Oooh oooh oooh, let the newbie try his hand!
quote:
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can?t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
You don't provide any real evidence or arguments to refute the calculations, you just say "How can you believe in this! HA HA HA!"
I can do the same thing. "1+1=2? JUST ARMCHAIR CALCULATIONS AND FAIRYTALE THEORIES! HA HA HA!"
quote:
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
It wasn't "nothingness", read up on the theory.
quote:
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
See #2.
quote:
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
It wasn't an explosion, just a very rapid expansion.
quote:
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn?t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
A phrase transition caused it to inflate.
quote:
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.
See #2.
quote:
7 ? The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Well, if it had happened any differently, we wouldn't be here to observe it, now would we?
quote:
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
See #5.
quote:
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter?if the Big Bang was true.
I don't know enough about this one, or number ten.
Heh heh, that was a pretty horrible attempt of mine, but I'm learning
™ Version 4.2