 People of the internet welcome to modern day debate tonight. We are debating the Big Bang and we are starting right now I am Kaz host of the atheist edge tonight We have Leo Philias and Grayson teaming up against Rebecca and Sal each team is gonna get 10 minutes for their opening statements to split between them I believe that first we have the team Big Bang going first and Grayson you're gonna be going first So at your first word, I will start your timer the floor is all yours Hey, everyone, my name is Grayson from the new YouTube channel based theory This is my first time on modern day debate. So I just want to thank Kaz for hosting us tonight and James for arranging this debate To quickly summarize the evidence for the Big Bang because there's a lot of it Number one the correlation between redshift and distance, which is unexplainable by any alternative models number two The solutions to Einstein's field equations which show us that the universe is either expanding or contracting number three The time dilation we observe in redshift and phenomenon which shows us that space time is what's expanding Number four the distribution of matter in the cosmic web number five the abundance of light elements in ratios predicted by the Big Bang model Number six the spectra of the most distant galaxies showing more primordial chemical composition Number seven the cosmic microwave background the CMB which is Definitive evidence that at one time the universe was so hot and dense that only plasma existed There is no other physically plausible explanation for the CMB Additionally the temperature fluctuations observed in the CMB also exactly match the predicted peaks in the power spectrum of the lambda CDM model which includes a verified dark matter peak This is actually evidence not just of dark matter in the Big Bang But the adiabatic nature of these fluctuations was predicted by the inflation model and thus also serves as Reified evidence for inflation as well the temperature values resulting from these primordial Oscillations also closely match the values of yet another prediction of the Big Bang model one that seldom gets the attention it deserves the neutrino background Like the CMB but with neutrinos instead of light the Big Bang model predicted a temperature of 1.95 Kelvin for the measured value for the predicted value was 1.95 the measured value was 1.96 this is observationally verified evidence and precisely validated predictions of the Big Bang model There are also observations of signatures from the very first stars during the so-called Reionization epic these first stars would have been made of only hydrogen and helium no heavier elements yet and Although the paper is still in peer review and not yet officially published the preliminary results look like JWST May just have found these first stars known as population three stars The math tells us that they would have been much brighter than any stars today Which would explain why the earliest galaxies we see in the JWST are so bright But beyond describing the elementary composition of these first stars the models of early galaxy formation are not Contained within the Big Bang model and are not within the purview of cosmology, but are a different field of science Now our opponents tonight are going to try to cast doubt that the red shift we observe is really from the expansion of space time We know it can't be from these galaxies actually moving away from us Because that would mean that most red the most redshifted galaxies would be moving faster than the speed of light The red shift also cannot be explained by plasma because plasma red shifts light via scattering Which would necessarily blur the light, which we do not observe happening That's the only model that can fit the observations is that the red shift is caused by the expansion of space time Our opponents may bring up dark matter or dark energy But even if we completely threw out the Big Bang model We would still have evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist Namely the rotation of galaxies that we observe right now today as well as gravitational lensing and supernova observations Beyond the observational evidence We also have verified physics down to the first few millions of a second after the Big Bang In the late 70s and early 80s It was predicted that at one point the energy density would become so high that even protons and neutrons would break down And a new kind of plasma would be formed made of quarks and gluons Several decades after this prediction quark gluon plasma was detected in particle accelerators Thus we have experimentally verified physics Describing how you can shrink every galaxy star and planet into quark gluon plasma in an area smaller than our solar system Just a few millions of a second after the big bang This is known as the quark epic I often hear in credulity when creationists talk about the Big Bang and how you can fit the whole universe down to the size of a purse Or a period on a page But this is verified proof that we have experimentally demonstrated the physics Behind how that is possible or at least very close to it to get all the way down to the size of the singularity Requires more advanced physics than we have consensus for at the moment Most cosmologists would agree that the singularity is a mathematical construction Not an object that really physically exists and we need new physics to be able to describe what is actually happening on that level Thus our current model of the big bang does not describe the nature of the singularity What caused it or what came before that physics namely quantum gravity is not included in the model But the preponderance of evidence that we do have Clearly shows that the universe was once in a very hot very dense state. So leo, I'll pass it on to you Uh, yeah, thank you for that grace and that's going to be hard to follow up with that There was a very good outline of Of the evidence I would say that that we have for the concordance model and cosmology Which I think that the first thing that I'd like to say is that the concordance model or the standard model of cosmology If you were to ask anybody in any department of physics and astronomy at any university around the world They tell you it's an incomplete model and all of them know that it is an incomplete model So pointing out its incompleteness is not an objection to the parts of it that are established I just want to make that clear. Um There are really only a couple of points grace and outline that I'd like to try to go into more detail on The first one is the einsteins field equations There was a man named alexander freedom on who was capable of deriving exact solutions to these equations These are these equations of general relativity that were first developed by einstein at al and his solutions were for The kind of spacetime you would have if it were near uniformly filled with matter and radiation Much like our universe is And what sort of fell out of the physics describing that what fell out of the equations is that Regardless of whether it's expanding or contracting that spacetime cannot be static now This led many physicists to believe it was probably contracting as a result of the mutual gravitational attraction Of all of the matter and radiation in spacetime But it was later in the 1920s with observations made by edwin hubbell that we knew that no spacetime is actually expanding And the important point about that is that it's not just that the galaxy is redshifted it's that The level at which we observe the redshift is mathematically proportionate to their distance and as grace and said there are some of them that are so distant from us If it were the actual galaxy moving it would be violating everything we know about fundamental physics The very foundation of modern physics as it stands today because these objects would be moving faster than the speed of light It isn't the objects that's moving the space between us and the objects is growing And to move on from that the cosmic microwave background which has been called the smoking gun I would say that it is the effective proof if you take proof in the sense that scientists mean it not in the sense that mathematicians do um The cosmic microwave background is the effective proof That's the big bang occurred because what the the hot big bang model is that doesn't describe an explosion It doesn't tell us where the universe came from or how it got here all it says it in summation really is that The universe very very early in its history was in a very very hot and very very dense state And what would fall out of that would be as grace and said that there would be a period Where you wouldn't have stable neutral atoms. You would only have plasma However, if the universe were expanding as a result of this hot big bang and the inflation the inflation That preceded it what we would expect is that at some point in its future It will have expanded and diluted its matter radiation To the to the point that it cools and when it cools all the the electromagnetic radiation that was being scattered off of all the Protons and the electrons that previously couldn't go anywhere so to speak Will now be capable of free streaming through the vacuum of space This would have occurred about three hundred eighty thousand years After the big bang and we should be able to detect that radiation today and we do and it is the cosmic Microwave background is uniform and isotropic to one part in one hundred thousand Everywhere we look in the sky and anybody who has ever Objected to it has to this day never brought a single model that can explain Why we observe this kind of radiation other than the hot big bang model and during this period Stable neutral atoms would have formed and what they would have formed are the lightest elements on the periodic table Hydrogen and helium the universe is today in terms of its baryonic mass energy mass energy density Roughly 70 hydrogen during this period would have been roughly Excuse me roughly 75 hydrogen 24 helium and 1 other elements And so the cosmic microwave background and i'll finish with this the cosmic microwave background tied With the abundance of the early elements both provide strong concordance with each other For their for the universe having originated in a very very hot very very dense state All right, thank you so much leo and now we will turn it over to the anti-big bang team for their 10 minute opening statements to split Um, I believe it's rebecca going first. So rebecca at your first word. I will start your timer And let me put your uh screen on There all right at your first word. I'll start your timer I think you're needed. Hello everyone. It's great to be here. Thanks for listening to this debate The big bang theory says that everything necessary to create all the billions upon billions of stars and galaxies emerged from something smaller than a p This is an extraordinary claim. We do not have extraordinary evidence to support this claim In fact, the big bang has repeated Repeatedly failed to match up with our scientific observations and most of its predictions have failed The problem is when scientific observations haven't matched up with the big bang model instead of concluding that the theory might be wrong Hypothetical entities have been invented to salvage the theory Now nearly the entire edifice supporting the big bang is made of processes energy and stuff that we have not observed and cannot explain For example inflation Sir roger pennrose nobel prize-winning physicist calls inflation a fantasy It's just something made up to get the universe to do what you want For the current model of the big bang to be correct 95 percent of the universe must be made of ghost matter and energy Despite great effort dark matter remains unobserved and unexplained How about dark energy dark energy is a mysterious Anti-gravity force which supposedly kicked in a few billion years ago to help the universe expand faster And at the very base of the edifice supporting the big bang is the idea that the universe is expanding This is the essential pillar of the big bang Michael disney and astrophysicist who's been skeptical of the big bang said if expansion were