SCIENCE VS. THE BIG BANG
Here are 42 reasons why the Big Bang is foolishness. These are scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:
1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.—p. 15.
2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.—p. 15.
3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.—pp. 15-16.
4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.—p. 16.
5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.—p. 16.
6 - No way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to clump together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas moves from high density to low density, not the other way around.—p. 16.
7 - No way to produce stars. There is no way by which gas could clump itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed, can it hold itself together by gravity.—p. 16.
8 - No way to produce complex atoms. Aside from hydrogen and helium, which are quite simple, there is no way that loose gas in space can form itself into complex atoms (elements above helium).—p. 16.
9 - No way to go past the helium mass 4 gap. It is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, for hydrogen to explode past the atomic gap which exists at mass 5 and 8. In the sequence of atomic weight numbers, there are no stable atoms at mass 5 and 8. Because of the mass 5 gap, it is unlikely that hydrogen can change into heavier elements than helium. Because of the mass 8 gap, neither of them can change into heavier elements.—pp. 16-17.
10 - No way to compress loose hydrogen gas. There is no way that loose hydrogen could push itself into a solid or semi-solid out in space.—p. 17.
11 - Not enough time. There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a 20-billion light-year universe and then change itself into billions of stars, before the explosions were theoretically supposed to have stopped.—pp. 17-18.
12 - No way to produce enough of the heavier elements. Even if hydrogen explosions could produce heavier elements, there are several other reasons why it could not produce enough of them.—p. 18.
13 - Elemental composition of planets and moons is totally different than that found in stars. Scientists cannot explain why the stars primarily have lighter elements and planets especially have heavier ones.—pp. 18-19.
14 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. Haphazard explosions could never produce stellar rotations or orbits.—p. 19.
15 - Why did the explosions stop? The theory requires that the star explosions (super-novas) suddenly stopped—conveniently just before light rays could reach us. Yet no adequate explanation is given for the sudden termination. In addition, because of known distant stars, there is not enough time needed for those super-nova explosions to occur—before they had to stop.—p. 19.
16 - Too few super-novas and too little matter from them. Super-novas do not throw off enough heavy atoms in each explosion to account for all the stars which exist. Only a few super-novas have occurred in the past thousand years.—pp. 19-20.
17 - "Too perfect" an explosion. Many scientists agree that the calculations needed to figure a Big Bang and its aftermath are too close, too exacting to be accepted even by competent scientists.—p. 20.
18 - Not a universe but a hole. *Roger S. Peter calculated that, if a Big Bang had occurred, it would have fallen inward on itself (into a black hole), not outward into the universe. What a situation! one imaginary object being swallowed up by another!—p. 20.
19 - Non-reversing, non-circling. Outward flowing gas, in frictionless space, does not stop or begin circling. It would just keep moving outward forever.—pp. 20-21.
20 - Missing mass. There is not enough mass in the universe to meet the requirements of the various theories of matter and stellar origin.—p. 21.
21 - Only hydrogen and helium found in super-nova explosions. The Big Bang theory requires that elements heavier than lithium were set free by super-nova explosions. But analysis of the Crab nebula (a gigantic super-nova explosion in A.D. 1054) reveals there are no elements heavier than light weight helium in the outflowing residual gases from it. Thus it appears that hydrogen explosions cannot bridge the mass 4 gap, no matter what the temperature of the explosion.—p. 21.
22 - Older stars do not have additional heavy elements. The Big Bang theory requires that stars, which have not exploded, are producing heavier elements within themselves by explosions of hydrogen. But this has been shown to be false.—pp. 21-22.
23 - Intersteller gas has a variety of elements. The theory requires that floating gas in space (which is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang) should only have hydrogen and helium from the initial Bang, but research shows that other elements are also present.—p. 22.
24 - Stars and galaxies exist. A theoretical explosion could only produce outward flowing gas, not intricate stars, planets, galaxies, and their complex interrelated orbits. Scientists draw a total blank in explaining how this could happen.—p. 22.
