The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

I do not intend to drop any arguments. I stated "I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case." This indicates that I am not on a Gish Gallop. I will use links to graphs, as I do not know how to place them within the debate box. I will abbreviate big bang to BB. New arguments will have a "(New)" I apologize for the broken link. My fault. However, I will cite it again. [1] Now I will strengthen my argument. Dark Matter (DM): I will go through just three or less of those listed in the original link. For now as I will have no space to refute Pro if I went through all. Disk-Halo Conspiracy: This "describes the absence of a feature in galaxy rotation curves at which the dominant source of central attraction changes from luminous matter to dark." [2] Rotation curves are almost flat at all radii after a rapid rise in all areas. Whether or not the Vc is determined by DM or disk matter. How does the different regions come to have the same rotation amplitude? [3] The Big Bang has no answer for this. Rotation Curve Shapes: The rotation curve shape predicted by the Big Bang fails [4]. Probably the biggest falsified BB prediction. To subvert this problem, fine-tuning is needed and DM is invoked. However, DM has never been observed and is purely hypothetical. Why hypothetical? This is because other models such as the MOND and Carmelian Relativity, correctly fits the curve, but do not invoke DM. Low surface Brightness (LSB) Galaxies: HSB galaxies have steeply rising curves, while LSB have slowly rising curves [5]. The TF relation is the relation between luminosity and rotation speed. [8] LSB galaxies adhere strictly to the TF relation. BB predictions demand that LSB do NOT follow the relation. Thus, the M/L ratio must be fine-tuned with hypothetical mass to compensate. This hypothetical mass is dark matter. Fudge Factors: The fudge factor I was speaking about refers to the fine-tuning of the M/L ratio. It is indeed a fudge factor as it "fudges" the data. All the data the Pro has provided fits into other models without the need for DM. Quantized redshifts: This argument does link to the BB. The BB assumes the cosmological principle. This states that the Universe is both homogenous and isotropic. There is evidence that redshift is quantized. Such I gave in the previous round. Quantized redshifts clearly show that the Universe cannot be homogenous. Now that I have linked the two, Pro has to show me what inaccuracies I made. (New) Redshifts in Quasars: Halton Arp has made the observation [6] 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, not by its velocity. (See last picture of [6]) We can check this claim by analysing the pictures. Magnification of the pictures show, as stated in [6], that there is a "jet" of matter connecting NGC 7319 and the quasar. Thus, redshifts are caused by youth, not by velocity. The basic evidence for BB expansion, redshifts, is undermined. CMBR: The prediction made by BB is that CMBR is an "afterglow" of the "explosion". I was dealing with the horizon problem, which I will not repeat. Pro dismisses them even though others have tried to address problem. RationalWiki call it a "former mystery," as though a solution has been found. It has not. The inflation theory invokes the problem of "what started the inflation?" Now to the afterglow. BB predicts that all galaxies would be in CMBR"s foreground. There is observational evidence to refute this. The ~70mK anisotropies, commonly regarded as proof, can be attributed to other effects such as the Sunyaev"Zel"dovich effect. [7] Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK. On the average of 31 clusters, no shadow has been detected. This shows that CMBR has a higher possibility of being local radiation and radiation is not coming from behind the clusters, rather than BR. I do not know how my opponent can see me as "baffled." Superstructures: As per cosmological principle, this has not been refuted. This is evidence against homogeneity. Population III(PIII) stars: Pro has basically conceded this argument. He links to a list of <180 NASA articles, most, if not all of which did not contain anything on PIII stars. He then calls it evidence for PIII. The absence of PIII stars do not invalidate BB, but lack of evidence for it is a big indication. Time Dilation in Quasars: I will expand on this. Time dilation is the effect whereby events occurring far away appear to occur slower than nearby events [9]. This is caused by the lengthening of light pulse intervals as space expands. BB predicts that all events would be affected by time dilation. 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. [10] Even though redshifts were drastically different, the time taken for the light to reach Earth was the same. Star composition: I will point out Pro"s arguments are very valid and cannot be refuted. However, he provides no source. I have given one to explain Population I & II stars [11]. Pro, however, does not give a valid explanation for how the stars formed. This is vital in any model. Pro may not use energy from an exploding star to hypothesize about the formation of the first stars. The BB is unable to account for star formation, which is required before one can explain star composition. Resources: Pro does not clarify his terms. Any element heavier than beryllium or lithium is considered heavy. Pro"s arguments contradict themselves. To support BB, one has to support the Inflation Hypothesis (IH). IH would require a density around 20 times that predicted by BB nucleosynthesis, which explains light element origins. Notice the Catch-22-like situation. Inflation is required to solve the horizon problem but gives rise to the problem of what started the expansion and would require a higher density. However, a low density is required to explain nucleosynthesis. You can"t have your cake in different flavours, and eat it too. 1. http://www.astro.umd.edu... 2. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu... 3. http://www.astro.virginia.edu... 4. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu... 5. http://iopscience.iop.org... 6. http://electric-cosmos.org... 7. http://arxiv.org... 8. http://web.physics.ucsb.edu... 9. http://phys.org... 10. I already cited Hawkins in the previous round. 11. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...