Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Joe, How Much Physiscs Do You Know?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on October 4, 2001 20:29:50 UTC

Do you have any education in physics? The reason I am asking is that what you wrore is so wrong and so contradicting to basic natural laws. Did you come up with these 42 softly speaking incorrect ideas by yourself or it was some bartender who told you why HE PERSONALLY thinks the Big Bang is not correct?

Or did you read this 42 sttements from the holy Bible?

Big Bang now indeed is not a "mere theory" but a collection of NUMEROUS FACTS supporting brilliant original guess that the universe is expanding. And the number of facts in favor of expanding from smatt fireball universe is growing.

Let me point at some your contradicting to natural laws statement (sorry for being brief - as usually I do not have time to go over entire long post in much details. But feel free to ask about any detail - I will be happy to elaborate).

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.

Big Bang is a description of reverse process -expanding of universe as we see it without specifying why the universe was small to begin with (not to say about zero point). This is next step (called inflation theory) - to explain where Big Bang comes from. Inflation theory is still not completed yet, although it already adequately explains origin of Big Bang.

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

Nonsense statement - what exactly do you mean by "to push nothingness"?

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.

Big Bang does NOT deal with nothingness yet. Even inflation does not. "False vacuum" is the emerging theory of "nothingness". In that theory vacuum is NOT treated as "nothingness" but instead as a some very symmetric state of matter, which nevertheless has at least one feature - energy.

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.

See answer for #4. In nothingness can have energy, this energy can "push". (Interesting, that TOTAL energy of expanding universe is still zero - it splits into positive (matter) and negative (gravity) components).

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.

Gravity slows it. Same way as it slows a rock thrown 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.

Gravity clumps it. And very successfully - sometimes back down to almost "nothing" (black hole).

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.

Gas also has gravity, thus can contract under its own weight.

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).

Stars fuse helium into more heavy elemets.

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.

Indeed, it is difficult - but not impossible. Stars do it all the time (making heavy elements). Stars have plenty of time to collide nuclei together - some niclei sometimes may move so fast that they "jump" over quantum barrier and fuse.

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

Write equation for gravity of HUGE hydrogen cloud (say, 10^28 kg) and see how nicely it collapses into Jupiter-size bunch of VERY dense hydrogen.

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.

Calculated time nicely agrees with the size of visible universe.

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.

See # 9.

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.

Gravity separates light and heavy elements in stars and planets - light on the surface, havy inside. Indeed, surface of Earth has N, O, CO2, etc., but as you go inside, you get heavier "stuff": H2O, SiO2, Fe2O3, Fe, Pb, U, etc

Same with stars - H on top, then He, then C, O, Si, Fe (mostly inside thus unvisible).

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

See any astronomy textbook, chapter "Planet formation"

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.

It did not stop. It still continues (space still expands - right now). See "red shift". And distant supernovae did not stop - they still receeding.

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.

Well, how about in the past 10 billion years (this is how old Milky way is)? Tons of supernovae had died since then - and polluted every corner of Milky Way with C, O, N, Si, Ca, Al, Fe, Mo, Au, Pb, U and other heavy elements.

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.

Because they are based on observed facts.

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!

If the universe was too heavy. But it is not.

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

Indeed, it does - here you are correct. Although quantum fluctuations slightly (10-3 % or so) disturb this "perfection".

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

We do not see this matter, but it is there as seen by its gravity. Sun moves 230 km/sec instead 100 km/sec DUE to gravity of this matter. We do not yet know, WHAT is this matter made of - but it IS there.

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.

There are 2 types of supernova - one reach in light elements, the other - in heavy.

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.

Again incorrect. Hydrogen is on top of all stars, but spectra also shows presence of almost all elements up to Cu. Look at Sun.

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.

See # 16

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.


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

Correct. Actually, stretching space with non-moving (staying still in it) gradually cooling gas of quarks, then protons, then H/He.

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.

Really? Why so?

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.

You can not see even most stars of our galaxy (too dim because too far away). How can you see individual stars WAY father away? All you can see - bright enough galaxies and some superbright supernovae.

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?

Slight non-uniformity of density are exponentially amplified by gravity (faster collapse/fall where density is slightly more). Remember inverse pendulum (pen on a tip)? Take two and SLIGHTLY vary initial angle - then one falls MUCH sooner.

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).

Incorrect. L=[r x p} = const. (Angular momentum conserves).

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.

Why so? Protostar hydrogen cloud can not be completely still and completely symmetric. Gravit collapse makes it so small that it rotates like crazy to conserve ang momentum.

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.

The smaller the star, the faster it rotates. Neutron stars are a couple mile big, so they spin 100+ times per second.

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.)

Stars (and planets) sometimes collide, tidally interact, be dragged by dust, gas, magnetic fields, etc. all this slows down/accelerates/ sometimes reverses rotation.

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.

They are so-called "ejecta stars" - when two stars come too close to each other, smaller star essentially changes the direction of its motion (we then call it "ejecta star")

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

I am not aware of that (so far there was no evidence). Sourse, please? By the way, if it INDEED rotates - it is extremely interesting - because then it means that the false vacuum may have not only energy, but angular momentum too.)

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..

That is what INDEED happened during big bang. Turns out that slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter (extremely slight, almost non-existion - about 0.00000001 %) left about 10&^-10 matter behind after annihilation.

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.

Cooling due to expansion e/m field precepitated what we call matter (electrons, protons, etc).

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.


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.

Still see # 19 plus gravity.

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

See # 19 plus gravity plus time.

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.

It actually works in reverse - evolves from small volume to large. False vacuum theory explains where and how it "started" from.

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

Nearby universe is too old for pop III stars. Younger universe is so far that we do not see individual stars there. But there is indication that spectra of younger universe (far away galaxies) are poorer by heavy elements.

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."

Center of galaxies is where "heavy stuff" falls - what is unusual that there is much more metals/H ratio there?

It seems that your understanding of Big Bang is incredibly poor.

So, may be you go back to school and learn some astronomy before you post something really stupid and embarassing?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins