Science Changes it's tune for the billionth time - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Science Changes it's tune for the billionth time
in Education

From the big "bang" to the Eternal singularity

its not news that science disagrees with everything it's ever said, but this week, science takes the preverbial cake off the shelf and calls it's a sandwich.

Science has redefined the big bang as,

"the Big Bang is described by a hot, dense state that simply expands and cools."

-New science and the big bang explained Pg. 5

The Problem

 Newton's law of cooling

Newton's Law of Cooling determines that the rate of change of the temperature of an object or mass is proportional to the difference between its own temperature and the ambient temperature (i.e. the temperature of its surroundings).

That is if an object loses heat over time as a result of ambient temperature

However, Newton's law of cooling addresses, that any object or mass that is the result of Nuclear fusion, creates heat and photons.

The dilemma

If a singularity was always hot ( ie the existence of the singularity was always hot as a result of Nuclear fission)


The singularity it's not subject to a condition of change IE, cooling.


1. thermal energy or masses defined as the state of the existence of matter


1.retrain heat, or produce heat

2. Do not produce heat and as a result cool 


3. do not expierience change when their molecular composition ( the cause of their heat) is the cause of the thermal energy a mass produces.

The second Dilemma

if the singularity is subject to change 

The cause of it's change must be defined or definable

Based on Newton's law of cooling,

 there has to be a cause for change and the or a decrease in tempreture of a mass.

However because cooling is proportional to the heat of an object and the ambient tempreture

The only cause of a decrease in tempreture would be opposing or ambient temperature

As a result without a change in ambient tempreture a singularity would not cool or expierience any change in tempreture.

To suggest so would be to suggest that the sandwich would cool significantly too fast for anything to expand, because the rate at which it cools, would be based on the ambient tempreture as the cause of it's cooling.

Which would determine, that when masses form molecular bonds and isolate any particles, molecules, or matter prior to a rate of expansion 

Or that the rate of expansion is evuivalent to the rate at which a mass cools determines the universe along with the rate of radioactive decay should be about as wide and big as my finger.

Sciences age old tune

But let me guess that took millions of years?


Newton's law of cooling, is a differential equation, and the Stefan boltzman constant describes that the thermal yield of a mass that expieriences high tempreture produces 4 times the amount of thermal output when the ambient temperature of surrounding masses effect it's own.


Antimatter is not hot or cold, it lacks material substance


Newton's law of cooling states an object or mass cools as a result of

1. A condition that causes thermal energy to be lost over time, due to the effect of ambient temperatures, and the rate at which an object cools as a result of the ambient tempreture of it's enviroment

2. It's obvious,A mass can not maintain or retrain tempreture for any period of time if it's own thermal energy and heat are the result of nuclear fission and cool at the same time, that's proposterous BS.

It's hilarious to watch science suggest that the ambient tempreture of the universe at time of expansion is 1 billion degrees and it suddenly started cooling, because it implies the half life of the thermal energy in the universe, or, the rate of radioactive decay, caused the universe to form and live outside the boundaries of it's half life or rate of decay.

Based on this week's BS

 The universe should have stopped expanding at 8 seconds during expansion and weighing Newton's law of cooling in, the universe should be about as big as my finger.



the singularity always existed and never expanded, as science state, the singularity did not expierience any type of expansion or change,  prior to what they refer to as the big bang,then they imply

 that the singularity and the conditions that define it do not allow for expansion to occur because of it's existence as a mass of thermal energy or nuclear fussion.


A singularity that is not subject to change, because of what aspect defines the singularity, it's existence, and subsequently the conditions of the singularitys existence are in contradiction to the theory of expansion

Science fail count as numerous as they have spoken.

Jesus I'd Lord.


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • No offence, but none of what you have written even remotely resembles the scientific stance on the related issue. I do not know where to even start responding to your post, but it seems that your argument is based on the claim that the Newton's law of cooling is incompatible with the Big Bang theory? Of course it is not; Newton's law of cooling is only applicable to quasi-static systems, where the rate of heat exchange is very slow and no perturbations occur. On the early stages of the Big Bang, this obviously is not the case.

    You also seem to think that "antimatter lacks material substance"? That is false; antimatter is not very different from regular matter, aside from the ability to experience annihilation upon collision, producing photons. Perhaps you are confusing it with dark energy, but since we do not very well know what dark energy is, such a claim would be unfounded.
  • @JesusisGod777888 If you really want to know whether your argument is correct or not, contact any professional scientist who knows a lot about the topic you are discussing. It is much better than arguing with users on this website.
  • @MayCaesar
    I just realized , evolution is biologys version of
     chemistrys alchemy where you can turn lead into gold.

  • @MayCaesar

    Do you keep up with the scientific journal? Because the excerpt was an entry in the scientific journal. 

  • DeeDee 1951 Pts

    I think you would be well advised to leave science journals aside as you obviously haven’t a clue what you’re babbling about , amusingly you do not give a link to the articles you post why’s that?

    If science and scientists totally disagreed with each other so what? What’s that got to do with anything?  You Christians have 33,000 denominations relating to your B S and not one of you’s agree with each other so your point is?
  • @JesusisGod777888

    I seriously doubt that: I do not keep up with the cosmological publications in particular, but I have never seen a publication in physics, or in any science for that matter, containing countless slang shortcuts such as "lol" or "BS". We have a lot of people working in cosmology in our department, and nobody seems to have heard that the Big Bang theory has been debunked, let alone with arguments you provided.

    It is hard for me to believe that a paper in a serious physics journal was published with such glaring errors in the reasoning and such language in the text. Could you link the publication? I could give you my take on the content.
  • well good job for science to try and understand and figure things out logically instead of saying everything is magic

    its hard to get everything right in one conclusion with lesser evidence than we have today, what you are describing is LOGICALLY THINKING

    science questions itself all the time because if it didn't then it would be religion
    why so serious?
  • The blanket statement "Science changes it's tune again" really isn't worth considering. No offense.

  • Science is constantly changing based upon new discoveries, equations, trials, etc. This doesn’t mean its wrong, it means that science will continue to change as we move forward.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch