The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

Arguments which help no case:Dark Halo Conspiracies and the rotational curves doesn't prove the Big Bang is false. It simply shows something it fails to predict. Similarly, the BBT fails to predict evolution, or germ theory, or enzymes, or anal retentiveness. This does not harm the theory. The Big Bang has no answer because it is not part of the big bang theory. Both of these arguments, even if fully conceded, have no relevance to the debate. The Fudge Factors argument is similar: he's clearly dropped it as a criticism, simply claiming it is not evidence. There's no point going off-track to refute any of the other false claims, due to the debate topic, but regardless these are no criticisms.Theory Gish Galloping and Dark MatterWhen my opponent types off-hand (Mond and Carmelian Relativity), I hope he seriously does not expect me to refute massive models of faulty science as well as defend the argument, when the reasons these hypotheses are dismissed are due to scientific faults, which anyone with google can look up. Moreover, there is a lot about dark matter and attempting to defefat it. Note how all say "this hypothetical mass is dark matter" or similar. Thus, proving Dark Matter's existence is all that is needed. Luckily, there is lots of evidence: Rotational speed of gravities is sufficiently explained only by dark matter[1] Only Dark Matter predicts Type 1 supernova to be fainter than other cosmological models[2] Gravitaty lenses, especially the bullet cluster, can only come about with something having the properties of dark matter[3] 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[4]. Claiming things about the big bang which are simply falseLow Surface Brightness is predicted by the big bang model, due to the existence of dark matter. Once the insurmountable evidence for dark matter is accepted, then accepting this is no problem is due course: LSB is predicted by the big bang, due to the prediction of dark matter.Fudge Factors are another example of things which is simply false. Showing how MOND, TeSeV or any other models can fit the data, instead of claiming it to be so. I don't know where you come from, but I come from Britain, and in britain we like evidence.Quantized Red Shift Now we've actually got an argument, I can do something with it. So let's do this step by step: There is no evidence for redshift quantization. Instead of citing modern articles, my opponent cites articles from the eighties. Undoubtedly, and I am sure my opponent agrees, astrology and cosmology has vastly developed since then, so modern sources are a better source. Modern sources say less favourable things: "Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."[5] "the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for [the hypothesis]"[6] Quantized redshifts give merit to stupid things[7] like a galactocentric universe. Quantized redshifts showing the universe being unable to be homogenous is still unsusbstantiated. Unfortunately for Tifft's claim, the quantization scale for redshifts has continued to shrink as more data has become available. The initial value was 72.46 km/s. Further observations brought this down to 36.2 km/s, 8.05 km/s and finally 2.68 km/s. Scaled against the speed of light, this suggests a quantization in z of roughly 0.00001, which is ...below the precision for many common redshifts measurements[8]. Redshifts in Quasars In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. Conversely, BBT tells us quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.[9] Redshifts prove the Big Bang, not neglect it. To make this clear, this is an argument for the BBT. The evidence doesn't negate it, but isntead promotes it. CMBRIs it just me, or is the criticism still saying nothing? He's managed to argue with himself into saying it's consistent. I never even brought any actual criticisms to the fore: one must question the soundness of the other arguments when an event like this happens...Evidence for the Big BangStar CompositionMy opponent says the evidence is valid, but goes on to say I am wrong because i) I didn't use a source, and ii) I did not explain how stars form.i) is ignorable because my opponent accepts it is true regardless of source. Moreover, the image is the evidence. ii) is a red herring because whether the stars form from the traditional method (below) or any other method, this has no relation to the big bang. Unless we are supposing a universe made last thursday, the argument is sound. In fact, the lack of direct criticism gives evidence for the soundness of the argument.ResourcesI will struggle to explain the big bang theory in a thousand characters to a decent depth, but at the same time I wonder whether I have to. The argument my opponent used is just one from not understanding how the big bang model works. At the big bang, atoms are incredibly small, so hydrogen and deutrium and similar. These form stars. These stars produce hydrogen, helium, and heavier metals into the universe. These atoms come together and form "heavier" stars, which will be closer to the beginning of the universe (as fully formed stars moving away that formed earlier will be made of lighter materials and so less metals and will have a headstart, and so be able to "get out" quicker). All stars also produce iron on death, though, which will spike this material. The evidence shows this to be true. Further, my opponent has to actually prove or justify why the IH would require a x20 larger density, not citing a random scholar who I can simply disagree with as well, nor copy from the cosmological statement site. Actual cold hard evidence, and no less.CMBR is a cosmological phenomenonThe Big Bang theory, as my opponent repeatedly says, claims the CMBR is a cosmological phenomenon. If we can prove so, this is strong evidence of the BBT. What does the evidence say? Well, thanks to SZ models (Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect models) we cacn see the SZ effect drastically effects the CMBR, showing it to be dependent on cosmological effects.[10]Dark MatterIf Dark Matter exists, we have good evidence for the big bang theory again, since only the BBT accounts for its existence. And indeed, we have many independent studies. With the few characters left, I'll point to the Integrated Sachs-Wolf Effect[11] and leave it at that. 1 - http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...2 - http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...3 - http://scienceblogs.com...4 - http://www.nrao.edu...5 - http://arxiv.org...6 - http://arxiv.org...7 - http://creation.com...8 - http://www.talkorigins.org...9 - http://www.universetoday.com...10 - http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu...11 - http://arxiv.org...