to fail Then so would the entire super structure without expansion. There is no big bang. So what is the evidence for expansion? leo likes to say that general relativity is evidence for expansion Not true einstein thought the universe should be contracting because of gravity not expanding And evidence for our theories comes from our observations not from other theories Redshift is the main support for the idea that the universe is expanding We observe that distant objects in the universe are redshifted and the farther away they are the more redshifted they appear Redshift is observed, but expansion is not Expansion is an interpretation of the redshift and a faulty one Redshift has a correlation with distance, but there is no reason to interpret that correlation with as space expanding In fact, many of our observations with the Hubble telescope and now the james web telescope have provided excellent evidence that space is not expanding This is an article from the journal galaxies the black dots on this chart Are previously observed galaxies and the red dots or galaxies we have observed with the jwst If the universe is expanding we would expect to see these galaxies Plotted along this dotted line at the top But the majority of galaxies have angular diameters that fall on the dotted line below which is the non expanding model of the universe Spectroscopic analysis tells us that these galaxies have the same chemical content number of stars And type of stars as the galaxies in the local universe But when we calculate in for expansion These galaxies would have to be smaller denser and brighter than any galaxies we see in the local universe Some would say impossibly small The articles of the authors of this article conclude that the observations of these galaxies cannot be explained by the expanding universe model Here's another paper that shows that galaxy data contradicts the expansion model Galaxy observations provide strong evidence that the universe is not expanding According actually according to big bank Predictions those galaxies shouldn't be there at all with the jwst We are now observing distances that reach all the way back to 250 million years After the supposed big bang We are observing fully formed spiral and elliptical galaxies Which according to the model are supposed to take billions of years to form The big bang model also predicts that we would see many galaxy mergers But we don't see the large number of galaxy mergers needed to create larger galaxies If oh la bae the leader author in a recently published study in nature Saw the data from the jwst observations and said i nearly spit out my coffee We just discovered the impossible impossibly early impossibly massive galaxies Those galaxies are only impossible with the big bang Joel lea co-author in the recent nature article said we are informally calling these objects universe breakers Well, don't worry guys. The universe is just fine But the big bang is dead. Here's a list of scientists who agree I turn it over to sal All right. My screen is ready for sharing Once upon a time Thomas Henry Huxley also known as darwin's bulldog said the great tragedy of science the slaying of a beautiful Hypothesis by an ugly fact for me The beautiful hypothesis was the big bang theory as articulated by robert jastrow's book god and the astronomers But over the years ugly facts have emerged to slay the beautiful hypothesis of the big bang While I was an undergrad at george mason university My textbooks taught me of the big bang, but there were three prominent physics professors There who openly objected to the big bang and what their fellow faculty members were teaching me I went on to study physics in graduate school at johns hopkins university During that time adam rease a professor at my school won the Nobel prize for his supposed discovery of the dark energy anti-gravity force of the big bang Though I celebrated the fact that two professors in the same year from my school won Nobel prizes in physics and in chemistry in 2011 11 I lamented that rease's Nobel prize might be in in vain Since there are whispers among faculty and grad students at his own school and out cries in the scientific literature That his conclusions were disconcerting to say the least The big bang is predicated on the assumption that space is expanding And this claim is further predicated on the assumption that galaxies are apparently moving away from us in all directions But are the galaxies really moving away from us? Or is this an apparent or is this apparent motion an optical illusion Created by the interstellar medium of free electron plasmas that are abundant in space By way of analogy here for example is an optical illusion of water Supposedly bending a pencil, but is the pencil really being bent by the water? Or is the water merely causing an optical illusion of bending? So by way of analogy can interstellar medium composed of sparse free electron plasmas create an optical illusion of motion The answer is yes, but first some basics if I am speeding a police officer with a radar gun that detects I'm speeding Uh, he uses the gun to transmit a radar signal at one frequency and then as the Radar signal bounces off my car the radar signal Frequency is changed from high to low And this change from high to low is called a redshift of the radar signal The radar gun then uses the amount of change in frequency or redshift to compute my velocity Now ask yourself if if radar guns don't use expanding space model the big bang to compute relative velocity from Redshifts then why should astronomers? Should I say to the police officer, but officer I wasn't speeding space was expanding I wouldn't say that of course not so even granting there is apparent relative velocity Why even assume expanding space is the cause of the redshift? One can just as well assume something is speeding through not expanding space But worse for the big bang space model the redshift may not even indicate relative velocity Because electromagnetic waves traveling through the abundant amounts of photo ionized free electron plasmas in space can be shifted from high To low this has been experimentally verified both in laboratories and spaceships flying through the solar system Holy cow Holy escargot paderouski the snail is moving close close to the speed of light Easy there robin since the snail is far far away the interstellar medium is confusing the radar gun The snail is moving at a snail's pace The radar gun is not accounting for the abundant interstellar free electron plasma Therefore the gun thinks the snails are moving almost at light speed. It's an illusion of speed Check out these papers In other words shift happens Shift happens and that's why the big bang is a big blunder and thank you, uh, cas Thank you. Grayson. Thank you, rebecca and thank you leo for hosting this debate. Thank you All right, let me just get that off the screen and with that ladies and gentlemen That will be the end of our opening statements. We will be going into our Round of rebuttal cross exams and open discussions It's going to be a hodgepodge there in just a moment But I just want to let you know Especially if it's your first time here joining us at modern day debate that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on Science religion and politics and we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from And if you have a question or a comment for one of tonight's debaters Please fire into the old live chat and tag me at modern day debate Superchats will go to the top of the list all that we ask is that you keep it civil and attack the argument Not the person insults will not be read And I want to say thank you to the moderators in the chat for working tirelessly to elevate the conversation as well Our guests are linked in the description below whether you're listening on youtube or via the podcast We are on many different podcast platforms So click the links if you like what you're hearing as soon as you can and hit the subscribe button because we have Plenty more the live debates coming your way that you don't want to miss including this The first of march We're going to have dr. Ben Burgess versus infrared and they're going to be debating Trump communism on trial and that's going to be at 8 p.m. Eastern. You don't want to miss that And with that we're going to go ahead and kick it into our discussion We're going to go back to the big bang team. They're going to have the first 10 minutes to control And I believe how did you guys want to run this one as a open discussion? Yeah, I think just I'm willing to like race and pick for this one Yeah, so I just wanted to point out and I want to hear from the other side But just really quick in those openings. I want to point out that we didn't really hear anything other than what Leo and I brought up in our opening like the red shift not being from expansion Which we clearly demonstrated has to be the case because these galaxies cannot be physically moving away faster than light and The clarity of the pictures that we receive in telescopes show that this is not the result of red shift from plasma state Plasma's red shift things by scattering them and blurring the image the images that we see are clearly not blurred Therefore the red shift cannot be from movement of galaxies and cannot be just red shift different plasma We also talked about how the JWST data of galaxy formation doesn't Really apply to the big bang model. It's a different area of science. It's not the cosmology So we address that as well. And then the only other thing I heard was Coat mining from some innocent scientists that don't ultimately agree with the conclusions that you're trying to drive from their quotes So before we let you guys address that leo. Is there anything that you wanted to add on? Yeah, there is um So the first thing I wanted to say is that I in fact in my open and this is specifically to rebecca I believe in my opening. I might be mistaken But the playback I guess is where people are gonna have to go But I'm pretty sure that I had mentioned that physicists early on after Friedman derived his solutions Believed that spacetime was indeed contracting. Einstein did not like that That's why he invented what we now know is the cosmological constant and we still in fact use This was a force that was exactly equal to that contracting force That would have pushed pushed back outwards so to speak and would have thereby kept spacetime static And it was only after Edvin Hubble confirmed his observations of galactic redshift, which I'll mention nextly um that uh Einstein abandoned that Uh claiming that it was the biggest blunder of his career and with respect to redshift light light grace instead of I don't know what a free electron plasma is. I have heard of a free electron gas But again, that would scatter light and the redshift signature isn't going to look like what we see because again And this is something that I believe both me and grace and mentioned in our in our opening statements was that um It isn't redshift simplicator That's important here. What's important is the redshift as a function of distance That's what not not just that there's redshift that needs to be explained But why the redshift Is proportionate to the distance of the galaxies the further away the galaxies are The more redshift that they are so so those were just and and I think I would concur finally With grace and that I I didn't really hear anything that provides better explanations than what either me or grace and outlined Which is still held by the consensus of cosmologists as the concordance model Well, leo first. Let me say I created that slide about general relativity because the last time we had a discussion on this you emphatically asserted that general relativity is Um evidence strong evidence for the big bang. So that is why I did that And responding to gracing about the redshift. We are not saying that the redshift is velocity So there's no issue with things having to move past the speed of light But actually your theory requires something to move past the speed of light because during the inflationary period The universe expanded faster than the speed of light sal. Do you have