Jutsuka

Someone posted this stupidity on CF as if it was a credible source of information for creationists to use in the debates against those trying to show them what science actually means.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm

Has anyone made a refuation of the "Science vs. the Big Bang - 42 scientific reasons why it is an impossible theory" list or am I going to have to do it? In a fit of anger that someone actually wrote that crap I promised to refute it point by point, even though it doesn't deserve the effort, and I thought I'd check to see if someone has already done it before I start typing it up.

And mabey someone can figure out what they mean with this:

40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.

I don't even understand what it means. Matter can unite in one point, it's called a quantum singularity but what does this have to do with the Big Bang theory?

Then whoever wrote this just changes the subject and starts talking about "nothingness" not being able to collect in one point because there was no matter?

If someone could decipher that one so I know what I'm supposed to refute, I would be most grateful.

Jesse

I did a google search for "Science vs. the Big Bang" and I didn't see any refutations, so looks like you're on your own. You may find the following pages helpful though:

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
180 FAQs about Big Bang Cosmology
Ask the Space Scientist

You might also want to look at this thread which addresses some common misconceptions about the Big Bang.

A point where matter becomes compressed to infinite density is just known as a singularity--"quantum singularity" is some made-up technobabble from star trek. And the connection to the Big Bang theory is that at the moment of the Big Bang itself, general relativity predicts all the matter in the universe would be compressed into such a singularity. However, general relativity may break down in the neighborhood of singularities, in which case we'd need a theory of quantum gravity to know what was going on at that moment. But after about 10^-43 seconds we shouldn't need quantum gravity, although some of what would have been going on in the first few fractions of a second after that is still controversial--see this page for a timeline of the first 10^-6 seconds, which requires physicists to understand how the 3 forces beside gravity unify, and this page for the first three minutes along with this page for the subsequent expansion up until today, both of which I think are pretty widely agreed-upon by cosmologists.

Anyway, I had no idea what that question was talking about either. All that talk about "nothingness" rushing in sounded like nonsense--maybe you could just say that the Big Bang theory needs to be described in terms of the mathematics of general relativity, not vague physical intuitions like the ones they seem to be using.

cpickett

I searched google groups, for the first "problem", there are quite a few posts regarding the whole 42.

http://groups.google.com/

Ernest Sparks

No theoretical "infinite point" for matter.

better statement:

A theoretical infinite point for matter never could have been real.

Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that.

Nobody suggests that everything united (active verb) at some time, unless they mean a prior collapse of a material universe.

First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point.

This presumes that something called "nothingness" fell into the point prior to its emergence. I am not confident anyone can say anything definite about nothingness, including whether it stops or fails to stop.

Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.

Also, no one should expect a momentum or inertial law to apply. That pretty much chucks out "inrushing nothingness".

I won't bore you with my take on that infinite point (don't want to spoil your fun!).

Caligula

Here's what I see as problems with their idea, based on what little I know about the big bang.

1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15

They're switching things around for convenience. First, a fog of hydrogen gas is certainly not nothingness. It may be extremely rarifed, but it's there. Secondly, have they never heard of gravity?

2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.

Here again they switch between a fog of gas and nothingness. Again, the force that pulls matter together is called gravity.

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.

The big bang was almost certainly not a chemical explosion, but more likely dealt with atomic and subatmoic forces.

4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.

Well, after the big bang occured, there was not "nothingness"; it was matter flying out at enormous speed.

5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.


Why does a ball fall back to earth when thrown upward? Gravity Such a simple concept, yet so ignored. And, in the current state of physicss (someone can correct me on this, I am simply speaking from what I remeber) there is doubt about wether the universe is slowing down or speeding up.

6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.

7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.

They must have missed all of their first grade science class, because they dion't have a single clue what gravity is and how it works.

8 - No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.

Stars operate by fusion, which is the combining of atoms of simple elements (like hydrogen) to make more complex elements.

9 - No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.

I see what he means, but I don't see why the fact that there are no elements with their most common mass at 5 amu presents any problem to fusion. All atoms of one element do not have the same masses; some have more or less, depending on how many neutrons they have. These are called isotopes. They must have missed Chemistry 101 too.

10 - No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.

Again, gravity.

11 - Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.

Well, assuming that the universe is 20 billion lightyears across (merely because I don't know the actual number), then the universe would need more than 10 billion years to get to it's current position. Since current evidence places it's age at about 15 billion years, that's plenty of time.

12 - No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.

Fusion.

13 - Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.

When stars go supernova, the heavier elements can be formed. Secondly, fusion does not work well at all on heavier elements, so stars by necessity have lighter elements, at least until they die.

14 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19

This was one "explosion" not many random ones. And gravity and inertia are the reason for orbits, not the big bang directly. Galaxies and solar systems did not come out of the big bang fully formed.

15 - Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.

Why does current theory "require" this? If the signs of these supernovaes stopped before they reached Earth, how would we know about htem? I have never heard of this, so can someone better-versed in big bang theory help on this one?

16 - Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.

One, how do they know, and two, the universe has not been limited to any mere thousands of years, but to billions.

17 - "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.

"Many scientists" Who are these "many scientists". An appeal to an unknown authority is so convincing. First they they argue that the big bang was too random, and they say it's too perfect. Make up your mind!

