Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,409 Year: 6,666/9,624 Month: 6/238 Week: 6/22 Day: 6/5 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22929
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 181 of 414 (103975)
04-29-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Navy10E
04-29-2004 7:40 PM


Re: Excellent article
Navy10E writes:
It is apparent to me that there are major divisions still in the scientific community,...
The SciAm article was about the very beginning of the Big Bang, about which we know very little because the laws of physics as currently understood don't apply very well. As the article makes clear, there are different theories, and at present two frontrunners. The author preferred the answers suggested by string theory.
If there are still disreprencies, maybe that means that a definent working model describing the beginning has not yet been constructed...So the "airtight" big bang hypothosis has more versions then Victoria's Secret has styles of underware.
I think you may be switching horses in mid-stream. You raised questions about the very beginning of the Big Bang, not the Big Bang itself. As anyone here will tell you, there is a lot of uncertainty about the very beginning.
But not about what came after. There are no significant differences of opinion within science on what came after the Big Bang. That doesn't mean science is right, but your claiming that scientists are uncertain and keep changing their minds, and this isn't true.
The evidence strongly supports current theory that the universe has been expanding from the Big Bang for about 13.7 billion years, and that the expansion is accelerating. There is very little doubt about this at present. To doubt the Big Bang because you don't know much about its origins would be akin to doubting houses because you don't know much about where lumber comes from.
That means there is no "Scientific Gospel".
Since all science is tentative, I think most here would agree with you.
Every 5 yrs, the hypothosis has had a major overhaul anyway,...
Are you talking about the origins of the Big Bang? Then yes, I guess so, though I don't know whether the 5 years you give is too large or too small. Science doesn't know everything, and never well, and the origins of the Big Bang is still something we don't understand very well.
But if you're talking about the Big Bang itself, then no, it does not have a major overhaul every 5 years. We've understood for over 50 years that all the matter in the universe once existed in a very small space. Our understanding of the details has improved over time, most recently with the discovery that the expansion is accelerating, but there's been nothing resembling a major overhaul. If you're seeking true controversies within the scientific community you'll have to look elsewhere.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Navy10E, posted 04-29-2004 7:40 PM Navy10E has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1714 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 414 (104069)
04-30-2004 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Navy10E
04-29-2004 7:40 PM


Frog, not suprised to see you claiming victory in argument
Well, I did wait a couple of months. So long, in fact, that I've mostly forgotten what we were talking about.
How long was I supposed to wait before coming to the conclusion that you were just like all the other creationists who turn tail and run when they can't avoid the evidence? Just curious. I'm glad I was wrong about you but you have to cut me some slack, ok?
If there are still disreprencies, maybe that means that a definent working model describing the beginning has not yet been constructed.
You overlook the similarities in the various competing models and focus only on their slight differences, so it's no surprise you come to this conclusion. I could just as easily say that, because there's 200 or more different Christian demoninations, God must not exist.
I'd be just as wrong as you, because I'd be overlooking the similarities between denominations.
The distinction between debating the concept and debating the details may not be readily apparent to an outside observer of science, but the distinction exists, nonetheless.
Every 5 yrs, the hypothosis has had a major overhaul anyway, so I know that no matter what, the opinions you hold today will be considered wrong in a few years.
That's a very intelligent observation. But you should keep in mind that as science rejects old theories, it moves closer and closer to the truth.
On the other hand, if you start out wrong and never change, ala creationism, you're wrong forever.
I'd rather be almost right and getting righter than eternally and unchangingly wrong. I put the truth at a higher priority than not changing my beliefs, but I guess I'm weird like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Navy10E, posted 04-29-2004 7:40 PM Navy10E has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

jacketsfan4life
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 414 (110529)
05-25-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:46 AM


But see with that response you are saying that creationism is wrong completly when evolution has just as much scientific proof today as does creation. The only thing scientists can do in a lab is perform experiments on what they THINK the Earth was like billions of years ago. Were they there to actually prove it was like that billions of years ago? Nope. So then how do we know if all of these evolutionary experiments are valid then if the data for the set up of the experiment could be completely wrong? Unless you were there billions of years ago taking data on the way the atmosphere and temperatures were then how could you possibly know now how they were then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-25-2004 11:29 PM jacketsfan4life has replied
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2004 1:42 AM jacketsfan4life has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 184 of 414 (110532)
05-25-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:14 PM


Ah....
the old 'if you weren't there how can you know argument'.
*yawn*
Do you believe all criminals convicted via circumstantial evidence should be released from prison immediately?
After all - we weren't there to see them do the crime.
Do you believe all history texts describing events from more than say 100 years ago be destroyed.
After all we weren't there.
Should the Bible be treated purely as a work of fiction?
After all we weren't there.
Are you really so naive as to believe that the only way experiment and progress can be made is for you to be present?
If you find a piece of volcanic glass you don't need to be at the eruption to know the bugger was previously really bloody hot and came out of a volcano!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:14 PM jacketsfan4life has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:37 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

jacketsfan4life
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 414 (110534)
05-25-2004 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eta_Carinae
05-25-2004 11:29 PM


