Is the Big Bang a Strong Theory or a Weak Hypothesis

According to the big bang theory, somewhere between 10-20 billion years ago an extremely small, hot, and dense state exploded outwards for about a second and rapidly slowed down. This created gas clouds made of hydrogen and helium. These gas clouds then were pulled together to make the stars. There are several hypotheses on how elements other than hydrogen and helium were created, which I will cover later.

For the sake of this article, let's assume that tightly packed energy could even exist in a vacuum and that this state would be capable of exploding with no outside disturbance. We can also ignore the second law of thermodynamics. If you are unfamiliar with this law, it implies that a closed system will become more disorganized over time. I would also like to emphasize that a law is much stronger than a theory. When the hypothesis of a theory contradicts a law, it is almost always wrong. Some people claim that the universe is an open loop, so this law doesn't apply. This is not the case. All of the energy and mass was enclosed in this dense state and would have had no external energy to organize the particles. Even for the sake of argument, if there was an external energy source, it would need to be pretty intelligent to organize the particles into elements.

Even though elements are the simplest form of atoms, they have extremely complex structures. Inside of an atom, there are electrons, protons, and neutrons. Inside of protons and neutrons are quarks, which have 6 types, consisting of "up", "down", "bottom", "top", "strange", and "charmed". These are held together by gluons. Quarks also may have a substructure, but we do not have the technology to test for them. Let's get back to the big bang.

Particles that were created by the big bang would have spread out in every direction. These particles would be getting farther away from the point of origin and from the other particles. Because space is a vacuum, there would be no friction. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, in other words, there's no slowing down. Individual particle's gravity is extremely weak and is almost infinitely small compared to the outward force that the big bang would have created. Soon after the explosion, the particle would no longer be close enough for its gravity to act upon another particle. This also means that atoms, which are incredibly complex, simply could not have been made by an outward explosion. It also would have left an empty center and all the matter would be traveling outward on the edge. This is not that case. The universe has randomly placed stars and planets throughout it.

Let's assume that atoms were actually made and that this would have created large gas clouds. The big bang hypothesizes that these gaseous hydrogen and helium molecules grouped together and were compressed into stars. Like on earth, gases do not have enough gravity to attract other particles to it. A gas's tendency is to spread out. If you put helium into a balloon, it does not clump together in one part of it. So once again, let's assume that it did clump together. There was also no external force pushing the particles together, as the universe is a vacuum. On top of that, scientists have studied gas clouds and determined that there is not enough mass in them to create stars.

Evolutionists also agree that the Big Bang could have only produced hydrogen and helium. This was a problem for them, so they came up with a hypothesis. These hydrogen and helium stars continuously exploded over and over quite rapidly. Then they claimed it just "stopped" about 5 billion years ago. From this, they claimed that heavier elements were created.

There are two main problems with this. First, you may need some background information. A hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron. A helium atom consists of two protons, neutrons, and electrons. The problem with this is that both helium and hydrogen are incapable of turning into any other element. This is because there is a mass gap after helium 4. Both protons and neutrons cannot attach to helium 4. This means that hydrogen molecules are only capable of turning into helium molecules. If it magically happened to get across the gap at helium 4, it would yet again have a gap at 8. Helium cannot change into heavier molecules because of a gap at helium 5. The reason for this is because fusion combines two molecules and fission splits two molecules.

The second major problem with this hypothesis is that we are now able to see stars that are over 15 billion light-years away, but they are not exploding. Without these stars rapidly exploding, this theory does not work.

There is also a hypothesis called "big bang nucleosynthesis." According to this hypothesis, for three minutes after the big bang, there was a precise temperature that allowed some lighter elements to be created. No elements heavier than beryllium would be created in this specific timeframe. It later states that this is consistent with the types of elements being created. This is a prime example of circular reasoning. They created a timeframe based on that fact that heavier molecules were not created. Then they used the timeframe to prove that heavier molecules were not created.

Background radiation is commonly used as strong evidence for the big bang. There are some problems though. In order for it have been caused by an explosion, it would be from a single source, and should not be smooth. The reality is, the background radiation comes from every direction, and is much smoother than it should be. In order to fit how stars were created, the radiation should be much more random. It should also be much hotter than it is. It should emit about 100°K, but it only emits 2.73°K.

We have recently found that our sun's shine is not caused by nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion gives off a large amount of neutrinos, which are particles caused by radioactive decay. If nuclear fusion was the cause of solar energy, every inch of the earth would be hit by trillions of neutrinos each second. Experiments have shown that very few neutrinos actually hit the earth.

The real cause for its brightness is solar collapse. This is a big hit to the big bang theory, because they require that stars produce energy through fusion. Without this key component, heavier atoms could not have been created. The sun is shrinking at about 5 feet per hour. Solar collapse limits the age of our sun to a few million years old.

Another popular example they use for evidence is the red shift. Other planets and galaxies appear redder because of this (shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum). According to evolutionists, it is caused by the Doppler theory of redshift. They claim that all the planets are moving away from us. There are actually several other explanations for redshift; Gravity has the ability to bend light, light sources moving at a right angle to the observer, and energy loss. Einstein originally proposed the idea that gravity was able to bend light and later proved it during a solar eclipse. This is because light does actually have weight. Light rays can lose energy after they travel long distances. The farther a planet is away, the more energy it lost. We later discovered several quasars that disprove the Doppler theory. One of these quasars would be traveling at eight times the speed of light.

Many of the main hypotheses for the big bang contradict already proven science. This is a hard fact to ignore. Common scientific knowledge has been ignored and laws have been broken, so to speak. Gases aren't attractive, but are in fact, the very opposite. Other key components are also being disproven. Solar energy is not caused by fusion and the red shift isn't due to an outwardly expanding universe but rather the long distances between planets and gravity. The Big Bang can only be regarded as a weak hypothesis.
Bibliography:
"Atom." Wikipedia. 10 July 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 July 2007 .
Beiser, Arthur. Physics. Fifth ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1992. Lerner, Rita G., and George L. Trigg, eds. Encyclopedia of Physics. Second ed. New York: VCH, 1991. McMurry, John, and Mary E. Castellion. Fundamentals of General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry. Third ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1999.
"Neutrino." Wikipedia. 10 July 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 June 2007 . "Subatomic Particle." Wikipedia. 10 July 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 10 July 2007 .
Woods, Eric. "What Experimental Proof is There That Gravity Bends Light?" MadSci Network. 29 Sept. 1999. 10 July 2007 .