only valid by the Big Bang Theory, and by no other cosmological theory, meaning that if such a proof is true, the Big Bang Theory is the only cosmological theory able to explain it, such as the abundance of light elements. Beginning my argument, my opponent has a curious format - he tries to refute my first argument from round 2, and then proceeds in defending his own arguments for the rest of the argument, ignoring the other six arguments. Those last six should be considered drops. As for that one argument he attempted to refute, an expanding universe is a necessity for the Big Bang Theory to be valid, and a homogeneous universe is a consequence of such an expansion: "Since the expansion of space occurs evenly at every point in the universe, galaxies are separating from each other at about the same pace, giving the universe a nearly uniform density and structure. As a result, the universe appears smooth at large distance scales. In scientific terms. " My opponent never gets to the root of this argument, only questioning the relevance of it to the Big Bang Theory's validity. [1] The rest of my opponent's argument is a rehash of his original arguments, basically ignoring the refutations I made in the last round. To begin, his arguments on energy ignore Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:"In quantum mechanics we have an uncertainty relation between position and momentum:(Δq) (Δp) ≥ h/2 Now, as you probably know, time is to energy as position is to momentum, so it's natural to hope for a similar uncertainty relation between time and energy. Something like this: (ΔT) (ΔE) ≥ h/2"[2]What this means is that there can be violations of the law of conservation of energy for short periods, which is all that was needed to make the big bang possible. Next, he argues that gravitational potential energy cannot be negative. However, because gravity does positive work on an object, the energy itself is negative because the work equals the negative change in potential energy. Finally on energy, my opponenet cites the baryonic asymmetry problem (that there is no antimatter; just matter). While still a question that has not been answered conclusively yet, there are several potential hypotheses that address the problem, meaning that it isn't an objection to the Big Bang Theory. For example, a popular hypothesis is 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. [3]My opponent's next argument goes back to the second law of thermodynamics problems mentioned earlier. Again, only net disorder must be greater as time moves on: "The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang. " Because the early universe was so orderly, that allowed for orderly arrangements to be made in the universe. But again, the net entropy of the universe has increased dramatically over the 14 billion years of its existence. [4]Next, my opponent asks a very good question: Where did the bosons and photons originate? For the former, bosons are simply force carriers. The origins of bosons are rather unknown at this point, but what is known is that they were all unified at the time of the big bang, and a grand unified theory would help explain this. There are explanations out there, such as string theory, making that objection not important. Photons are a type of boson - they are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, meaning that they make up light, which remember was already created because of the energy/time uncertainty. This could be a crucial point in developing a grand unified theory. Finally, my opponent sticks with the two misconceptions I pointed out earlier - again, the Big Bang Theory does not explain how the universe was created, in the same way that the theory of universal gravitation doesn't explain where mass comes from. There are theories being introduced, but they don't concern this specific resolution. And second, the big bang theory not not an explosion. This is the hypothesis behind the Big Bang Theory: "Our universe began in a hot dense state which began, and still is expanding. In this initial event, all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium. " Note that the world "explosion" is not used; only "expansion". In fact, ". .. the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it. .. galaxies hold still more or less (there are small movements due to gravitational interactions) while they are carried by the expanding universe. "[5]In conclusion, my opponent makes two final arguments. One, we cannot see the big bang itself because the first light able to reach us is the CMBR. "Photons could not travel freely, so no light escaped during those earlier times [before the recombination era]. " And two, my opponent does not explain a casuality between atomic instability and radioactive decay, for what causes atomic instability? [6]My opponent has not really raised any relevant objections to the Big Bang Theory, and even if they were, they still don't disprove the theory. Further, my opponent ignored six of the seven proofs I presented concerning the theory, all of which were very important to the resolution and should not be discounted. Sources[1]: . http://www.universeadventure.org...[2]: . http://math.ucr.edu...[3]: . http://www.newscientist.com...[4]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[5]: . http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com...[6]: . http://www.space.com...