Re: Ah....
true i agree with the circumstancial evidence and volcanic glass thing but that has nothing to do with evolution. People are trying to prove our very exsistance by these experiments, thats why we need more concrete evidence then just saying well i think this is what thee Earth was like billions of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-25-2004 11:29 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-25-2004 11:43 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied
 Message 188 by Loudmouth, posted 05-26-2004 4:52 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 186 of 414 (110536)
05-25-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Ah....
I think we don't really need to prove our existence. I'm here - I exist. - LOL
There is ample evidence of what the conditions on the Earth were like long ago.
What this has to do with evolution per se I don't know.
I think what you are really thinking about is abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:37 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1714 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 187 of 414 (110564)
05-26-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:14 PM


But see with that response you are saying that creationism is wrong completly when evolution has just as much scientific proof today as does creation.
But that's a false statement.
My statement was true - creationism has been proven wrong. There's just too much evidence against it.
Moreover, there's a significant weight of evidence for evolution.
Were they there to actually prove it was like that billions of years ago?
I don't see why that matters. The purpose of science is not to determine exactly what happened - that's impossible - but to determine the most parsimonious explanation for the results we see today.
So then how do we know if all of these evolutionary experiments are valid then if the data for the set up of the experiment could be completely wrong?
We don't. That's the scientific principle of "tentativity." It means that we only accept our models provisionally. The minute we have observations that contradict them, we throw them out.
Since we keep making new observations, it's pretty reasonable to expect that if there's an observation out there that would disprove our models, eventually we'll make it, and we'll know we were wrong.

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:14 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 414 (110714)
05-26-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Ah....
quote:
true i agree with the circumstancial evidence and volcanic glass thing but that has nothing to do with evolution.
But it has everything to do with how scientific inquiries are carried out. Just like on CSI, scientists look for evidence pertaining to the past. Each new piece of evidence can either support or falsify a theory. The fact is that a young earth and special creation has been falsified by the evidence. Evolution is supported by the evidence and has yet to be falsified.
quote:
People are trying to prove our very exsistance by these experiments, thats why we need more concrete evidence then just saying well i think this is what thee Earth was like billions of years ago.
I am pretty sure I have all the evidence to know that I exist, I hope you do as well. If you mean that science is trying to tell people how they should live, then you are entirely mistaken. The moral importance of biblical teachings does not hinge on how God created us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:37 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by custard, posted 05-27-2004 4:42 AM Loudmouth has not replied

custard
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 414 (110826)
05-27-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Loudmouth
05-26-2004 4:52 PM


Thanks
Hey, I just wanted you all to know that I really appreciate the information that has been provided by the contributors to this thread.
You may not be getting through to Navy, but I have learned a lot from this thread and picked up a couple of good book suggestions.
Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Loudmouth, posted 05-26-2004 4:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

suaverider
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 414 (137206)
08-26-2004 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Navy10E
03-13-2004 3:01 AM


Its not possible
Let’s take it point by pointThat is the theory. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the Big Bang theory is unworkable and fallacious.
THE BIG BANG EXPLOSION
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms! No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
7 — The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matterif the Big Bang was true.
"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.
THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES
1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.
2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.
3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.
5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.
6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.
We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.
THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS
The theoryGradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.
This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.
1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.
2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space."In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.
MORE FACTS
WHICH BURY THE THEORY
MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION
1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.
2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.
4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outwardleaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of spacewith an expanding center containing nothing.
5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.
6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum existand in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.
7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.
8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.
9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.
10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.
11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction, but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)
12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.
13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems, in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.

-suave-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Navy10E, posted 03-13-2004 3:01 AM Navy10E has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2004 9:11 PM suaverider has not replied
 Message 192 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 9:31 PM suaverider has replied
 Message 195 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 9:58 PM suaverider has replied
 Message 196 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 10:07 PM suaverider has not replied
 Message 198 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 10:18 PM suaverider has not replied
 Message 200 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 10:41 PM suaverider has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4755
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 191 of 414 (137210)
08-26-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


W e l c o m e !!
Welcome to EvC forum sauverider.
There is a lot to learn here if you are open to it. I suggest that you start off by reading the forum guidelines. One thing that may be required of you is to back up any assertions you make.
Another thing is that you should not pass other peoples ideas off as your own. It doesn't appear at first glance like you actually cut and pasted from anywhere. It does however appear that you simply retyped in your own words.
A real, real good idea is not to expound on things that you don't know very much about. There are a number of practising scientists that are regulars here. You may get called on things and be expected to explain yourself. It is apparent from this inaugural post that you don't know very much about the topic here.
Another good idea is to watch out for very misleading "information" presented by various creationist web sites. You will find the material very hard to defend.
I'd also suggest that taking on the cosmology of the big bang is biting off a lot. Unless that is you have advanced degrees in mathematics and/or physics. As noted it is apparent that you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 192 of 414 (137213)
08-26-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


