ID Lounge Debate 1: Astronomy: The Big Bang

Discussion in 'ID Members Lounge' started by Zsandmann, Mar 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zsandmann

    Zsandmann Premium Member

    The First debate here in the forum will be between Teams 1 and 2. Please refer to the rules thread for specific requirements. I will send a u2u to all participants so consider yourself forwarned. The winning team will go up against Team 3. Good Luck!
    The topic is: The Big Bang is responsible for everything in existence today, from a point the size of a period all matter arose. Sensible Solution or Preposterous Paradox?
    Team 1 will be in SUPPORT of the subject.
    Team 2 will be OPPOSED.

    Icewolf now has 48 hours from Saturaday March 26th, 10AM Mountain Time to respond with their opening statement.

    Team 1: Lupus Infinitas
    1st - Icewolf
    2nd - Dark_phoenix0666
    Summariser - tablet

    Team 2: The Jr. J. Czars
    1st - Mizar
    2nd - JcMinJapan
    Summariser -Junior_smith

    [Edited on 5-4-05 by Zsandmann]
  2. Icewolf

    Icewolf Premium Member

    Greetings Ladies and Gentleman, Mr Chair, and my worthy opposition. I am here to argue that the Big Bang is a sensible solution to the enigma which is our Universe. From nothingness to infinity, a concept far beyond the possible understanding of our species. Yet even for something so complex it has a logical solution. Using scientific facts I will show how exactly the Big Bang would explain away the mystery of the formation of our Universe.

    The idea that everything today could have been made by one single point in space was introduced in 1927 by Georges Lemaître who invited the world to think that the Universe began with the detonation of a single atom. This theory has changed slightly to say that all matter and energy in existence today were held in a single point in space. This was backed up by Edwin Hubble who worked out that the Universe was expanding as if from a Big Bang. What happened to bring this into existence would be pure speculation but is not what today’s debate is about. For, we are trying to clarify if the action of the initial explosion could explain the creation of our Universe and my response would be that yes, it can.

    I has been proven that every piece that makes up the Universe is moving away from every other piece. This could only be achieved geometrically by a push from the centre outwards like an explosion. This again shows how physically a Big Bang could achieve the naturally recorded phenomenon of our Universe.

    After the Big Bang, there was nothing in the Universe except for a body of plasma. At this point everything was extremely hot because of particles of matter and antimatter rushing away from each other in every direction. It then began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after the initial explosion. As the matter and antimatter collided they mutually destroyed each other creating pure energy. But luckily there was surplus matter (about 1 part per billion) which allowed the Universe to evolve with matter as it’s main constituent. It was at this point that the building blocks of the lives of stars and other space bodies began to form. The first true particles were now in existence photons, electrons, neutrinos and quarks. Today’s heavy particles like protons and neutrons were not in existence due to the intense heat. Once the Universe had cooled to a degree where changes could take place the whole Universe went under a radical transformation, best described as like the change of liquid water when it freezes. Now particles known as hadrons came into existence, i.e. protons and neutrons. But as the Universe was so hot we could not have any elements and so nothing more complex than these simple particles could exist. Also lighter particles called leptons existed but due to the high temperatures were unable to react with the hadrons to build more complex matter. About one to three minutes after the spontaneous creation of the Universe as a whole, protons began to react with neutrons to create a form of present day hydrogen known as deuterium. Deuterium then gathered another neutron to create tritium. Then another proton was collected to form the nucleus of a present day helium atom. After more cooling the helium nucleus was able to attract the negatively charged electron to create hydrogen.

    From here using present day analysis we see that what happened next happens continually in stars. In early stars the hydrogen works as fuel for the nuclear reactor which keeps the star alive. The hydrogen atoms come together to make heavier elements until the death of a star. These elements are then dispersed and create new planets like The Earth, or new stars. This happens as the elements which comprised the dead star come together under their own gravity. Which is how the very first stars were born after the Big Bang. When the Earth was made these elements came together with the help of energy (most likely in the form of superlightning) to make the building blocks of life and so we are here at present day.

    I have shown that the Big Bang is responsible for everything in existence today, as, everything is made from basic elementary particles which weren’t in existence until the Big Bang so logically it was the Big Bang which caused the cataclysmic chain reaction leading to the Universe as we know it today.

