BBT breaks physical laws according to YEC
I was looking through some forums and I saw a guy rant against the Big Bang. He seems to be a Young-Earth creationist, and here are his brilliant arguments. He seems to use high school science against the Big Bang Theory.
Quote:
Energy can be an eternal system, if you add an equal amount of energy on an object or energy it can go on in a circle for all eternity. The energy from the apparent big bang comes from one dimensional point (due to an expanding universe) which means not in a triangular way, and therefore couldn't be an eternal motion system.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant, which gives us the key to time. The speed of light signifies a maximum speed limit of the universe and is expressed dimentionally as length divided by time. Which makes the speed of light, not influenced by time. Light doesn't have rest mass which makes this the maximum speed as I already said. Any motion less than speed of light is affected by time. Therefore, if there was a big bang it needed to be EXACT (and that only) speed as light, cause then light wouldn't exist and then it couldn't have the phyiscal constant, but for that to happen according to Einstein, the time would have STOPPED in the theory of relativity
The object inside a dimension can't affect the dimension, only the object outside the dimension. So if big bang occured, then it means that the time must have been one dimensional (due to the expanding universe) and it will only affect one direction. This would make the universe uneven, which means it can't be infinitive if it's uneven. If time was only one dimentional, then we can't even go forward and backward in time, cause for time we needa thing called 'Time Room' and it can be only given at a three dimensional time. In three dimensional time you can go forward and back in time with effecting environment.
The scientists proclaim that the big bang occured 16 billion years ago, does it take for the light 16 billion years to hit one point of the universe, to the other point of the universe? No, If light is not dependant on time
then why does it take 16 billion years (time) for the universe to expand? And if the Big Bang expands, it means that the big bang must have come from a one dimensional point, which makes time one dimensional (cause it started from one point) and it means that time only travels in one direction, and the time doesn't do that and makes the big bang wrong.... AGAIN.
If the Big Bang is the origin of existance, then you would also assume that nothing existed, nor moved, in the universe before the Big Bang. If the sentence above is true, then is takes a 'supernatural' form to create existence, because existence cannot create existence, if existence didn't even exist yet.....
As we all know, the solar system is an eternal machine which will always go if something won't diturb the way it moves. The solar system moves like a circle where all the parts depend on each other. This is the only way to make it eternal. If the Big Bang would be the origin of existence, then it needed to have an equal amount of energy on every single point in the solar system. and it must have been an amount of energy which is proportional to the number of planets/matter, because if it wasn't than it would been unequal result just as in the mathematical sentence: 10/3 = 3.3333_ and the 3's behind the coma would never end, and it means that some day the earth of any other planets will collapse with each other (due to over energy) and doesn't make the solar system eternal. But if the #of energies were proportional to #planets then it would work. but now we need to think about the positions there planets should begin at. If you haven't noticed, for that to happen, the positions of the energies must have another energy behind them to make that position happen, but what about the 2 energy (the one behind first), it needs also another energy behind them to make their position to so does the 3:energy (behind the 2nd) and so does the 4 energy, 5 energy, 6 energy.... X energy. As you see it is just physically impossible to start an eternal system in the big bang way.
The eternal result of a matter/energy that can control matter/energy is when it does the same function over and over.... (not changing,(if not interupted)). The examples are: solar System, water circle, atom, moving obect in space etc.... So 'if' everything is by matter and energy, that means your brain is too, and you don't do the same functions over and over.... and since the Big Bang was only from matter and energy we can conclude tat there must have been something more than physical material due to our 'not same functional 'gift''. The the Big Bang occured it must have been by beyond phsics since we got out 'not same functional' gift. And if you go beyond phsics, you have reached supernatural, and that is what i call God.
The first law of thermodynamics: Energy cant be created or destroyed .
If the above is true, than Big Bang couldn't create any energy which makes Big Bang useless.
Newton's third law: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
If that was true, the Big Bang would never have the first reaction (cause it is the origin of existence) Big Bang would only have the "opposite" reaction.
Einstein's theory of relativity: If any object gets the to the speed of light, the time would stop for them (its basically just saying that).
Now if that was true , the energy from the big bang (without rest mass) would have standing still.
Law of conservation of matter: in any physical/chemical action they must always be same mass/matter before and after the event has occurred .
Now if that was true, than Big Bang couldn't have same mass/matter before and after the Big Bang event happened (cause it's the origin of existence).
Before Big Bang happened, the Big Bang theory would break every single law in physics, until the Big Bang event happened. And if those laws weren't there before Big Bang happened, than what formed the world as it is today?
|
I tried to cut out the "something from nothing" nonsense, yet I still do not have a clue as to what he is trying to say. Are his descriptions of the laws of physics correct, and how do they affect the BBT (not much probably, but still...)
|