Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

28
74
Yay!!! Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:102
Arguments:114
Total Votes:103
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yay!!! (26)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (69)

Debate Creator

jolie(9804) pic



Scientists finally admit that the Big Bang Theory is WRONG!

Yay!!!

Side Score: 28
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 74
2 points

Their admission ends with a BIG BANG;Who cares about the theory so long as you get to see Mark Cendrowski and Peter Chakos in 'The Big Bang Theory.'

Side: Yay!!!
2 points

Science is fraught with huge assumptions. Scientists observe what they believe to be an expanding universe and immediately problems begin'in to become clear. Like if its expanding, then it musta been smaller at one time. (not too bad). So just naturally if'in it was smaller at one time, then of course it had to have been a tiny super chunk of almost limitlessly compressed matter or something. It then must have just blowed up fer some reason or other. Yeah thats it!

The problem is that so much of physics is described with mathematics. And cool as that is, its only a representation of reality. A somewhat less than perfect tool!

Side: Yay!!!
JustIgnoreMe(3584) Clarified
1 point

Like if its expanding, then it musta been smaller at one time. (not too bad). So just naturally if'in it was smaller at one time, then of course it had to have been a tiny super chunk of almost limitlessly compressed matter or something. It then must have just blowed up fer some reason or other. Yeah thats it!

Actually, yeah, that still is it. Even the BoingBoing article (not exactly my source for cosmology information) does nothing to dispute any of those things, only suggests an even longer timeframe before the major event we refer to as the big bang.

The problem is that so much of physics is described with mathematics. And cool as that is, its only a representation of reality.

What's the matter with math (hehe, matter, get it...)? A representation of reality is far better than just wild assertions.

A somewhat less than perfect tool!

But, in this case, BoingBoing is a perfect "tool"... ;)

Side: Yay!!!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

The new theory (mathematically) shows that the whole expansion thing does not require a singularity that defies all description. In fact an eternal cycle works just as well to account for the current observed expansion.

A rubber band stretching and compressing seems a more elegant and simple idea than a piece of rubber popcorn that came from no where and popped for some reason or other. http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning

Side: Yay!!!
1 point

Never believed in it in the first place.

Side: Yay!!!
1 point

My contention with this fanciful notion is, apart from all the trillions of noughts being banded about the 'Achilles heel'' of the ''Big Bang'' theory is, from where did the ''Big bang'' emanate, and for that matter, how and why was the space available for all these eye-watering trillions of galaxies to occupy? Nothing from nothing = nothing, Nothing plus nothing = nothing, and so forth. The incalculable total masses of the planets in the cosmos all derived from some magic thingummy-jig smaller than the point of a pin. From where did this infinitesimally minute magic thingummy-gig originate?

Side: Yay!!!
1 point

Where did your imaginary friend God originate from then?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Very good question. Not sure if he was created or maybe is origin is to much for us to think of. It's generally held that God exists in a separate plane from us. So he may have never been created.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Kalamazoo(316) Disputed
1 point

Which god would that be? There seem to be a lot of them. My god is money, piles and piles of lovely dosh. Most of it originates from the Royal Mint.

Side: Yay!!!
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

There are ways for particles to be "created" from nothing. The most common scenario would be quantum fluctuations.

Philosophically, it might not make sense for you, but this is science.

Side: Yay!!!

While I'll need to do further reading on the subject, as it is interesting, the specific criticisms levvied against BBT in the article don't seem particularly well thought out.

The two examples given are:

1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go.

2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses. Similar to the black hole bit, in a way.

Both are also fundamentally rooted in the idea that we know exactly how black holes and heavy elements form, and further know that the known method(s) are the ONLY way(s) they can form.

Both of these discrepancies could also arise if we happened to be basing our predictions on the time the big bang allegedly occurred on a very limited area of the universe due to technical limitations.

Even that article suggests that possibly a number of 'smaller bangs' could be a normal part of the process. In this case, the big bang theory may well be correct, just wrong in scope, and be limited only to an area somewhat larger than what we can currently observe. This would be a case of the data being correct, but the conclusion being incorrect- the conclusion here being that this event is the origin of the entire universe. The whole thing may well be marriageable to a cyclic big bang theory as well, depending on the information we uncover.

That said, I'm not saying that they're wrong, just that I don't see how the information provided in the article actually discredits BBT without making further baseless assumptions. Honestly, I hope they're right- it's a wonderful thing when a previously held scientific theory is found to be untenable, because thats when a surge of new investigation and learning begins.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

They were wrong. They know it. And now they are trying to patch it up.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Is that what people who are wrong usually do? I thought I should ask an expert.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity. This is not shown in the BBT. Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.

We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.

Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.