anything you want to respond? Yes, there is It's contested where there is time dilation. So redshift by plasma is possible. That's only one of the mechanisms There is a lot of photonics research to resolve the blurring problems. So this could be gone But the other thing is we actually have Experiments that show how we can have redshifts. There is no experiment where we have expanding matter It is only in the imagination of cosmologists And um, so this is still an open issue. I don't think we're going to lose this issue There is a lot of research on this. I'm really impressed photonics is moving forward Now galaxy is moving faster than the speed of light. How can we possibly see them if they're moving faster than the speed of light? So, you know, I would have to discount that totally and say, you know Is that party of a model if it is then that's just circular reasoning because that is experimentally not Verifiable as far as I know that you're going to detect something moving faster than the speed of light How are you going to do that the redshift is going to be just like off the charts? So, um, by the way, those are great points You know, you guys argue this well. I'm just a little, you know, I'm just you could tell I'm passionate about this But I I salute you gentlemen You're really brilliant. And I think these are great things that you point out I think I love the criticisms you put forward But I think we uh, we've addressed it We will also in our 10 minute segment put forward things that I think will start to answer some of your things such as the the supposed claim of time dilation In various things like supernova, quasars and gamma-ray bursts Okay. Well, I look forward to that I was just going to say Leo really quick in in terms of spacetime expanding faster than light This is this is not the same as saying an object is moving through the medium of spacetime faster than light These are substantively different things No Object no bit of energy or mass can move through or no bit of mass can move through a medium faster than light but the Spacetime itself can expand in a metric scalar sense Faster than light. There is nothing in the laws of physics that are prohibiting that from happening so this is a A misunderstanding that I often will hear and then also Sal. I mean, I heard you say photonics and just Broadly to some kind of advances in the field of photonics that somehow can explain why These redshifted Things that we see in observations are not blurred as they would be in any kind of plasma scattering But I didn't hear anything specifically other than just you saying that there are some kind of advances in photonics That can describe it. Leo, did you hear anything? Uh, do you want to add? Yeah, so with respect to the claim of inflation going faster than the speed of light like you pushed on there Grayson The speed of light in this comes from from Einstein's special theory of relativity The speed of light is not a restriction that applies to spacetime spacetime Is a is a manifold and pergenar relativity It can be stretched and contracted and twisted and warped and sheared and all sorts of things and we as humans Can and do interpret that as gravity just pick something up and let go of it and you'll observe that So the the thing is you cannot exceed the speed of light in spacetime It's not really something to do with light so much as it is to do with spacetime Spacetime won't let anything go faster than light within it. But that doesn't mean that spacetime can't expand At whatever speed it wants because again the expansion even during inflation isn't into anything That's just not how this works as Grayson mentioned This is a metric expansion of the scale in spacetime and inflation was just a period where this was Exponential so that's the first thing and I the thing is with respect to what sal said he's not wrong with what he's saying about um, you know electron gases free electron gases Uh red shifting red shifting light. He's not wrong when he says that happens like it does that the question is though Do we get similar signatures to what we see in galaxies? And I don't think that we do um and again just a touch on it because I think that it's it's the important point That needs to be stressed here It's not just red shifts implicator that we look at when we're talking about red shifting galaxies It's their red shift proportionate to their distance. That's how we know It isn't the galaxy actually physically moving away at the speed of light It's that the distance between us and the galaxies with respect to the scale of space Is growing under the expansion of spacetime, which is in fact A part I believe of the metric tensor of general relativity And something that that needs to be factored in if you if you if you're working at those broad cosmological scales as far as i'm aware Yeah, so ultimately I don't think that so far We have heard anything that is either Arguing against the evidences that we laid out in our openings. I mean the exact Verified predictions down to like a few fractions of a degree there with some of these predictions We we listed a lot of them in the opening. I haven't heard any rebuttals to that yet. I haven't heard any Physically plausible mechanisms that have been able to describe that Background or the red shift patterns that we see especially the correlations in redshift Um gesturing to this idea of Plasma is existing in between galaxies or in between stars I mean if we do the calculations about what kind of densities these plasma would have to be at in order to account for the redshift observations that we have I don't think that that math would check out I don't think that you'd be able to get the densities of plasma necessary to cause all the redshift that we see In our universe that we see today I mean if we would know if there was all this plasma floating around around our solar system We would be able to see that that that that it's there And we just don't see that we don't see any scattering effects We don't see any absorption bands from any of this so-called interstellar plasma that's floating around redshifting everything So so far mechanistically we haven't seen any plausible explanations to the contrary of the big bang Okay, so now we'll give it the time over to the anti-big bang team for your 10 minutes How would you like to run it as an open discussion or rebuttal? I will start your timer at your first word Big bang expanding space model fails angular diameter test Angular diameter is kind of an easy concept. It's kind of a visual Measure apparent Visual size so the farther a basketball is from the observer the smaller it will appear and thus have a smaller angular diameter as represented by the pink theta symbol So the basketball and euclidean space Will look smaller as it gets farther. It's angular diameter shrinks as you can see In contrast the big bang model as the object is further and further from us It's angular diameter doesn't shrink as fast and in fact we'll start to get bigger And this is a well known. This is a from a video on angular turnaround and that's kind of how the basketball might appear That obviously corresponds to galaxies And so if we had like a plain euclidean model the basketball would just look smaller and smaller the farther it is In the big bang model it starts to get it doesn't get smaller and smaller It gets bigger at some point after the angular turnaround In the euclidean plus some plasma correction you get this it's close to the plain euclidean model So now connecting the two graphs to the one that was earlier shown from a peer reviewed paper That's just showing the relationship. So let me just say the The dots there and especially like the dots with error bars that look like tie fighters You can see clearly that they are Clustering around either the euclidean or the what I call the shift happens model It is not clustering around the big bang particularly the red The red data points of angular diameter just so far away from the big bang big blender expanding space model So I I think shift happens. The big bang is wrong now Edwin Hubble Edwin Hubble He's called the father of expanding space and it's my little joke here the dna tests are in And edwin Hubble you are the father of the big bang and edwin Hubble says That ain't my baby. It's someone else's And this is confirmed surprisingly Even in his own words as in this los angeles times december 31st 1941 he said while expanding space cannot be abandoned dr Hubble said president evidence is against it. This leaves the red shift of light um a complete mystery which still greater telescopes may solve that was 1941 in 2021 As I alluded to it. There are these papers um When stuff goes through a dense plasma we can it's a good model We can extrapolate it to very sparse plasmas out in space. So this was a land work experiment It really was in 1974 that it was first put forward It's been pretty much ignored We then revisited in the journal of high energy physics gravitation and cosmology july 2021 And so let me try to explain a little bit of this We have the solar corona as can be seen here, uh when the the moon is eclipsing and um So we have the pioneer Six space probe transmitting a radio signal through the sun's corona. It gets red shifted And so this is what it said the discovery made in the study on how and why the radio signal under Particular physical mathematical conditions undergoes a red shift should not only be considered a local phenomenon On a solar scale, but also a cosmic phenomenon on a larger scale applicable to all stars and galaxies It is it's exclusively dependent on the distance of the astronomical object On the density and temperature of the electrons in the surrounding environment and on the wavelength of the emitted signal The Hubble constant represents for the first time in history a loss of energy as a function of the fundamental parameters as shown in the following formula Uh, you just abandon kind of the baroque units You can still put this in Hubble's law the Hubble relation holds it also explains some of the kind of funny anomalies we have And if you dig through the paper, you'll see it It also talks about the winger condition the vigner vinger electron crystal condition that could be satisfied Uh vigner was won the Nobel prize in physics We have confirmed the existence of vigner crystals for the first time like in the last one or two years It is possible then that Light will not be blurred and those are some of the advances. It's in this article and you know, that's what I'm saying It's still Up for grabs whether this can be solved. I think it's more promising than trying to solve expanding space Um, there are also observations of frequency shifts and spectral lines do uh source correlations as the wolf shift As I mentioned even at my university my undergrad university siser roi Uh did not like the big bang and he pointed out this phenomenon of a wolf shift Which is different than the shift caused by vigor crystals um Two stationary objects can look as if they have velocity between them And so again, the big bang is wrong because shift happens and I hand it over to you rebecca. Thank you Yes, and I think it's important to note and by the way, I need to share my screen. Thank you, uh that Uh hubble is the one who discovered the linear relationship the distance and redshift Correspondent and gave us the hubble constant But hubble himself did not interpret that as expansion And in fact, he's he called it apparent velocity because he left open the possibility He believed that there had to be some other Explanation or he looked for another explanation for redshift just because we don't have an explanation for redshift completely At least we have some observational evidence that sal pointed out right now We have some observational Evidence that redshift is caused by other things and we have zero observational evidence that redshift is caused by expansion zero And not only is it unobserved expansion leads us to ridiculous conclusions like dark energy Here's how dark energy was born In sal's opening He mentioned adam reiss who shared the Nobel prize in physics in 2011 for the discovery of the accelerating universe He was doing