Quote:
|
Originally Posted by one of those websites It is of interest that, in spite of the delicate internal ratio balance within each of the four forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces), those four forces have strengths which differ so greatly from one another that the strongest is ten thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than the weakest of them. Yet evolutionary theory requires that all four forces originally had to be the same in strength during and just after the Big Bang occurred! |
We have observed the merging of atleast two of those forces. I don't remember if we've got the strong force into the mix, but we've definately observed the "electro-weak" force, a unification of Electromagnetism and the weak force.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Another part of the site "Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order — . We are presented with a curious question. If information and order always has a natural tendency to disappear [because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics], where did all the information that made the world such a special place come from originally? The Universe is like a clock slowly running down. How did it get wound up in the first place?"—*P. Davies, "Chance or Choice: !s the Universe an Accident" In New Scientist 80 (1978), p. 506. |
It is a very interesting phenomena. Chaos, in some instances, seems to give rise to order, but upon further investigation, you always find the law of entropy to hold true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The website from the 'new' section 80 Years After Scopes Trial New Scientific Evidence Convinces Over 400 Scientists That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient |
Duh... Darwinian Evolution is indeed deficient. We came to that a LONG time ago and have since then made many improvements. We don't modify our data to fit our models, we modify our models to fit our data. I wish religion could be the same, but it is notorious for manipulation of fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by another part The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. |
The Big Bang does not say what happened before it. It does not deny a creator. In fact, I think it would be a lot more impressive for a world to be created that can follow elegant rules that can allow for things to be the way they are...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by More 'facts' 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. |
After reading this, I gave up any remaining hope for the scientific truth the website claims to have. We've seen black holes. We've identified them. We can map out several.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Finally, a glimse of an actual problem. 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. |
Yes. We don't quite know why this is. We do, however, have theories.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by extract from wikipedia But assuming large zones of antimatter exist, there must be some boundary where antimatter atoms from the antimatter galaxies or stars will come into contact with normal atoms. In those regions a powerful flux of gamma rays would be produced. This has never been observed despite deployment of very sensitive instruments in space to detect them.
It is now thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe when charge and parity symmetry was violated (CP-violation). Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e-). How this accounts for the preponderance of matter over antimatter has not been completely explained. The Standard Model of particle physics does have a way of accommodating a difference between the evolution of matter and antimatter, but it falls short of explaining the net excess of matter in the universe by about 10 orders of magnitude. |
We aren't quite there, but hey.... It's something. Pardon us fro not haveing unearthed all the secrets of the Universe (hehehe... I used unearthed too describe things way outside the scope of the earth... tehehehe)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teh site 3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another. |
We know of four fundamental forces, 3 of which we know can be formed into one, and gravity, which we believe can be. Perhaps if we get a bigger, more powerful particle accelerator, we can see that, too. Choose one, maybe all. There ya go. Attraction of particles.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The site
5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia Abundance of primordial elements
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H. All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10-3 for 2H/H, about 10-4 for 3He/H and about 10-9 for 7Li/H.
The measured abundances all agree with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is relatively poor for 7Li and 4He, the two elements for which the systematic uncertainties are least understood. This is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e. before star formation, as determined by studying matter essentially free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too. |
So.... Who do you side with? Mr Black-Holes-Dont-Exist, or Mr. They-Do-And-Here-Is-The-Proof-References-And-How-To-Find-Them-Yourself?
I officially give up. I can not possibly refute everything on that site. Not because the site is right, but because, quite frankly, I don't have the time. It was a lot better than the arguement that the moon doesn't exist, but a lot less humorous, so I'll give it a 2 out of 10. I have never seen so much BS compiled into one source, except for IB extended essays. No offense to any of you that might be in the IB program
Linear Mode