25 - Only increasingly rarefied cloud. All the Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly less dense (more rarefied) outward flowing gas.—p. 22.
26 - There are stars and galaxies all through space. If the Big Bang had really occurred, the stars and galaxies would only be found along the outer edge of the gas flowage instead of throughout space.—p. 22.
27 - Disproved by distant universe. According to the theory, the farthest stars should be the youngest and most densely packed. But, instead, the farthest are just like the others.—pp. 22-23.
28 - Unexplained angular momentum. Origin of matter and star theories cannot explain "angular momentum," that is, the rotation of stars. In other words, why do the stars turn?—p. 23.
29 - Angular momentum and momentum-mass relationship. Origin theories cannot explain the delicate relationship existing between mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (rapidity with which it rotates).—p. 23.
30 - Many stars rotate too fast. According to the theory, stars should not have the high rotational speeds they have; in fact, they should not have any.—p. 23.
31 - High-spin stars. The theory could not produce extremely rapid spinning stars. Yet there are stars in the sky which do rotate at such high speeds.—pp. 23-24.
32 - Stars that orbit backward. Some stars orbit in the opposite direction than the others. The theory cannot explain this. (The same is true of planets.)—p. 24.
33 - Stars that move too fast. There are high-velocity stars which are traveling too fast through space to accommodate the evolutionary theories of origins.—p. 24.
34 - Universal rotation. Evidence indicates that not only the galaxies are rotating, but the entire universe is also. This also violates the theory.—p. 24.
35 - There is not enough antimatter. Any type of initial origin-of-matter theory requires the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter (neutrinos, etc.). But only a few neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. In addition, at the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter would immediately have destroyed one another. An equal amount of each would have been made, and then the two would have united, blotting out both.—pp. 24-26.
36 - A Big Bang explosion would have destroyed all matter. The evidence is clear that, if matter could initially have created itself, that matter would also instantly have destroyed itself.—p. 26.
37 - The universe is too lumpy. The outflowing gas from the initial explosion ought to continue smoothly flowing forever. Yet the universe, according to the scientists, is "too lumpy"; it is filled with stars and galaxies.—pp. 26-27.
38 - The universe is full of super-clusters. The universe is so lumpy, that, not only is matter clumped in stars, and stars in galaxies, but even the galaxies are clumped together in still larger lumps, called super-clusters.—p. 27.
39 - Three lumpy problems. There are several lumpy problems about the universe, which the Big Bang cannot explain. There should be no lumps, but there are. How could the smooth gas form itself into stars? Why is there such an astonishing number of "lumps" throughout the universe?—pp. 27-28.
40 - No theoretical "infinite point" for matter. Only in theory can everything unite in one point. In reality, it cannot do that. First, the inrushing nothingness would not stop, but go on past the central point. Second, there would be no gravity (because no matter supposedly existed!) to pull it in. Only when there is matter, is there gravity.—p. 28.
41 - No Population III stars. All elements above the two simplest (hydrogen and helium) are called "heavier elements," "post-helium elements," and elements with "more metal." These definitions will help explain that which follows:
According to the theory, the first stars made after the Big Bang were called "Population III stars," and only had hydrogen and helium. They are said to then have exploded in super-novas, which pushed gas around them into "Population II stars," containing more post-helium elements. These are said to then have exploded, making "Population I stars" with still more "metal" elements. (This is how the theory explains how the heavier—post-helium—elements came into existence.)
But astronomers tell us the theory is incorrect: In the sky they only find stars with a variety of elements. There are no "Population III" stars out there.—pp. 28-29.
42 - Low and high metal stars. According to the theory, younger stars should be in the center of galaxies, and they should be "low metal stars"; that is, have less heavier elements. Yet all stars are found to have far too much "metal."—p. 29.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Science%20vs%20Big%20Bang