great work with supernova observations and i'm grateful for that work But there was a problem In his Nobel lecture explaining his discovery adam reiss said what I initially measured and wrote in my Lab notebook in the fall of 1997 was stunning the only way to match the change in expansion rate I was seeing was to allow the universe to have a negative mass There was a problem with those calculations his calculations demanded that the universe have a negative had a negative mass Clearly the universe doesn't have a negative mass So something had to be wrong What is wrong is that he didn't question the presupposition about the expansion of the universe that went into his calculations He said now my computer programs were telling me that only an imaginary negative mass Could match the apparent acceleration and cause reverse attractive Gravity his data made no sense with the expanding universe model But rather than question the model he looked for a way to adjust his data With an anti-gravity force now where did he find that anti-gravity force? Well, we have to go back in time To einstein when einstein was working out relativity His equations seemed to predict that the gravity of the universe would cause it to collapse in on itself He felt the need to insert something to counteract gravity. So he invented the cosmological constant But einstein said that as long as that cosmological constant was around he always had a bad conscience He knew it was just something he invented. He actually he eventually ditched it But in 1998 when adam reese needed an anti-gravity force to cause the universe to accelerate He resurrected the cosmological constant. So the cosmological constant Which is known as the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics Is now part of the current big bang model. Why? Because the big bang model desperately requires it and folks This is how doc was born dark energy was invented to account for a ridiculous Calculation with the expansion model Without big bang expansion We don't have to invent anti-gravity forces to account for our observations of the universe. Thank you Okay, so is it our turn? Oh Yeah, um, we were just breaking up if you see me just shut off my camera It's just to kind of help to bandwidth issues. Um I didn't I didn't have anything in in particular So I have something to say and this is in regards to the light scattering with the plasma High angle scattering just acts as absorption and remission no blurring that occurs with small angle scattering Okay, so if I can just respond to some of those points there, um, like we said in our intro is dark energy I mean even without the big bang model throw away the big bang model You'd still have to explain dark energy. Maybe a better term is just The innate curvature of space time that we observe I mean that is what dark energy is is is explaining is the curvature of space time we observe That's what einstein was trying to explain by introducing the cosmological constant Which he said getting rid of the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career, by the way So adding that back he agreed with in the end and he did he was a proponent for the big bang theory He tried to convince edwin hubble of What his own observations were showing edwin hubble did not listen and was a steady state Proponent, but I'll just say that the personal beliefs of the scientists that are making these discoveries are not really relevant To what the discoveries show. I mean we don't discount newtonian mechanics because isic newton believes in alchemy, right? So regardless of what hubble believed himself his observations clearly show the hubble parameter our evidence of expansion itself so The expansion that we observe in supernovas is evidence for dark energy and Even without the big bang model, we would still have that evidence present. The last thing i'll just say is that Both of you gave illusions to the vacuum catastrophe for the cosmological constant problem saying oh, this is the worst prediction in all theoretical physics But what was the physics model that was making that prediction? Was it the big bang? No, it wasn't it was quantum mechanics Right that that was what messed up the prediction so bad is not the big bang model What's making the prediction of the vacuum catastrophe, but which was using quantum mechanics to calculate the background Vacuum energy of the universe and then when that was observed there was a huge difference in that So that's quantum mechanics that made that prediction has nothing to do with the big bang So lia, I'll let you add a few points from there Yeah, sure. So the first thing I wanted to address is the angular test thing um Sal isn't wrong on anything that he said he just left out one Crucial detail that he was working with um the assumption that the universe is euclidean when you work in the um what is it the fr the FLRW, I think it is Friedman the method of robertson walker Metric for spacetime spacetime is non euclidean and then you have to deal with a variety of things You have to deal with the Hubble parameter You have to deal with a variety of other things in cosmology in order to do those tests And then it's just it's just not an actual issue So it's only an issue if you're treating spacetime as euclidean on the cosmological scale And it's quite obvious for anybody who's taken a course in general relativity That the universe is not euclidean on the cosmological scale So that that's not really an issue for the um for the big bang model The other thing I wanted to discuss quickly was the uh the pioneer red shifting So and I I actually went and found and I'm looking at it now the the same paper that we saw in in the screenshot and it says here And that the specifics the specific study is based on a calculated orbital model of the earth and pioneer system Made on a scale of one to one hundred thousand by a cad On the new tired light theory adapted to the geometric and physical configuration of the topic and on a computational method So this is assuming a new tired light model of cosmology One that hasn't yet been meaningfully reproduced and is considered disputable amongst contemporary cosmologists Um with respect to the negative mass and the dark energy thing that that's that's the other thing that I wanted to talk about um whatever rebecca mentioned is Not where dark energy came from dark energy came initially from the observation of what are known as type 1a supernovae And how the further back we look type 1a supernovae look different than they should And what can account for that difference and how they look I can't remember what the specific detail about them is But they look different But and what can account for that is that if the rate of the expansion of space has been subtly increasing Over time. There's also another phenomenon known as weak Lensing that we see at the cosmological scale. I think this is at the level of Galactic the galactic in the super galactic scale that um if spacetime is increasing in its expansion Then the structure of galaxies will change and we've been capable of observing the change that would map to an increase In the expansion of spacetime and this would change the way that these galactic clusters Lent gravitationally lends light Um, I think that what happens is like galaxies or galaxy clusters get a little bit further apart in this weakens the lensing Which is where weak lensing comes from don't quote me on that because I might be misremembering But dark energy the phenomenon that we're associating the term Dark energy too, I should say has been directly observed and as Grayson has pointed out at least three or four times already um Its existence would persist even if you abandoned the big bang model because its existence is not I suppose it might have Some bearing on the hot big bang model It really hasn't yet at least as far as as my personal research has revealed Um, but it's really not an issue Um for for the hot big bang model. So I have to be honest, um I've heard some interesting arguments from our opponents tonight But I can't say that I've heard anything that I would think would lead me or any professional cosmologist for that matter to abandon The concordance model and it doesn't look like at any point in the future that the concordance model is going to be largely abandoned And as I mentioned in my opening statement, um The concordance model has problems. It's not a complete model. There are things we don't know We do not know everything about how galaxy is formed or when we just don't we're humans We don't live for those periods of time. We don't know it precisely when the first star is formed There's a lot of things we don't know about the universe. I don't think that's profound at all I think that what it it's the reason why cosmology is still a very much lively field Any cosmologist like I said will tell you this model is is an incomplete model But that doesn't mean that there aren't areas of it where we know that these things are true We've observed them. They concord very well with all of our other observations It would be like claiming that all of general relativity must be wrong because black holes Except no, it's just that the theory is incomplete And we don't yet know how to extend it further into those domains to Understand a little bit more about how the world works. That's that's all I have to say for now, rison Cool. Yeah, I would just add uh two main things the one I've seen a continuous conflation of models of Early galaxy formation With models of the big bang and models of cosmology and where the universe came from and these are not the same thing so I mean in the in the graph We showed expectations of the lambda cdm model for the types of sizes of galaxies that we would see So that's a little bit of conflating two things that really shouldn't be conflated our models of galaxy formation Are different than our models of the big bang and a conflation between the two really shouldn't be made because Our degrees of confidence in our models of galaxy formations are considerably less than our degrees of confidence in like the See the the cosmic microwave background data or like these core gluon plasma Physics, I mean we all our evidence is for the big bang I have a much stronger degree of confidence than our models of how early galaxy formed So what these jwst data is showing is that? Clearly these galaxies formed faster than we thought I mean we need we're gonna have to come up with models Explaining how early galaxies could have formed so quickly, but that it doesn't really have much of an impact on the big bang model I would need to see some more reasoning as to why we should throw out one because of the other It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me And then the other thing I noticed sal saying that we could Look at observations for these more dense plasmas in the the coronas of stars And we could extrapolate to how that would affect less dense plasmas, which my only question is Less dense plasmas if a plasma becomes less dense It stops being a plasma it cools down and forms atoms, right? You only have plasma at high densities That's that's how it works You increase the density of matter and it will become plasma the electrons will break up their atomic orbitals And you'll just have nuclei and electrons streaming around. That's what a plasma is So it doesn't make sense to me to say oh that the university or our solar system is surrounded by a very Plasma that's not very dense, but it is dense enough to cause all the redshift that we see That doesn't make any sense to me. And I don't necessarily I haven't seen any mathematical models showing how that would even be physically possible So Yeah, I I just want to see more of like Alternatives because all the alternative explanations I've seen so far for redshift are not really physically tenable I haven't seen any alternatives for an explanation for the cosmic microwave background Which as leo pointed out is one of the best proofs Of the big bang at least that the universe was in a hot dense state That was all plasma no stars in the past. I mean we look up and we we see that So I need to see the alternative explanations for these things