This one is going to be fun
and going to take a while too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 9:43 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 194 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2004 9:45 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

suaverider
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 414 (137216)
08-26-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Eta_Carinae
08-26-2004 9:31 PM


Re: This one is going to be fun
Common sense tells me that nothing cannot pack together and blow up. How can nothing do anything except not exist? I mean there were no chemicals to explode and no atoms nothing can't get hot right? If someone can explain to me how nothing can explode I would like to see it. Thank you.
Doesn't thermodynamics show that on its own energy cannot be created or destroyed and everything goes to disorder over time not the other way around?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 9:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 194 of 414 (137218)
08-26-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Eta_Carinae
08-26-2004 9:31 PM


Oh Oh
Put that knife and fork away Eta. Let's start slowly eh?
Suaverider, you were warned. Now you've attracted the attention of an actual PhD astrophysicist. You may find out how little you know much sooner than was anticipated.
(as an aside, it is also possible that you know so little you haven't a hope of realizing just how little it is )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-26-2004 9:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4622 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 195 of 414 (137220)
08-26-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


Part I.
Lets start on this first:
MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION
1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.
Not true. Metallicities vary from approx. -4.4 to +0.5 on a logarithmic scale with the Sun being 0.0. That is a factor of 100,000 in metal content. The "older" stars on the whole average around -1.5 compared to the solar value which is a factor of 40 less. This is well correlated with kinematics i.e. halo population versus thin disk populations in the Galaxy.
You also are skipping over the fact that heavy element production is not a constant process. The two main divisions are the elements formed by the s process (s=slow) and the r process (r=rapid). These are formed in different stars for the most part. s process in AGB stars and r process in core collapse supernovae.
2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
This is again a gross simplification. Interstellar means within the galaxy by the way. This gas is well mixed with earlier stellar generations and is iften as metal rich as stars. I think you meant intergalactic gas which by the way can still be polluted from supernovae ejecta.
3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.
No this is just a misstatement of the Big Bang. Read a book because I am not typing a six page post on this topic alone.
4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outwardleaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of spacewith an expanding center containing nothing.
See above. Whatever version of the Big Bang you are reading from you need to get a new source or parse the one you have better. What centre? What edge?
5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.
Stars are expected to be the same, excepting possibly at redshifts 7-15 which we have no observations of. galaxies however do exhibit morphological variation that was predicted in the heirarchical bottom up scenarios.
6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum existand in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.
This one is pathetic and has been explained to Creationists many times. It also shows a misunderstanding of high school physics. Why do you think ang. mom. conservation means things cannot rotate. It just means the total ang. momentum in a system is constant. Many interactions exhibit angular momentum transfer. By your version of physics a ball could never start spinning. Do you know what a torque is?
7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.
What happens if your collapsing gas cloud is ever so slightly peturbed very early on. This will manifest as a torque which gives it a slight rotation. Then as in the ice skater analogy as it contracts the angular velocity increases, voila, rotation. Also magnetic fields interacting with the collapssing gas can generate the torque. So can internal viscosity. Haven't you ever heard of viscous torques?
8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.
Rubbish, see above. This is much too complex to get into here but the spin down of stars is mass dependent and involves details of the stellar wind/magnetic fields, the structure of the star i.e. the depth of the convection zone etc etc. Age plays a factor (Skumanich law) but for instance massive stars lack a magnetised wind and so don't lose ang. momentum as efficiently. Small mass stars are fully convective and pin down as solid bodies thus they draw of a larger resevoir of angular momentum. See it's complex and your simplistic picture is hogwash.
9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.
I am a theorist and can explain this. See above. This is stupid stuff you typed.
10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.
Huh? this really doesn;t make any sense. What stars? If you mean the runaways like Mu Columbae then it and several others left Orion region a few million years ago almost undoubtedly when a companion went supernova. Otherwise i haven't a clue what you mean here.
11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction, but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)
Just so wrong it's sad. read a book. Your statement of the moving thing is just plain wrong.
12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.
No this is definitely not true. In fact a closed universe cannot rotate anyway. plus there is no evidence for this. this is a bullshit statement.
13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems, in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.
No No No No No. you haven't a cluw what you are talking about. You just got this list from a goofy website like Walt Brown's I bet. Structure formation in the early universe has NOTHING to do with stars/planets being present now.
Read some good books and lay off the drugs and/or Creationist lie sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 10:15 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024