18 - Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.

I am not familer with this "Roger S. Peter", and it seems Google isn't either, unless he just graduated from a police school, or he's a greek historian.

19 - Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.

That darned gravity! Always screwing up their ideas!

20 - Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.

Current theory (as far as I recall), places this "missing mass" in dark matter.

21 - Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.

Couldn't find anything about this. Can someone else give some info?

22 - Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.

What paper shows this? Do they have any evidence for this besides, their say-so?

23 - Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.

They fail to take into account the fact that stellar fusion has been occuring for billions of years since the big bang. That might mess things up.

24 - Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.

Galaxies and stars did not appear fully formed out of the big bang, but the matter accumulated becaue of - you guessed it - gravity!

25 - Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.

How many times do I have to point it out? Gravity!

26 - There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.

Not sure why they assume that everything that come out of the big bang had to have the same speed.

27 - Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.

Do you have any proof of this? Didn't think so.

28 - Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.

This really has nothign to do with the big bang. Inertia and gravity are sufficient ot explain orbits.

29 - Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.

The big bang theory doesn't have to explain that. Newton did well enough on his own.

30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.

31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.

According to what theory? The big bang? I'm pretty sure that it says nothing about the rotation rates of stars. But I'm willing to be corrected if anyone more familiar with the theory would like to explain.

32 - Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.

The big bang has nothing to do with the direction of orbits. Sorry, but it just doesn't.

33 - Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.

Move too fast? What do they mean by "too fast"? Rather vague for science. Do they mean faster than light? Or just too fast for their minds to grasp.

34 - Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.

How does this violate big bang theory? Again, orbits and rotations have almost nothing to do with the big bang.

35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.

Current theory, if I recall correctly (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong), says that antimatter has the capability to change into matter. If even small amount did this, depending on the original amount of matter, there could be enough left over for the entire universe.

36 - A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.

The evidence is so clear that all legitimate scientist who have spent years and years working on the theory missed it, and few layman uncerstood it immediately. Science is not some giant conspiraxy, it is a search for how things happen and why they happen. Something as big as this would have been noticed.

37 - The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.

And now they've gotten rid of the "too perfect" arguement it seems and gone for "too imperfect". You can't have it both ways. And what is the force that causes matter to clump? Gravity!

38 - The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.

So what? Does the idea of gravity still escape you?

39 - Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.

Yes, I am going to say it again. What is the force that causes matter to clump? Gravity!

40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.

Once again, they use matter and nothingness as interchangeable words. Gravity pulls the matter together into singularity. There isn't anywhere to go after reaching a singularity.


41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:

According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)

But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.

From Here:
One possibility is that stars made purely from Big Bang material, so-called Population III, were so few in number that they are difficult to find. Such stars would indeed be very rare, because even a single supernova can produce enough metals to enrich a typical-sized star-forming region by 0.0002%. Population III stars could also have become supernovae so quickly that they polluted their more slowly forming neighbours which we now observe as Population II stars. Population III stars may also have formed before the Galaxy, so few would be found near the Sun. Another explanation is that perhaps only high mass stars could form from Big Bang gas, and these would have burnt out by now.

42 - Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.

Same as the previous one.


In conclusion this appears to be the usual creationist crap. Nothing new or thought-provoking.

Jesse

One basic thing worth pointing out is that the big bang isn't some arbitrary notion cosmologists cooked up to explain where everything came from. If you apply the theory of general relativity (Einstein's theory which explains gravity in terms of curved spacetime) to the universe as a whole, my understanding is that it's almost inevitable that the universe is expanding or contracting and that there must be a singularity of infinite density in the past or the future--the only way to avoid this is to pick exactly the right value of the cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations to balance out the force of gravity, but if the cosmological constant differs even slightly from this value then universal expansion/contraction must occur, and all the evidence suggests the cosmological constant does not take this value. Nowhere in their arguments do they seem to realize that the Big Bang follows in this basic way from general relativity (nor do they seem to understand anything about general relativity--for example, they seem to think of the Big Bang as an explosion in a preexisting space rather than as the expansion of spacetime). They also don't seem to address any of the main lines of evidence for the theory like the Hubble redshift vs. distance law or the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation or ratio of hydrogen to helium.

eh

I would like to know what the hell the author is talking about by inrushing nothingness. Is this another creationist clown who thinks the BB was an explosion into empty space? I would guess so.

The author mentions that a vacuum cannot contract or expand, and that there is no energy in the emptiness of space. Both of these are dead wrong.

Mageth

And, in the current state of physicss (someone can correct me on this, I am simply speaking from what I remeber) there is doubt about wether the universe is slowing down or speeding up.

Yes, and the evidence comes from analysis of supernovae.

See here.

Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it.

Only hydrogen and helium? Huh? WTF have these guys been reading??? In the Crab Nebula alone, nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, argon, nickle, and iron have been detected, and probably other elements I can't remember.

Shadowy Man

It's clear from what I read (just had to quit after reading a few of them) that whoever wrote the list thinks that the big bang was an explosion of material outward from a single point into space, hence all these references to outflowing material.

This is not how cosmologists view the universe. Fixing that one misconception will cause at least a couple dozen (I would guess) of their points to be moot.

beausoleil

Outrushing somethingness, perhaps?