that actually make sense with known physics All right Thank you so much and we will go ahead and kick it over to the anti-big bang team for their next 10 minute rebuttal section So at your first word, I will restart your timer Can you share my screen please? absolutely Thank you And I just hope everyone in the audience will notice that although these guys have repeatedly asserted about the expansion of the universe They have not given us one piece of evidence for the expansion of the universe leo mentioned supernova data, which this is Looking at the Hubble constant. Yes, we're very happy We have supernova data to help us and it's looking at the Hubble constant This is the whole argument that we're being that's being made here is that the Hubble constant Does not equal the rate of expansion, but they keep wanting to reassert That expansion is embedded in this relationship with the redshift redshift and distance However, it has been known since the time of Hubble and Continues to be known that there is a linear relationship between redshift and distance You guys haven't given us anything about expansion now Let's talk and and and by the way with adam reese You mentioned uh his calculations. Look what he says about this is his calculation This is from his Nobel lecture again. He talks about making a k correction He says the reason he has to make a k correction in his calculations is because besides causing redshift cosmic expansion also dilates time Dilates time intervals over which supernova light is collected changes the size of increments in brightness and shifts the portion of the spectrum We observe so it's his own calculations For accommodating expansion that caused him to get the negative mass that led to dark energy Now let's talk more about the big bang failed predictions. We've already talked a bit about the failed predictions about galaxy formation Read more about that. You can look at this nature article There's a this article panic at the disc that talks about the failed predictions with mergers But you guys seem to think that just because Uh, we don't they seem to think they can excuse themselves from Having a model of galaxy formation in the big bang model galaxy formation is part of the big bang model But even if we just say galaxy formation isn't part of the big bang model Okay, that still doesn't help you because if you look at what we're saying About our galaxy observations with the jw st It's not just about the time of forming galaxies. It's about what we are seeing in the galaxies themselves They contradict the uh, the known sizes and brightness predictions for the expansion universe You guys can read more about that in this article or in the other article that we presented the chart for I think that, um, that is that's actually Showing that expansion is not true Okay, so the problem with galaxies is not just About the time of formation or the lack of being able to create larger galaxies through mergers It's that the the galaxies themselves are impossible with the expansion model now Um, but let's go on to other failed predictions How about the failed prediction about large-scale structures in 1988? Joseph silk a prominent astrophysicist said if one measured a gradient or large void that extended over a thousand parsecs Then I think he or she would have to seriously question the big bang theory But we're a long way off from anyone ever claiming that sort of structure. There are only small-scale structures Well, guess what that was 1988 And since then we've found structures that exceed the size limit allowed for in the big bang model For example, the giant grb ring 1720 mega parsecs across was discovered in 2015 and here's what this paper says about it recent discoveries of the structures Exceeding the transition scale of 370 mega parsecs pose a challenge to the cosmological principle So not only is this structure too large to form in the time that we have for the big bang It also violates the cosmological principle Which is the idea that the universe is homogenous and isotropic when viewed from a large enough scale and by the way General relativity only predicts expansion and contraction If the universe is completely homogenous and there is evidence that it is not homogenous at any scales Other large-scale structures which exceed the limits for the big bang are the huge laser quasar group and the giant arc the These the existence of these structures contradicts the big bang model How about lithium abundance? Here's a chart showing prediction for lithium in red lines at the top And the actual observations of the lithium are far below the predictions The big bang has many other failed predictions and you can find this chart in the article by Eric Lerner showing the references for the predictions and the observations That contradict them over to you Sal You muted south Maybe to turn off your camera. You're muted. You need to turn off your camera. Yeah epilepsy warning there Yeah, that that had them ins ins vibes Can you give me a few more seconds there uh gas? Yeah, one second. Let me uh fix that timer for you Yeah, that's why i've been turning off my camera. I've been here the whole time guys. I wasn't playing hooky Okay Stayed up Okay, i'll start a five-bit timer for you before you wait your first word Big bang expanding space model may have failed time dilation tests of relativity um, i'm acquainted with relativity my first assignment in Grad school was to go from maxwell's equations and michaelson morally and derived special relativity from electromagnetic theory That's just showing off a little bit what I had to do to derive special relativity So, uh, there there's general relativity and some aspects of that One thing that is very important in the big bang model is that things that are far away Things should look in slow motion as pictured here And uh, one of those is gamma ray bursts So gamma ray bursts at high Z at a high redshift should be slow motion And we don't see that we what we do see is uh, there's no Slow motion or what we would call time dilation. It is demonstrated in this graph by uh, David crawford You could see the data points there of of the uh, the length the duration of these gamma ray Bursts and at high, you know as we get higher red shift You should start to see it those dots kind of cluster around the red line. It is not there. It's a failed prediction However, the prediction of non-expanding space looks like it aligns with the data This is controversial. Some people disagree and dispute this but there it is David crawford march 15th 2022 uh, his latest revision to that article And he said Einstein's theory relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding Then the absurd duration of these measures will increase with redshift An analysis of gamma ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is Rejected and he says this is consistent with static space now with supernova. It's supposed to be the same thing They have claimed that they have established time dilation Crawford re-analyzed it found that there was circular reasoning and inadvertent cherry picking. I don't I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate Deception here, but this is raw supernova data clearly if it's expanding it should be clustering around that line That says expanding as we go up in redshift. It is not it is centered around the line of no time dilation and Now if we wanted to oh, let me just see he says here since time dilation is the main defining characteristic of an expanding universe That is that the redshift indicates expansion The conclusion is that the universe does not show standard time dilation and these results are consistent with a static universe and You know if one wanted to cherry pick this is how you do it You pick the data points that are along that red line And crawford pointed out that there was some degree of circular reasoning in those papers that included sadly sol permuter Who had a Nobel prize along with adam reese? So i'm just going to you know, this this has to be resolved one way or the other I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not saying it's it's not a done deal that we have time dilation confirming red shifts indicate expanding space also Time dilation the lack thereof in quasars um The main result of this paper Is that quasar luck curves do not show the effects of time dilation? And then the author said there is however surprisingly little direct evidence the universe is expanding Now i'll talk about the cosmic microwave background radiation. Dr. Richard lew distinguished professor of physics and astronomy He has lots of papers Doesn't believe in the big bang or something modified. I don't know now regarding the cosmic microwave background radiation He said well the prediction by gamoff was off by an order of magnitude. Where do you draw the line? How would you like the temperature of your room to increase 10 fold? There's also the problem with the axis of evil in that cosmic microwave background It says uh, it's there's an apparent correlation between the plane of the solar system And aspects of the cosmic microwave background Lawrence kraus commenting on this said the new results are either telling us that all science is wrong Or we're the center of the universe or maybe data is simply incorrect Or maybe it's telling us something weird about the microwave background results that maybe maybe there's something wrong with our theories on larger scales He wouldn't put the big bang in that category There is the absence of gravitational lensing in cosmic microwave background That is another failed prediction as far as i could tell this was a paper a long time ago I know some people are looking into it. So that's just an open issue. I'm just throwing it on the table I would like to salute my opponents. They are very fine gentlemen and very well educated Thank you very much for engaging us tonight All right, so with that we will go ahead and move into the q&a section I believe everybody got their two set two rounds, right? Is that right? Everybody has a opening statement closing statement. Okay. So, yeah, let me put 30 minutes on the clock of the night We'll go into my uh list of questions for you guys and then we will go ahead and get started with that Do you think would it be possible if we could do closings? Just because there was a lot of like new material that was just presented in that last 10 minute section that like Leo and I won't get the opportunity to address otherwise. So like I can card with that I can chord with that but only if our opponents do but obviously they would also have the final word with their final Say three to five minutes somewhere in there, but that's again. I I if they're not Okay with that then I guess if grace and kind of wants to go to bat through that, but that's Yeah, okay, then um, how long we say in uh, two three minutes or five minutes two minutes is fine Yeah, I don't need a full five. I just wanted to try Points that were brought up because there were a lot of like new points that were just brought up in that 10 minutes Um, so guys can I start okay? So two minutes on the clock way Yeah, we're back to brought up lithium abundances and saying oh that's a failed prediction But she ignores the fact that you know four out of the five lightest abundances were successful predictions Lithium is the only one of those five that was not successful And she's also ignoring the fact that there are numerous other explanations for why that amount of lithium might be different That don't involve errors in the big bang model Because we don't even know all of the different pathways that lithium is processed within stars So there's a lot that we don't know about lithium chemistry That would come into play here and would be able to explain its current abundance without Throwing away the entire big bang model. It doesn't invalidate the model Um, I'll also say that for a lot of these most distant galaxies that she's pointing out in the jdw Jwb st that are very small and very bright We don't even know if these are actually galaxies. I feel like that should be pointed out These are not very clear images at this point This a lot of this data hasn't even been