Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Big Bang?

I've decided to take a break from posting Bible contradiction answers (but I will resume soon). Here's some info I gathered on the big bang theory taught in the area of astronomy, which I'd like to call "Cosmic Evolution," because it really is a part of evolution.

The Big Bang is the most widely accepted, and yet the most impossible concept in all of evolutionary thinking! Many evolutionists say, "The Big Bang isn't part of evolution, for it was not a part of the process for making life. Evolution is this process." And yet, it was the cause of it! Also amazing is the fact that there is a property of evolution known as "cosmic evolution." They put the subject of the Big Bang into this category. Pretty strange how they wouldn't call it a part of evolution.

I'll give a little history on the subject and then explain how it really cannot happen in actual reality.

The regular theory accepted today about the Big Bang is that nothing exploded. There are many claims that something did explode, but let's go by this idea. It is more widely accepted than the theory of something exploded, because the something had to come into existance somehow, and they haven't been able to explain that yet, except through philosophy (not science).

M-theory is based upon this idea that the superstrings made a closed brane of gravitational forces, and collided with another one of these. Now, I wonder where these came from, and who in their right minds would call this science. It's imagination. This theory assumes that the force of gravity is a material object when it is not. Gravity is a force, and cannot be contained by anything, only produced. If the "M" is left alone in "M-Theory," it stands for "mystery," or "mysic," since there are still many properties unexplained by it, as in, how did these gravitational forces decide to pack up and collide, and how can nothing explode? I'll explain their side.

George Gamow, a well known evolutionist, coined the name "Big Bang," and made the idea really sell through the cartoons he drew concerning the details.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness began to condense, by gravity, into a single, tiny spot; and decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which shot outward at incredible speed throughout empty space: there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at extreme speeds, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atom structures of orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms, despite the frictionless environment of the universe.

Over time, the outward-racing atoms are said to have started to circle each other, creating gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then, all of those stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow, a well known evolutionist of the past, described it in "scientific" terms. And yet, in violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space, and rushed into a superdense core, that had an extreme amount of density, and a temperature in excess of 1,039 degrees absolute. That's a lot of nothing getting hot!

Where did this extraordinarily dense core come from? Gamow sadly came up with a scientific answer for this: it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific assurance, he named it "ylem." Many thought the theory to be "scientific" since it had a scientific-sounding name. So then, Gamow added numbers to produce an additional scientific gift: it was 100,000,000,000,000 times the density of water!

Then, it all exploded. Does this sound like science? Why do they call it science?

1. Nothingness cannot pack together. Gravity would have no way to push nothing into a pile.

2. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and therefore exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

3. There was no fire, and no match. It couldn't be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed, and it could not be an atomic explosion, because atoms didn't exist either.

4. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magic vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause that big, giant pile of nothing to push outward? The "gravity" that brought it together would keep it from expanding.

5. The intense heat caused by the exploding emptiness is said to have changed the emptiness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let's get a few things straight here: first, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Secondly, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter, and thirdly, there can be no heat without an energy source. Where did the energy come from? You have to have energy to make something move.

6. Too perfect an explosion would have to be required. On many points, the theoretical math calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out. Scientists call them "too perfect." The theory is next to impossible. The limits for success are simply too tiny, and nothingness can't explode anyway.

R. H. Dicke, an evolutionist astronomer, says,

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."(1)

7. Roger L. St. Peter, another evolutionist, in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the speculated Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the imaginary explosion would fall back on itself and make an imaginary black hole.

8. Another big problem with this little theory is that there is not enough antimatter in the universe. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter, and negative matter (which is antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. Even Isaac Asimov and Victor Weisskopf admit this problem. There should be as much antimatter as matter, but there is not.

9. A well known fact to physicists is that as soon as positive matter and negative matter are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another; another problem.

"Evidence" for the Big Bang?

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation-- There is a miniscule amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It comes commonly from every direction and is believed that it is the same everywhere else in the universe. But, this is an exeedingly tiny amount of "heat," and is only a little less than 30 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. This radiation is only a microwave kind of "heat," but there isn't much "heat" in it at all. The temperature of background radiation comes out as being -2700 degrees Celsius.

The problem? Background radiation comes from every direction, but the Big Bang theory demands that it come from only one direction: from where the supposed explosion took place.

I leave this subject alone now with a quote from evolutionary physicist Hannes Alfven and Professor Asoka Mendis from the UCSD.

"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents.. [But] The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation." (2)

Blackbody CMB-- According to Science News,

"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

"Not any more. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy.. A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself." (3)

In other words, if this "background" radiation is radiating toward earth at four equal sides at right angles from each other, the existence of a single big bang wouldn't make sense. It is highly unlikely, but if this radiation is from the big bang, there would had to have been four separate big bangs occurring at exact right angles of each other, trillions of lightyears away from each other, yet symmetrical in their distance away from earth. The probability of this occurrence is beyond calculating.

The radiation we observe isn't from a big bang(s). As Science News stated, the radiation we see is "...radiation of the universe itself."


(1) R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62

(2) Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698

(3) Science News, 1981

No comments:

Free chat widget @ ShoutMix