Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

Because Torvald has waived his right to explain the existence of the singularity, we will only be debating what happens after its occurrence. I will request that the remainder of this debate be made in prose form. :D I will present several lines of scientific evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. I will try to keep my language easy to understand for the readers. I do realize that some readers are unable to comprehend cosmological terms. As such, I will explain as many as I can. I. CMBR Data a. The horizon problem There is a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[1]. If indeed the speed of light, c, is constant, then this data creates a light-time-travel problem. Radiation has not have had enough time to interact with each other to such a degree. Inflation Hypothesis This has been partially addressed by Alan Guth. [2] He proposed that the singularity expanded, "inflated," incredibly fast in the past and then slowed down to the present speed. This means that the rate of expansion was much faster in the aftermath of the beginning. Now this creates problems of its own. There is no evidence that inflation ever occurred. Furthermore, it creates problems of itself. These problems include the "How did the inflation start? What was its cause? How did it slow down? " questions, which has to be addressed. However, there is no known cosmological force that could have started or slowed down this expansion. b. Untenable assumptions and bad data There is at least one untenable assumption in the data gathering. This assumption states that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. Although it may be true, it is untestable. What is untestable should be ideally discarded. Furthermore, WMAP data does not pass even the most lax of radiological standards [3]. c. CMBR can be explained as due to local radiation I will quote directly from the study and explain it somewhat. "The WMAP Q, V, and W band radial profiles of temperature deviation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) were constructed for a sample of 31 randomly selected nearby clusters of galaxies. .. The profiles were compared in detail with the expected CMB Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE) caused by these clusters, with the hot gas properties of each cluster inferred observationally by applying gas temperatures as measured by ASCA to isothermal $\beta$ models of the ROSAT X-ray surface brightness profiles, and with the WMAP point spread function fully taken into consideration. After co-adding the 31 cluster field, it appears that WMAP detected the SZE in all three bands. Quantitatively, however, the observed SZE only accounts for about 1/4 of the expected decrement. The discrepancy represents too much unexplained extra flux: in the W band, the detected SZE corresponds on average to 5.6 times less X-ray gas mass within a 10 arcmin radius than the mass value given by the ROSAT beta model. We examined critically how the X-ray prediction of the SZE may depend on our uncertainties in the density and temperature of the hot intracluster plasma, and emission by cluster radio sources. Although our comparison between the detected and expected SZE levels is subject to a margin of error, the fact remains that the average observed SZE depth and profile are consistent with those of the primary CMB anisotropy, i. e. in principle the average WMAP temperature decrement among the 31 rich clusters is too shallow to accommodate any extra effect like the SZE. .. " [4] It can be clearly seen from this we see that it is an either or situation. Either it is totally CMBR, or totally SZE. Therefore, CMBR data can be explained wholly by SZE or no SZE. We know however, that there is always SZE, so it logically must be due to the result of SZE on local radiation alone. Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK (Which is a puny number) So I will explain a little what SZE is. [5] SZE is "the result of high energy electrons distorting the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) through inverse Compton scattering, in which the low energy CMB photons receive an average energy boost during collision with the high energy cluster electrons". It is a scattering effect on radiation. II. Time dilation in Quasars Time dilation is the effect whereby events occurring far away appear to occur slower than nearby events [6][7]. This is caused by the lengthening of light pulse intervals as space expands. All events would be affected by time dilation, ideally. Quasars, however, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth. Light signatures of 6 billion light years away (blya) and 10 blya were found to be the same. [8] Even though the redshifts were drastically different, the time taken for the light to reach Earth was the same. So how does this have any reference to the Big Bang? Well, the Big Bang relies on the expansion of the Universe [9]. However, time dilation in quasars is evidence against the expansion of the Universe. (I am personally for an expansion of the universe, however) III. Physical interaction of quasars and galaxies with different redshifts Halton Arp has made the observation [10] that highly redshifted quasars can be seen to interact physically with relatively lower redshifted galaxies. From this observation, Arp claims that redshifts are caused primarily by a young object, only secondarily by its velocity. (See last picture of [11]) We can check this claim by analysing the pictures. Magnification of the pictures show, as stated in [12], that there is a "jet" of matter connecting NGC 7319 and the quasar, which is clearly in FRONT of the galaxy. Thus, redshifts might be explained to have been caused by youth, not by distance or velocity. IV. Rotation graphs This is an easy one. From [13], it is clear that standard Big bang models fail to account for the radius from center-rotation speed graph. What is most interesting is the remarkable flatness seen after a very rapid rise. This entirely contradicts prediction. This brings us to the most hypothetical explanation ever invented. Dark Matter (Which I think is a most fantastic idea). a. Dark Matter Dark matter is an ad hoc explanation for the miserable failure of the rotation curves. There is conflicting evidence, however. In 2006, dark matter was reportedly directly discovered [14]. However, in other models, dark matter is not needed and the "evidence" given is still correctly interpreted [15][16]. This shows clearly that dark matter is only required if one wants to hold to the Big Bang model, when in fact dark matter is not even needed in models that more accurately fit the data in that they have less variable parameters. Refutations come. .. .Now. I hope I"ve explained terms sufficiently. 1. . http://iopscience.iop.org... 2. . http://prd.aps.org... 3. . http://www.ptep-online.com... 4. . http://arxiv.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...'dovich_effect 6. . http://arxiv.org... 7. . http://phys.org... 8. Ref. 6 9. . http://arxiv.org... 10. . http://electric-cosmos.org... 11. Ibid 12. Ibid 13. . http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu... 14. . http://home.slac.stanford.edu... 15. . http://news.sciencemag.org... 16. . http://www.astrobio.net...