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 a black hole is. 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.
It wasn't packed. It didn't explode.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
Who said nothingness. It wasn't pushed or packed. That implies an external spacetime present.
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. 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.
Actually a vacuum has an energy density. Measured in the Casimir effect where the boundary conditions of the vacuum are changed in a topological sense.
No one says nothingness became dense.
Do you see why I am having problems relating everything you need in these posts. You are coming from a background of no understanding. that is not an insult but a statement of fact.
You are in posession of a CARTOON version of the Big Bang that is not present in any sciene book. I'm sorry but you got a fake version that is silly.
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! 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!
Again it was not an explosion. You are thinking in an everyday sense when you use words like ignition. It's not a bloody firework!
And I sure don't have time to give a quantum mechanics or heaven forbid a M-theory lecture.
Thats not a cop out, I have a life to live and I would like to live it and not be one here for 25 yeas.
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.
This is assuming a prior spacetime. Google inflatons, quintessence, inflationary cosmology etc etc etc.
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. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Your word nothingness not mine. Google what i said earlier.
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.
Is this an appeal from difficulty? Big Bang has NOTHING to do with STAR and PLANET formation. This is silly and a common Creationist piece of crap.
Show me a scientist who says that.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:
"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."*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
So. It only needs to have occurred once. this is a resort to those stupid probabilty arguments Creationists use that are useless since you don't know the a priori parameter space to make them.
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!
Well it didn't explode so i guess that model sucks. Thats an out of context quote if I ever saw one. Get me the whole 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 matterif the Big Bang was true.
Wow you icked an interesting one. You misstate the problem for models but it is true that the imbalance is not well understood. We know CP violating reactions but not the ones that occurred in the Big Bang.
"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
This is not a true statement of antimatter. See above comment too.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
Do you how old these quotes are?
10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.
Not if you have a CP violating reaction that generates an asymmetry. Duh!
™ Version 4.2