    For further information check out here.

    From here you can truly understand how in one single moment everything we take for granted can come from nothingness to infinity. I stand down and let my opposition take over begging you to support the motion.


    789 words
  3. Mizar

    Mizar Premium Member

    And so it happend. I actually think I did a good job.

    The possibility of the Big bang is one that is easy to except but the practicality of the whole situation is not. The Big Bang Theory is only a theory and thusly has not been proved correctly yet. Also because it is still a creation theory it is one amongst thousands. Each theory has as much scientific reconciliation as the other. The Big Bang theory states that before the universe was “created” all of the energy, matter, and anti matter ( which is in itself a theory, anti matter has only been created in labs and has not been found naturally occurring in the universe yet) was compacted into a sing point. Math tells us that a point is something that has no dimension what so ever, no length no width and no height. This point of everything erupted into the most violent explosion ever. This brings me to my first point of debate. If “The Point” was all that was, why at that moment did it decide to erupt and spawn our universe as we know it? What caused it to do so at that point and at no other. The point would have been in the same state for all “time” and I say “time” because it is also said that if nothing was existing before the big bang time would have had no meaning with nothingness. When the big bang happened there was something to move and something to be done so time was in a sense created. But this point would have been unchanging for an unknown amount of “time” with nothing to interact so what caused the initial beginning? After the explosion it is said that the energy, matter and anti matter was expanding out ward. It is said that the matter and anti-matter were in equal quantities. As we all know from high school physics when anti matter and matter combine or interact they cancel each other out. This brings me to my second point. Why matter as we know it? What force if there was only the three states caused the matter as we know it to win out? If given in equal quantities it would be logical that all that would be left would be energy and no form of matter. So why matter, in all reason we shouldn’t even be here. The big bang theory then goes to say that the universe expanded evenly out in all directions for some time. Lets take it to be right and say that by some way matter wins out over anti matter. As the universe expands it too should be spread out evenly in all directions. Our picture of the universe shows us groups and clusters of galaxies. We lie in a group of galaxies called “The Local Group” it contains around 13 to 20 galaxies, only two of which are relatively large galaxies. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are the two big ones. We also know that in our ”nearby” vicinity there is the “Virgo Super Cluster” which is believed to contain thousands of galaxies. The big bang suggests an even distribution of the energy and matter in all directions. This picture of the universe with uneven groupings and clusters of galaxies in not an even distribution of the matter. Why is it that we do not have such order in our universe when the big bang theory suggests there should be? All of what I have stated points me to believe that there are many variables that were not known when the theory was postulated. We know that it was first brought up in 1927 hardly a time when what we know of the universe was known. We now have theories and proof of things such as “Dark energy” and “dark matter” we have new quantum theories that suggest the universe is built on eleven dimensions. Looking at the evidence that is supplied about the Big Bang and what is still lacking to be known we can still only leave it at what it is, a theory. The evidence I have proposed suggests to me that we are missing a crucial helping hand that set the ball rolling. Something had to have set it off if it happened but science tells us nothing was there. Something had to have allowed the matter to win out over the anti matter but science tells us nothing could have. And yet again the theory states the universe should be ordered but science tells us it is not and is getting stranger. With the Big bang theory out as it is now, with these crucial flaws we can only but say it has big problems that need to be fixed. As is the big bang theory to me has been proved wrong.

    798 words

    source same as ice wolf ( too lazy to find my own)
    also the book Carl Sagan's cosmos for the techinical info

    [Edited on 3/29/2005 by Mizar]
  4. Dark_phoenix0666

    Dark_phoenix0666 New Member

    Ladies and Gentleman, Mr Chair, and my worthy opposition, Firstly I’d like to say that time is relative so it doesn't matter how "long" it took to create the universe. Now I ask you to delve into your imagination, think of the big bang as a bomb, if the explosives weren’t packed properly then it would explode material at different rates thus the matter would be spread out in different regions of space. And now a question, if anti-matter has been made in a lab how can it be a theory? To Answer you're question concerning, "It is said that the matter and anti-matter were in equal quantities." They were not in equal quantities as Ice said in his opening statement "But luckily there was surplus matter (about 1 part per billion)" Furthermore as Ice said we are not here to debate whether or not the big bang did happen but rather whether or not it would be a plausible theory and my response would also be yes.