published and spectra have not been done on these to confirm that they're Actually galaxies she said that the spectra is that of modern galaxies, which is not true The most distant galaxies have primordial spectra of mainly hydrogen and helium and different abundances than more modern population two galaxies or population one galaxies rather and then Yeah, so we don't know we're looking at galaxies for all we know these could just be Supermassive black holes in the in the early universe or different types of stars and you know We don't know enough to be able to conclude the kinds of things that our opponents are concluding about this New jwst project the last thing I have time to bring up is the axis of evil in the cmb that sal brought up Which by the way, there is no consensus on whether or not this is even observed in the first place Some evidence suggests it and some evidence suggests otherwise when we take a look at the totality of the evidence We don't even know whether or not this axis of evil even exists Much less. I mean we we we have good observations for the other anisotropies in the cmb And they all concord with the predictions of the big bang model and inflation and lamb to cdm and everything else So i'll leave it at that Right leo. It's not your time right your first word Okay, so the first thing I want to address is that a lot of what rebecca brought up was again galactic formation um that only I've noticed it that her Her and sal have brought up a lot of A lot of things particularly with respect to this galactic formation that are like tangentially related to the big bang but Us being wrong about how galaxies form or about how early does not defeat the fact that the universe Was very very early and it's history in a very hot and very dense state And it doesn't seem like either of you two have at least a far disagree with that or provided anything that seems to suggest that that wasn't the case um with respect to the um time dilation in in supernovae and gamma ray bursts um The work that was done by david crawford has not been reproduced Uh, I I mean I just googled it quickly to confirm all I can find are I think one or two papers In cornell university's archive, but I can't find any Anything can confirming this what I did find was a paper um From april of 2005 called a definitive measurement of time dilation in the spectral evolution of the moderate redshift type 1a supernovae um with um some prominent Names on it such as um, uh, alex filipenco and this s pearl mutter I believe the shan pearl mutter who both are prominent astronomers So I mean not not that name means anything but prominent astronomers aren't likely to attach their name to work That's like disreputable or anything like that So that that that's just not something that I think is enough to really meaningfully challenge the concordance model of cosmology And then the final thing that I'll say is with respect to the axis of evo quickly That that's only measured in two different pole measurements of the c and b the quadrupole and the octopole There are at least 1400 different pole measurements that you can do So the fact that they are rising to is not meaningful at all This is not even on the radar of cosmologists. It's just it's a non issue. So That's I'll leave it there All right, and then we'll kick it over to rebecca or sal for their two minutes. I'll start the timer at your first word Can you share my screen please certainly Thank you. So the just wanted to put this one up really quick This is from a paper in the monthly notices of royal astronomical society Since the linear hypothesis fits the supernave Nota nova and and local universe distance redshift data It can be considered as a phenomenological hypothesis and at this time no physical model is proposed to explain the linear relation We do not The model that we are proposing Of the non-expanding model it matches also with the supernova data So I just wanted to quickly say that I also wanted to say that there is an alternative explanation for cmb and I'm reading from eric learners paper here It says that the cmb does not require a big bang It has been noted repeatedly in the past and pointed out again That the energy needed to account for the microwave background radiation is comparable to the energy That would have been released by the production of ordinary stars Of the known amount of helium as presented by goal and Continuing on the present author proposed that cmb is a radio fog permeating the present day universe Not some ghost of a long ago big bang Also from eric learner is he says dilute plasma is the main Constituent of our universe the universe that we observe the argument that dilute plasma can't be hot is nonsense and continuing on um You mentioned that these uh galaxies and the spectroscopic analysis has not been done that is flatly false This is a published article in galaxies. It's peer reviewed and it is Explaining what we the doubt that we showed now We have presented that all of these hypothetical entities make up the big bang theory We've attacked us expansion. You have not given us a thing for expansion. None of this exists. The big bang is false It's dead. Thank you Thank you, rebecca and now sal at your last first word. I will start your timer I'd like to share my screen Certainly and I really want to thank you, especially since we're the ones who've been using the screen um All right, I'll start the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by ugly fact Maybe a single ugly fact. We put so many on the table And just because the big bang is our best models supposedly Therefore, we should keep holding on to it. This is like putting a You know, we grab some random guy And accuse him of murder and and we'll keep him there until we find another until we find another suspect that just doesn't make sense Now let me just point some other things out Another Michael disney respected astronomer he said Another failure here tolman calculated the surface brightness The apparent brightness per unit area of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with So dramatically in fact that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble space telescope in the 1980s We're told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies because we simply wouldn't see them Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep field Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it The omens do not necessarily look good for the tolman test at high redshift If expansion were to fail then so would the entire superstructure of the big bang That was Michael disney in 2007. Sorry for the date. This is before jwst This was very prophetic and this problem continues. We have problems in inflation and Let's see. I had an Isaac Newton quote. I'm sorry. I don't have it Um, so that's all I have to say. I would like to congratulate our opponents for their very good discussion And I salute you for the great arguments you've made and thank you, Rebecca And thank you cast All right, thank you so much Sal. I appreciate it and now we're going to go ahead and move on to the q&a section for 30 minutes Which I believe is 1800 seconds. I guess we'll see in a second. Yep, that's works so Um, we'll go ahead and start the uh timer now and we will start answering the questions I want to let everybody know that I don't have a huge list of questions right now So if you have a question for any of tonight's debate is fire into the live chat and I will Put that at the top of the bottom of the list or bottom of the top list Anyways, first question comes in from thunderstorm for 499. Thank you so much thunderstorm. They ask hi I follow more of a third option since science can't explain the creation of big bang that Energy could be a deity including the big bang itself Because that doesn't everybody so That doesn't make any sense. I guess. Um, who's that a question for? I guess it's for everybody Or an observation and comment you can all say something about it. Oh, well, thank you for the super chat You know, it's great people have ideas. I don't have any any thoughts on that I'm sorry Like I was saying, it's a little weird to me. Um, a lot of people ask, oh, what caused the big bang? What came before the big bank inflation did? The hot big bang is the reheating period that immediately Um, proceeded the inflationary epic that that's what it is um, we didn't unfortunately we didn't get in much into inflation in this discussion, but um It's it's one that's often overlooked, but it is it is It is something interesting to get into Yeah, I mean, I guess if you want to worship energy as a deity That's not really any skin off my bones. I mean, I don't think that as long as you're not Misconstruing scientific evidence or misrepresenting scientific theories You do you think whatever you want to think about energy or deities or whatever and Small plug. I actually just made a whole video about what actually is energy So maybe that person could check it out before the next time they pray to their little energy god or whatever go subscribe to grayson Well, yeah, I mean hey, it's possible that energy could be a deity. I mean it's Equally possible. It's just seems just as plausible as the big bang to me So when we're talking about having beliefs and myths big bang has Just completely been in the realm of myth and dogma. Um, so that's yeah That's it. Okay. I'm sorry. I got another question to copy over real quick and uh, let me just do that and the next question comes in from Stay curious for two dollars. Thank you so much. Stay curious. They say does she I believe that's you rebecca know about the Hubble constant Yes, I do know about the Hubble constant and I there's there's something really terrible that's going on right now in recent years in cosmology and that is the conflation of the expansion rate with the Hubble constant the Hubble constant is Something that's well established. It's the relationship between the red shift and distance and Now it's being co-opted for to describe the expansion of the universe but there's no evidence that this actually that the Hubble constant corresponds to expansion Can I comment on that quickly because like that was pretty much entirely incorrect With respect to contemporary cosmology. I think rebecca is referring to the difference in the measurement Of the Hubble parameter where when we use oh god, I'm gonna butcher this because my memory just doesn't want to work right now When we it's when we look at the cmb We measure it to be I want to say it's like 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec And then when we use and utilize what are called standard candles It comes out to I want to say it's like 72 or 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec And cosmologists do not know why these these two measurements disagree They shouldn't disagree, but they do and that's fine because we're humans and we don't know everything it does nothing to defeat the the glaring evident and Immediately demonstrable fact that the universe very early in history was in very hot and very dense state Yeah, and I just want to point out really quick that those those two different measures of determining the expansion rate of the universe that leo and rebecca were pointing out Those only differ from each other if I like what 10 percent less than 10 percent So yes, they differ from each other, but they're still within the range of being 10 accurate of each other So that's not bad. I really don't think that this is some big crisis or whatever I mean two measurements that agree with each other within 10 percent. Yeah, that's pretty close Well, I will say at the cosmological scale at the cosmological scale This actually is that actually is quite a and when you look at it in terms of states like like five or six standard deviations away that So statistically It is actually quite a lot cosmologists would consider that to be actually quite a large discrepancy If I may let's let Rebecca and sell quickly have a pithy response and then we'll move on to the next question Go ahead. Rebecca knows what the Hubble constant is. We've covered it I helped teacher about it And she's taught me a lot of other things the Hubble constant Is