Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 14:11 (5152 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Big Bang:-There has been some discussion on the Big Bang, and I know there are a couple of supporters for it, so here are my top reasons for not supporting it, and we can argue about it :P -The beginning


• It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing. 

• If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.

• If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.

• Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.

• CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed. 


-The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..


• There are gaps that helium and hydrogen can not cross when changing to other elements. Thus, exploding stars, no matter how many times they exploded, could not create the heavier elements from hydrogen and helium.

• Stars would have to go nova/super-nova at an incredible rate in order for them to create the observed mass of the universe. We have not observed this high rate of nova's, even when looking as far back into the past as we can.

• There is no 'empty center of the universe' which would be required for the BBT to be true.

• As stated in the first list, since explosions in a vacuum lead to straight line trajectories, highly organised elliptical orbits could not form.

• BBT requires that older stars have a different physical composition, which does not fit the observed data, particularly in the mass:heavy element ratio.

• BBT requires 'Dark Matter' to work, yet DM violates the laws of physics. (it must have mass to have gravity, yet it does not interact with other mass, nor is it in any way directly detectable. It's presence is only inferred by gravitational anomalies that have other explanations.)


-These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.