    For me to truly illustrate the relativity of time I'd like you to think about the Earth. We measure all our time based on the movements of the Earth. Time is relative to where you are on the Earth and to the position of the Earth in its rotation. It has been proposed that the Big Bang started as a singularity in space. Singularities are exempt from most laws of physics and in essence are "immune" to time. there didn't need to be time to start it. A singularity goes on the basis that there is an infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time.

    Now we tackle the problem of how the explosion ended in the matter being spread out in such a diverse way. We can use a bomb as an example. If explosives are packed into the boot (trunk) of a car then the back will travel very far but the front will not travel as far. Compare this to a basketball with explosives in the centre, it would blow up with matter being spread at equal rates. Therefore, the explosive pattern is relative to the origin of the explosion. Also, using Newton’s first law, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced
    force" If any of the matter were acted upon by an unbalance force, i.e. gravity from a black hole etc, then the mass in space would change velocity or have it's direction altered. Thereby leading to a chaotic spread of mass in the Universe.

    1 part per billion of matter during the destruction of anti-matter may sound not very much but there is a way to explain the extra mater in existence today. E = mc^2, this equation states that Energy equals mass. As seen in a particle accelerator energy can be transformed into mass. Now when matter and anti-matter come into contact they destroy each other, but, this releases a huge amount of gamma radiation. Under the conditions of the Big Bang this energy could have turned into both stable and unstable particles. Hence the creation of the Universe.

    This concludes our argument in preparation of it being summarised. I have shown variable contradictions by my opponents and have provided you with solid evidence. I stand down and
    leave the floor open for my opposition. I beg you to support the motion.

    Singularity -

    585 Words
  5. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Big Bang is nothing more than a scientific "creation theory" and leaves physics laws at the door. I will thus prove in this debate that the "Big Bang" holds as much water and offers no proof of realistically happening.

    In 1994, the Hubble telescope had a mission to check the universes rate of expansion and thus helping determine the age of the universe. It checked the stars in the M100 galaxy in the Virgo cluster and determined that Cephoids were 56 million light years from Earth. This determined that the universe was around 8-12 billion years old, based on the consequential expansion rate. This did not sit well for the Big Bang theory, as certain quasars which are reliably dated at 16 billion years old; appear to be older than the universe itself.

    Inflation was introduced to help big bang theorists; it said that near the beginning, the ratio the density of matter in the universe to critical density will differ from unity by 1059 parts. Any deviation larger would have resulted in a universe that already collapsed in on itself. Inflation theory fell apart at this point, because observations showed this very differently. Then 2 new "adjustable" theories called the Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy were invented. Dark Energy helps the cosmological constant ADJUSTABLE theory. It basically gives us "undetectable" energy scattered "as needed" throughout the universe. Dark energy is a "made up" energy to somehow keep the Big Bang theory realistic as it varied too far from observations.
    Now, if the Big Bang created everything (matter, space, time and energy), can "nothing" explode and how can an explosion happen if there is not "time"? If there was nothing, then "where" was this supposed "point"? This violates our first law of Thermodynamics……. Law of Conservation of Matter. Next, the second law is broken (Law of Increased Entropy), when we look at observable explosions and the state of the universe after the Big Bang.
    To explain planets, galaxies that are spinning, Big Bang states that the "singularity" was spinning prior. But, if the singularity was spinning, what is the cause of retrograde motion, some planets (spin backwards, orbit backwards) Venus is one. Some say because of collisions, but why would their orbits perfectly in line while the spin is opposite and why would some planets have moons that orbit in both directions? Retrograde Motion violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
    According to relativity, the Big Bang would have needed to create lots of magnetic monopoles (having 1 magnetic pole) in order to have the results of the universe today. But, we have never been able to find even one magnetic monopole.
    Cosmic microwave backgrounds is the remains that have cooled from the big bang when radiation dominated after the explosion. But, cosmic microwave background observations show that it is smooth in every direction at a temperature of 2.73K (Kelvin). Radiation can only be uniform by the photons being heated through particle collisions to prevent cooling off. However, Big Bang falls apart since photons cannot move information faster than the speed of light, so they cannot move across the universe in time to account for the observed isotropy in the thermal radiation. This goes against the basic underlying theory of Big Bang.
    These are but a few but major examples of how Big Bang violates our basic observations of Physics, the universe, and relativity. Big Bang is about as fact based as in believing in Creationism or Santa Clause, as neither can be proven or disproved.
  6. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    sorry, 599 words

    also 1059 should be 10 to the 59th squared. I copied this from MS Word as that is what I made it in and did not notice this till the re-read.
  7. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Lupus Infinitas\' Summarise