the redshift distance relationship? You can actually see it right there in the Hubble law There's nothing about expansion. They do use speed of light in there that when you divide The kilometers per second it divides out by part of the Hubble constant Which is in kilometers per second per megaparsec that all you end up with is something in the denominator That says per megaparsec. So it is not necessarily a measure of expansion It is a disc that's Hubble's law. It is a distance redshift It's being extended beyond that and I have we put that newspaper article where he said it doesn't look like It's expanding I mean, I don't know how much more clear that is he doesn't think even his own Hubble law indicates it's expanding So, yes, we are deviating from contemporary cosmology, but this is what this debate is all about the contemporary cosmology is wrong So Rebecca knows what the Hubble constant is and I appreciate it her explanation That was the best explanation I've heard because that conflation continues that show She has a lot of insight into this and that was a subtlety that even I didn't realize until she brought it up and said south Can you look into this? So I credit her with that. So thank you for the question in the super chat Yeah, when I put up the thing about the crisis in cosmology and showed the different things I wasn't even trying to argue about the crisis in cosmology I don't care about the crisis in cosmology because the cmb calculations are based on dark Minner energy and matter and all the hypotheticals that you guys invented So the supernova data is calculating that the Hubble constant And what I was trying to say is that you guys are conflating the Hubble constant and you're it saying that that's An expand that's showing the expansion rate of the universe, but it is not. Yes. It is literally, okay Let's move on shall we our next question comes in from mr. Monster who's a new member for 13 months Thank you so much. Mr. Monster. They ask what's a better explanation for the beginning This is for you guys the anti bang I'd say I'd say maybe it's okay not to have one. I don't have specifics Just like that whole thing with the you know, like I said, do do we keep someone? You know under arrest until we find another you know another suspect. That's just ridiculous I think it's it's better to say when we don't know something just leave it at that until we have more data and you know Sherlock Holmes says It's a capital mistake to start theorizing the absence of data. We have we have an abundance of speculations and absence of data And thank you very much for your membership and your and your question All right, is that okay? We gotta move on Oh Do you want me to answer to or no? I would like to give you the opportunity, but if you don't like to them sure Um, well what I want to say is I I also don't know but there are some very good scientists Who don't believe in the big bang who have alternative models? But those models don't get funding the big bang gets all the funding and so how would we even discover a different model? If none of those possibilities ever receive funding for research, thank you And if I may just add or people know I have a personal belief about Beginning but that's a faith belief. It's outside of science So I don't have anything that I would classify as science. I just wanted to clarify that So I do have personal things if you're willing to explore religious, but you know as far as science I'm not I'm not ready to put anything forward. So I just wanted to clarify that in case people said, you know They hear because we were advertisers creationist, but you know, we're trying to talk a science debate here Can I comment on how What's that okay, but they'll have to get the last word but okay go ahead. That's fine. I just wanted to say that I think that an actual cosmologist would probably say with respect to that question that we don't really know If even if the universe has a beginning or if that's a meaningful question to ask, um There are quite a few cosmologists who would say that it It's probably not the case that the universe has a beginning or not in any sense. We would understand the word Um, but we just don't know we we do know that the universe was very early in its history in a hot and dense state And that it evolved from that Why it did so why this was such a low entropy state? These are questions cosmologists do not have answers to at the time Yeah, that's exactly the point I wanted to To state was that the big bang model does not necessitate that the universe had a beginning Nothing about the big bang model says that this was the beginning of the universe It just shows that previously the universe was in a hot dense state But it doesn't say anything about this is the beginning of the universe the big bang shows the beginning of the universe That's not a part of the model. So just thought that that point should be emphasized All right, well guys, I'm a little bit older than both of you and what you're doing. This is revisionist history. This is gaslighting because I was taught that this was the origin of the universe And so now because that's completely inconvenient for your scientific theory Now we're inventing. Well, no, it wasn't the beginning. No, we're not saying anything about the origin of the universe Thank you. It never did I do have to let them have the last word so Oh, yeah, we're not responsible for how you were taught the big bang by your teachers So I don't know if they were if they were not astrophysicists that were teaching you then maybe that would be on them We'll go back and look at the history guys Okay, so let's move on. Um, next question comes in from big bad mama for five dollars. They ask Oh, sorry Sal the big bang predicts the observed abundancies of primordial hydrogen deuterium helium and lithium does your model I said I I don't have a specific scientific model Got it. Well, by the way Very nice to hear from you and thank you. Um, she and I had met on the internet. We've had cordial exchanges That was actually a pretty good question. So You know, there are a lot of things I don't know Excellent. Thank you Okay, next question comes in from sunflower for ten dollars They ask for leo and gressin if you have no issue accepting dark matter slash energy as a theoretical Anti-gravity force Why do you have an issue with the theory or the theoretical particle or force that makes things go faster than light? It seems like an incoherent question. I don't know what he's referring to Um with respect to dark matter is not an anti-gravitational force dark matter is an anomaly that is observed in The anomalies in our predictions of the differential rotation of galaxies from centers to their outer edges They should slow the rotations that should slow from the center To the outer edge and it does not slow by nearly the amount predicted By um baryonic matter that is present the matter that we can see that's present in the galaxy They should be flinging themselves apart. They're not also Um, there are galaxies that lens light that gravitationally lens light significantly more than they should given just a baryonic matter That's there and also there are there are um Galactic clusters that have gas in them that are colliding and the interesting thing is is that the dark matter in these collisions If it exists and if it is particle dark matter, not just modified gravity, then it should act Independently of the baryonic matter that's there at least for the most part and that's exactly what we observe because what we observe with these when these massive Galactic clusters collide is that all the gas starts to accumulate at the center But all the baryonic matter all the galaxies aren't there yet So why is all the gas there because gas usually follows whatever has the most gravity? That's because the dark matter acting in a secular way to the um To to the baryonic matter is moving through As these as these um clusters collide whereas the baryonic matter is reacting to the shocking and slowing of all of that gas And this is one of the other things is that modified gravity can't explain this But particle dark matter can't so we observe that um, so I just don't understand what he's talking about with respect to the speed of light That has to do with restrictions in space time The reason you can't exceed the speed of light in space time is because If if you tried to do that what happens when you reach the speed of light is lengths in the direction of your travel um Contract zero and your clock does not tick and what that means is that once you've reached the speed of light There is no more space time for you to go faster into So how do you exceed the speed of light? So that's why i'm not going to say that anything can or i'm going to say that nothing can exceed Exceed the speed of light. How does it do that? And then yeah, dark matter is just not an antigrap Really really quickly. I just want to tack on something really quick is that our opponents and this question seem to imply that somehow Dark matter or dark energy is this kind of like wacky like ad hoc belief But as we've pointed out The evidence is in support of dark matter and dark energy are independent of the big bang and would still be evidence Even without the big bang. There are evidence is to Like reasons to conclude that dark matter Dark energy exists and verified predictions is supporting them And I'll just just say that our opponents during the course of this debate in their attempt at coming up with an alternative for the big bang Have variously proposed some sort of low density plasma hanging out around the universe red shifting things I even heard Electron crystals were we're floating around in space that were red shifting things in a way that isn't scattering light I mean these are the things that are a lot more wacky and ad hoc sounding to me Than the things that have evidence to support them independent of the big bang. So that's just my two cents All right. Thank you guys If you do then I have to let them Respond to and we'll have to go all the way around again and we just Well, it it I think the the well Can I respond to the question that the audience member asked about dark matter? Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'll have to let them have the last word, but go ahead Okay, so what you'll notice is missing from Grayson and leo's explanation of dark matter is what dark matter is The world's most sensitive dark matter Detector has found no signs of dark matter. We don't know what it is. This is circular reasoning Hey, we've got a galaxy problem. The solution is dark matter How do you know dark matter exists because without it? We'd have a galaxy problem Obviously, we have but there's no difference guys in what you're saying Then if I said fairies are holding the galaxies in place if I said it was dark fairies instead of dark matter How would you falsify that the answer is you could not falsify that and neither can we falsify dark matter Which means it's not scientific. It's a hypothetical entity made up to solve a problem You can't use both the the the problem Um, you cannot use it as both the the problem cannot also be the evidence for your hypothesis. Thank you I'd like to respond to that. Um, because this fairy thinks yes, we can falsify that So what what's one reason why there would not be a differential slowing In the the rate of rotation of galaxies as you move from the center outward Well, and if if there were extra or rather, why don't galaxies fling themselves apart when they lack that? well an extra Extra mass extra gravity could explain it. Why did they lens? gravitationally Lens light more than what we see with just a baryonic matter Well, if there are some other type of matter there that just doesn't interact with light That would explain that why is it when? Galactic clusters collide the gas follows not the baryonic matter, but some other Mercedes is following the fairies. No, it's following some sort of gravitational anomaly So that's so we can falsify fairies because fairies don't explain things and gravity does and gravity can be utilized as an explanation for these things Yeah, and that's why we think it's matter. I just wanted to tack that on at the end We really must move on exactly what leo is saying. There are multiple lines of evidences for dark matter It's not like we just have one circular line looking at galaxy spin. We also have gravitational lensing We also have like when galaxies collide and and those effects that we see they're predicted by a particular dark matter Theory, we also have and just I pointed this out in my opening But like fairies don't make mathematical predictions We have mathematical predictions Like I pointed out with the power spectrum for the temper for the temperature fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background It forms these various peaks and we predicted that if you know 84 percent of the Of the matter was dark matter in the universe then the peak would be of this height And then when we measure it in the cosmic microwave background the power spectrum Matches our prediction based on cold dark matter So there are multiple lines of independent streams of evidence that corroborate each other It's not just like one little circular line of reasoning. That's a mischaracterization of the evidence And most some support particle dark matter over modified gravity. That's all I want to say All right, we have less than two minutes for each question now left So we must allow only the person who's being addressed to answer specifically from now on guys from clap From clap trypism For $10 they ask my hamster George hametre is speaking is squeaking annoying about science fiction George hametre wants to know what came first the chicken or the egg and how question for both sides the egg neither Scientifically, I would say the chicken and also religiously You need both the chicken and the egg at the exact same time and that's a problem The answer is obviously the lizard the answer is neither From samir farce for five dollars. They say anyone excited about cmb as evidence and about its coral correlation Did you know the temperature difference between colors is one 200 millionth of a degree? Wait what the difference in temperature in the cmb is a difference of about one in 100,000 it sits Um, it's near uniform an isotropic no matter how you look in order no matter how far out you look Um, and it's about 2.73 kelvin. All right next question comes in from Nick's for ten dollars. Thank you. Nick's they ask It seems that the anti big bang wants to debunk the big bang and science But if it's wrong, what do you believe is correct and what is the evidence for your belief besides god did it Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Thank you for the super chat Sure, they say it seems that the anti big bang team wants to debunk the big bang and science But if it's wrong, what do you believe is correct? And what is the evidence for your belief besides god did it? No, we we emphasize the scientific method However, we don't think I personally believe there's some things that are outside of science that are Do explain the physical universe the universe does operate by laws I actually think the big bang is positively anti science It is lots of circular reasoning things that are put forward as theories In In hypotheticals are treated on the level of experimental evidence. I find that problematic I find that problematic I've given lots of experimental evidences here for changes in red ship even leo conceded it So this is not about us being anti science. I resist that I kind of resent it because I I have five science degrees I am not anti science. I'm I'm for science. I think the big bang is very anti science It is a bad it should go in the religion department Because of its lack of experimental verification put it there. Let it be a hypothesis. Thank you I just want to clarify what I can see in 10 seconds 10 seconds literally I conceded that there's redshift, but I pointed out that that it's redshift as a function of distance with galaxies That's so I conceded there's redshift. That's wanted to clarify that Now I will pray to the big bang that it will show you the life Guys, I really can't we have to move on from the questions. We have too many questions on the list Uh, rebecca final word. Oh no, go ahead Okay, uh, we also want to shout out to 33 done who just became a member of the extra juicy club So thank you so much 33 done shout out to you then question from stay curious for five dollars They say science doesn't use newspaper articles. That's not the scientific method So as a comment for the anti big bang team, I believe Thank you for that That was a quote from edwin hubble and he actually justified it in his book Which I credit rebecca for finding so no science isn't done by newspaper articles I didn't mean to imply that at all but maybe that's I quoted the newspaper article because it's accessible to hear He simply said in his own words That he didn't thank you so much evidence was in favor of expanding space Yeah, it's in his book Okay question from t.s. Apostolos for five dollars. They say we are in a Copernican revolution too So we forgive y'all ad hoc mathematical physics just like the first there will be a paradigm shift Allah Thomas kuhn Is that for us? I'm not sure because I've read Thomas kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions I think it's all right, but I'm not really a kuhnian with respect to my philosophy of science I'm a lactosean or at least I lean toward lactose more of a lactosean framework. Um, so I I think there's going to be a paradigm shift But it's not like we're going to somehow figure out that hey everything isn't actually made of atoms It's not how science works Got it. Okay question from michael thompson for five dollars. They say does the bible inform your understanding of the universe anti big bang team It does it does on a religious basis it does It does now I try to separate the two and just You know, I'm more able to believe the bible as I see the physical evidence support it Supports it that there's a lot of stuff that is just by faith And I will just say Incidentally, I think a lot of the big bang is accepted on faith I you know, I really don't see a lot of science I see that because I'm a religious person I see the same level of religious commitment to the big bang that I do in other religions That's just my opinion. But yes, the bible does inform my understanding And I believe it and thank you very much for asking and giving me the chance to confess that Yes, and I believe in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth So yes, the bible does inform my understanding But this is a scientific debate. And so I I'm separating my religious beliefs from What were our our physical observations of the universe? So, um, this was a debate about the science science Or lack of it with the big bang All right, got it Two more questions on the list guys from thunderstorm for 499 they say in the corner of the universe There are different kinds of energy of life one of them is immortality and its origin is beyond man I believe that's for the big bang team I don't I didn't know the universe had corners Does it okay great, um from stay curious is the last super chat guys if you have a super chat We might be able to get it in uh from stay curious for five dollars I say does rebecca not understand that there have been multiple theoretical models in history and that we are that we've been Simply following the most verifiable data Yes, and I appreciate that when when when bad ideas can be overturned with our scientific observations And I hope that that that will happen Right now with the big bang with the observations that have come out Which have completely destroyed this model as it was already weak And now it has been completely obliterated by our observations So, I hope that scientists will be faithful to the scientific method And I hope that they will admit and that their model Needs a complete revision probably to the degree of being completely thrown out All right from andrew coming question for sal if redshift were caused by matter interactions in a plasma Why do we see a uniform shift across all wavelengths matter never does that? Thank you for the thank you for the super chat. That's a very good question And that is one reason I've actually started looking to see if you get to see it across all wavelengths There's only one paper that I see that has done that Is a question worth revisiting a lot of the instrumentation that does redshift is only in a limited band And so they're going to assume it so we really you know I think it's an open question Some people have been throwing it out and could you repeat the question? I would like to honor that Thank you for that question. Um If redshift were caused by matter interactions in a plasma Why do we see a uniform shift across all wavelengths matter never does that? We don't know that's why I said we have to look into photonics There are people that are working on this problem And I would bet we're going to have because we can experiment with protons and plasmas Even on the laboratory we have a lot better chance of solving that Because we can't have expanding space in our laboratory So I would take that bet over Something we have no chance of verifying and we have no chance of verifying the inflation field directly either Where we would have expanding space moving faster than the speed of light So I didn't really directly answer your question But I think I know Andrew coming loves the big bang and that looks like you know, I find that more problematic that you You're straining at gnats and letting camels through. Thank you We do know it's the expansion space Yeah, that observation question for a big bang team The big bang team they want to know can you demonstrate one specimen of half one creature and half another A dog will always birth a dog a human births humans. Where is one birthing another? Well, I I'd like to say that, you know, I've never seen a dog turn into a mosquito And I've never seen an elephant turn into a pine tree and I just think evolution is absolutely the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of And I will just conclude by saying your mother All right, um, well come on down to down today. We totally don't did a little kids Yeah On the concept that the big bang is just a faith position by the way I just I feel it's funny that the our opponents ignored all of the very precise Quantitative predictions that I went through in the power spectral and the neutrino background. None of that is faith based Those were mathematical May I respond? ugly hypothesis the Geocentric model had lots of predictions fulfilled. It's the anomalies that broke it. That's what we tried to put forward today That was in the ugly level that says that break it And the ugly fact that redshift is not quantized and is continuous debunks all of these alternatives To redshift. So thank you for that that the ugly fact exists therefore The redshift is from expansion because it's continuous not quantized like we would see if this was the result of matter redshifting dislike Thank you All right, so well one experiment can falsify a theory So einstein said it too. So thank you All right, are we ready to wrap it up then? Thank you all so much for being here. I really appreciate you the debaters are the lifeblood of the show So we appreciate all of you I want everybody to know that they're linked in the description below So if you like what you heard from any of our guests tonight, please feel free Please we encourage you to go and click on their links below I want to thank again the moderators in the chat for keeping the conversation civil You guys were working tirelessly and we really appreciate it. Thank you to james for creating this platform And everybody in the audience who said enchanted questions and just enjoyed the question the debate in general Once again, like it if you loved it shared if you want to spread it and subscribe We have many more debates coming your way that you don't want to miss remember on the first apm It's gonna be dr. Burgess versus infrared Maga debate. So come check that out. Thank you Thank you everybody once again, you'll have a great night and remember to keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable Have a great night