Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Liability of the Theory that the law of Angular Momentum disproves Big bang.
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 31 of 41 (163231)
11-25-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
11-25-2004 1:50 PM


T o p i c !
This is a very, very focussed topic. Let's keep it clean, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 11-25-2004 1:50 PM jar has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 32 of 41 (163232)
11-25-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
11-25-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Changing theories.
And what the big bang had to do with evolution is a mystery to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 11-25-2004 1:50 PM jar has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 33 of 41 (163322)
11-26-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
11-25-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Changing theories.
jar writes:
But that is the nature, strength and value of science. Theories are our best explaination of how something happened. As we learn more, as we gather more data, as new evidence is discovered, the theories must explain the new information. That means the theories MUST change if they are to remain our best explainations.
This is all true and I have no problem with it. My problem with the big bang is that it is supposed to explain the origins of the universe. If the whole theory of evolution is true, we went from very simple to very complex as everything in the universe and the universe itself. So, if we are going to go backward things should get simpler along the way. In the big bang theory the same shold be expected but it appears to me that the theory makes the past get more complicated the farther we go back in time. There appears to be some sort of logical error involved. Can anybody clear this up for me.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 11-25-2004 1:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 11-26-2004 2:08 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 35 by happy_atheist, posted 11-26-2004 6:56 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 41 (163337)
11-26-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Itachi Uchiha
11-26-2004 11:40 AM


Some what OT but I'll return to the topic before the end.
If the whole theory of evolution is true, we went from very simple to very complex as everything in the universe and the universe itself.
Well that's not exactly what happened.
The first life was simple. It had to be. That means that anything that followed could never be simpler than the first life. You can go from a single cell to multicell, but you cannot go from a single cell to no cell and still be alive.
But most life now, and then, stayed at the very simple level. Look around even today and you'll find that almost all life is very, very simple.
There is nothing in evolution that says complexity should increase. In fact, evolution could well be a decrease in complexity and there are many, many such examples. One is the presence of vestigial organs, pieces parts that once did something but are no longer needed and in the process of being discarded.
So, if we are going to go backward things should get simpler along the way.
Again, we need to make sure we are all assigning the same meaning to words. If we look back in time we do find things becoming less complex even if harder to understand. Earlier stars have fewer heavy elements than second or third generation stars as one example. But we can only see so far back. Even our images from the most distant universe are still from a period long after the Big Bang. For us to see something at that distance it has to be pretty big and pretty energetic. So what we can see is limited by our capabilities. We only see a hint of all that is there.
There are other indications though that seem to show great simplicity. The uniform background radiation that was first observed by Bell Labs Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. That was only in 1965. The exciting part at the time was that this was the first confirmation of predictions that had been made about 30 years earlier.
And that is how science works. The theory had been around for a long time. It was simply one competing explaination of what was seen. The name Big Bang was actually coined by Fred Hoyle as somewhat of a joke. The used it as a way of saying just how silly the idea was. And Hoyles position, the Steady State Theory was thought by many to be the best possible explaination. Unfortunately, as additional information, observation, confirmed predictions and data came in it became increasingly obvious that the steady state theory could not explain what was seen.
So today, SST is mostly forgotten but the term Hoyle created as a joke remains.
Such is the way science works.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-26-2004 11:40 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 35 of 41 (163393)
11-26-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Itachi Uchiha
11-26-2004 11:40 AM


Re: Changing theories.
jazzlover_PR writes:
In the big bang theory the same shold be expected but it appears to me that the theory makes the past get more complicated the farther we go back in time.
What could be more simple than a singularity? Spacetime compressed infintely small, without any matter existing. Simply energy. Even after the big bang there would be nothing more than energy. I can't imagine a state the universe could be in that is simpler than spacetime containing formless energy. Only as the energy cooled did any type of structure start appearing as the energy condensed into matter in the form of subatomic particles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-26-2004 11:40 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 11-26-2004 7:23 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 36 of 41 (163397)
11-26-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by happy_atheist
11-26-2004 6:56 PM


big bang to evolution
What could be more simple than a singularity?
Any connection between the big bang and evolution is, as has been noted, tenuous at best. So the "complexity" talked about with regard to evolution of life on earth has no connection to any "complexity" talked about as far as the universe as a whole.
There is no reason to figure on any direction of complexity for the universe as a whole other than entropy.
The evolutionary process is another matter altogether. Let's not get dragged away from discussion of the angular momentum issue. It is the titled topic of this thread.
Stick to it.
ABE
Even though it appears that d yankee was a bluffer.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-26-2004 07:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by happy_atheist, posted 11-26-2004 6:56 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
DaveInNYC
Junior Member (Idle past 6135 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-10-2007


Message 37 of 41 (404905)
06-10-2007 1:30 PM


A "tangential" question
OK, I know this is pretty basic stuff, but I can't seem to figure it out.
If I am hanging on for dear life on a really fast merry-go-round, the
system (me and the merry-go-round) has a certain amount of angular
momentum. If I let go, I will shoot off on a straight line, tangent to the
merry-go-round's rotation. So hasn't the angular momentum of the system
decreased, since I am no longer spinning around? If so, it is not obvious
that any torque was applied to make this happen; if anything, a force was
REMOVED, i.e. the force keeping me on the merry go round when I was holding
on to it.
So what am I missing? Is the removal of a force in a rotating system
somehow equivalent to the application of a force?

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2007 3:55 PM DaveInNYC has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 41 (404919)
06-10-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by DaveInNYC
06-10-2007 1:30 PM


Re: A "tangential" question
Hi, Dave.
A body travelling in a straight line will have a constant, non-zero angular momentum.
In physics, angular momentum is defined to be the cross product of the position vector of the body from the origin of the coordinate system with its momentum vector. As the body travels forever, its momentum (in the absense of any forces) will remain constant; its distance will increase, but the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector will decrease, which will compensate in such a way that will keep the angular momentum constant.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by DaveInNYC, posted 06-10-2007 1:30 PM DaveInNYC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by DaveInNYC, posted 06-10-2007 5:55 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
DaveInNYC
Junior Member (Idle past 6135 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-10-2007


Message 39 of 41 (404937)
06-10-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
06-10-2007 3:55 PM


Re: A "tangential" question
Ah, I think I see. In other words, the body going in a straight line could also been seen as a body orbiting the original origin, albeit at an ever-expanding radius and an ever-decreasing rotational speed, keeping angular momentum constant, yes?
Edited by DaveInNYC, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2007 3:55 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2007 9:44 PM DaveInNYC has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 11:25 PM DaveInNYC has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 41 (404973)
06-10-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by DaveInNYC
06-10-2007 5:55 PM


Re: A "tangential" question
Huh. I never thought of looking at it like that, but it seems to work. Interesting idea, Dave.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DaveInNYC, posted 06-10-2007 5:55 PM DaveInNYC has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 41 (405022)
06-10-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by DaveInNYC
06-10-2007 5:55 PM


Re: A "tangential" question
integrate over time and you should have the effect of gravity on speed ... unless there is something else in the equations.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DaveInNYC, posted 06-10-2007 5:55 PM DaveInNYC has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024