    Congratulations Mizar and JC for making this far in the debate. This is indeed a tough one for one of us to begin with, I’m glad that it’s all over now thus allows us to sit back and clearly observe. Allows me to sum it all up:

    In this “Big Bang” debate Lupus Infinitas argues that every single cell today, from life on earth to the formation of our universe was the cause of the Big Bang, an explosion (Chaos) that started out from a [singularity], which believes to hold all matter and energy that exists today, in space that expands outward infinitively and scattering all that were once held in this tiny [anomaly] into space. This explosion then cooled down afterward and balance was created out of this immense destruction so that later Order can kick in, hence, the formation of our universe. All in all they’ve concluded and shown that the big bang is a sensible solution to explain the enigma which is our universe. From nothingness to infinity.


    My opposition (The Jr. J. Czars) on the other hand denies it for they believe that The Big Bang is nothing more than a scientific creation theory and not a scientific creation fact! This is the base of their argument. They also asserted that there’s no proof of it realistically happening which contradict one crucial fact that Lupus brought up; that space is indeed expanding and that stars today show signs of reactions which happened at the start of time (The Big Bang).

    I now step down and let my opposition’s summarizer take over and to conclude our very first debate. We hope to see you all again in our future debate. Good Luck and I beg you to support the motion.


    EDIT: Post debate corrections shown in []

    [Edited on 14-4-05 by Zsandmann]
  8. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    As my team has already pointed out the Big bang Theory is just that, a theory, It is not a law. The Big Bang Theory was created by scientists who wanted to know how the universe began, and were Not happy with the ideas preposed by religions. So alas the scientists went on and devised the Big bang Theory, and they tried to prove its existence. now you can take an apple and an orange and describe their similarties. But in the scientific community their is a huge lack of people describign their differences. The Big bang Theory makes since the billionth of a second after it happens, but at its core at the intitial bang it is flawed. From where we stand today, I can almost gurantee that future peoples will look at us the same way we looked at previous people who thought the earth was flat, or people who thought the world was one large continent.
    My opposition has tried to tell us that because time is relative it doesn't matter how long it has been since the big bang, that is false the age of our universe is key to our understanding. our opposition has also tried to tell us that is mishpaen because of the way in whcih it exploded but if the big bang theory is true nothing would be pulling at any edges so it should explde in a perfect sphere. my oponents also try to say that the universe exploded which is why we have the elements we have today, but we have proven that this is not possible.
    you have proven, we have disproven, it's over.

    I would like nwo to conclude this debate and thank the opposition tablet, dark_phoenix0666, and Icewolf, and i swould also liek to thank my teamates Jcmin and Mizar
  9. Zsandmann

    Zsandmann Premium Member

    An excellent debate. Unfortunatly, a small miscommunication lead to a forfeit for Team 2, but none the less a well done debate from 6 great members. Our winners are Team 1: Lupus Infinitas. I leave the floor now open to all members of ID to discuss this subject with both teams.

    This thread will be locked in one week in preperation for another debate. Again fine job to both teams, and may Round 2 strive to be half as engrossing as round 1. The subject is going to be one of mystery and intrigue.

    Z Out
  10. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    :up: Kudos to the six of you for being the initiatory guinea pigs in our first debate.

    I found everyone's presentations exceptional and thoughtful. It would have been difficult to decide a winner in this debate so I applaud you all.


    btw-looking forward to the next round.
  11. Zsandmann

    Zsandmann Premium Member

    I agree its weird to contemplate a singularity being asymmetric, so how does one get an asymmetric universe?
  12. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Well, if the singularity was made all of space then WHERE was this singularity? Was it in nothing? Is nothing actually nothing? And, why has the universe started to expand faster in after it had been slowing down? BWAHAHA
  13. Icewolf

    Icewolf Premium Member

    The mysteries of the Universe, maybe God sneezed?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.