Side: Yay!!!
thousandin1(1932) Clarified
1 point

The discrepancies you point out, exist only if you assume that heavy elements could be part of a singularity.

You'll note that I noted the formations could occur during or just after the big bang as well, while all the material is still reasonably close. We also don't know what the initial matter that expanded from the big bang looked like- some of it may well have originated as heavy elements at the moment of the big bang.

Further

Also a cause for uneven distribution is not shown in the BBT.

Do we have any reason to believe that the distribution of mass and energy from the big bang was 100% uniform and perfect? If not, then we're working with an uneven distribution.

We do in fact have a sound theory that says the heavy elements are formed in stars.

I'm not contesting that- I'm contesting the idea that this is the only way that they can possibly form. If it is possible for these to form during the course of the/a big bang, then it's pretty obvious we don't have a way to directly observe that yet.

Further, nothing you've said speaks anything regarding the possibility of an inaccurate timeframe.

Finally black hole theory has one big hole in it. Namely that it does not seem like a hole at all. Matter seems to accumulate, rather than pass through a hole. Black holes are known to increase in size as they draw in matter. All they are sure of is that in BHT a powerful gravity well exists. What's inside it is pure speculation.

This isn't a hole in the theory. Black holes were named long before we had any understanding whatsoever of what they are, because they literally appeared as distant 'holes' in the night sky as observed by a telescope, due to their gravity preventing light from escaping. Nobody who is informed at all seriously believes these are actually holes of some kind.

It's a relic of the individual terminology used, and we continue to use this terminology because we don't yet know enough about the phenomena to give them a 'more accurate' name.

Side: Yay!!!
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

1) A black hole that evidently formed inside of 900M years when accumulating mass that quickly should be more or less impossible. But given that the big bang concept theorizes that all matter and energy in the universe was originally (or just previously, in the cyclic big bang theory) in one location as is, it would seem to have pretty ready access to far more mass than is needed at one point in this history, and an uneven scattering with a particularly high concentration would be more than sufficient for the black hole to skip most of the accumulation time by virtue of having most of the mass it needed from the get-go

EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.

2) Heavy elements that evidently formed inside of 700M years when the processes known to create them are only known to occur in stars much older than that. But, again, with all of the matter and energy that exists being concentrated into one spot at some point, certainly there would be enough pressure and energy for fusion processes to begin prior to, during, and even for some time after the big bang before the energy disperses

Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB .

The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.

Side: Yay!!!
1 point

EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements, requiring even more time to build a singularity. Can't really conclude any less time is needed. But the heavy elements as well most certainly could have existed with no BB.

Oh, you were there? It's theorized that the overwhelming majority of elements were hydrogen and helium, but not the entirety. A black hole/singularity is a concern of overall mass- not the individual mass of each atom and molecule. Whether it's predominately heavy elements, predominately iron, or predominately helium, the condition for a black hole/singularity is simply that the mass is sufficient that gravitational attraction compresses the whole beyond the schwarzchild radius.

Again nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB

The notBB idea completely accounts for the matter in the universe, without some unknown and unexplained super singularity exploding and creating the universe. Soooooo I'm liking the more complete explanation, that doesn't require an unexplained BB. I believe it has long been the case in theoretical physics that most often the most elegant and simple explanation turns out to be the strongest.

I think you're talking out of your ass. You can't even name the idea in question- WHAT idea? The poorly explored one in the article, you mean? No, that doesn't begin to completely account for all the matter in the universe.

Also, let's look at these two quotes of yours:

"nothing is known about the state of matter in the theoretical singularity before the BB"

"EXCEPT the only other elements around were the lightest elements:

One of these statements does not belong here.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

In our obsession of trying to understand the how and why of our existence and the enormity of infinity it will only be a matter of time before another theory or hypothesis is developed.

In the meantime lets just try to enjoy that we are here and do the best we can to make it worthwhile.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

They admit that the Big Bang Theory is incomplete.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Which is another way of saying that when scientists were pushing the BBT, they really didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

That's how science works. You don't know what the hell you are talking about until you do research and figure it out. They didn't have a complete picture before the BBT, they don't have it now, we won't ever have it. There will always be something else to learn, and that's why there is always ongoing research. But, I can see how an idiot would think that means it is wrong.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Thewayitis(4071) Clarified
1 point

Are you sure they weren't pushing a BLT instead ?

Side: Yay!!!

If it isn't for the big bang theory then how do you explain CMBR and how come red shift shows that the universe originated from a single point?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

That's the point. They just realized that the universe did NOT originate from a single point.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

But redshift shows that it the Universe is expanding, which means it must have originated from a single point.

Side: Yay!!!
1 point

Good never believed it anyway.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
JustIgnoreMe(3584) Clarified
1 point

Ignorance is bliss I guess...

Side: Yay!!!