|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking. Where are you getting this rubbish from? Jupiter has less axial tilt than any other planet except Mercury; and Uranus has retrograde rotation, not a retrograde orbit. And you could have found that out with a few seconds' research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits due to impact is an OPINION, not a fact. Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits is definitely not a fact.
Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence. You are delightfully amusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If the Big Bang is correct, and The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is correct, then we should observe the sun having 97% of the total rotational energy in our solar system. No. You should observe that only if stars never lose any angular momentum; but it is certain that they must and that they do; specifically, it is transferred to the solar wind. If you'd ever taken any real interest in this question, instead of just learning to recite creationist gibberish about it, you'd know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But at least I'm getting called stupid for making spelling errors. If you're going to try to pretend that repeatedly saying "orbit" instead of rotation was a spelling error, then "stupid" is probably the mildest thing you're going to get called. Especially in the light of your next sentence in this post.
You're still drowning in a sea of retrograde orbits and rotational energy. You should get yourself one of these.
Did the sun lose 95% of it's mass over several billion years? Because thats what it would take to slow it to it's current status. No it isn't. It would have to lose that much of its angular momentum, which is a different thing from mass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So mass and angular momentum are no longer related Earth to dennis ... the fact that two things are different does not mean that they are unrelated. Do you understand that? Only if that is too complicated for you, I don't see how I can make it any simpler for you except just by saying "YOU ... ARE ... WRONG".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
k I don' t know who's reply i didn't answer, but one at a time please. My profile says I missed someone here...I don't know who so repost or something...this website is confusing... If there is anything that you don't find confusing, we have yet to discover what it is. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate. Oh look, you said something true.
As distance to the center decreases, angular momentum increases. Oh look, you said something false.
Because of the law of conservation of angular momentum, if all that happens to a body is that it contracts, its angular momentum must stay exactly the same. Otherwise angular momentum wouldn't be being conserved, would it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thus in this equation mass, velocity and distance are inversely proportional. If one increases the other two factors combined MUST decrease in order to 'conserve' angular momentum. Slow down. You're skipping ahead in a way that is misleading.
L = r x mv applies to a single object, or strictly speaking to a single particle. Now clearly the angular momentum of such an object need not be conserved. We could give it a good kick. The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to systems of objects, where by system we mean a set of objects which interact only with one another and not with anything outside the system. That is, it states that the sum of the angular momenta of a system of objects will be a constant. It only applies to one object if it is a system unto itself --- that is, if it is isolated from the rest of the universe. I emphasize this point because it is one that our silly creationist has so far failed to grasp. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Was that the angular velocity of a spinning body increases as its mass is brought closer to the center of rotation. I know he said "angular momentum," but I think he meant "angular velocity." And I think that he doesn't know the difference. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thank you Dr. Adequate for allowing me to make you look stupid. Let me know when you propose to start.
The LAW of conservation of angular momentum is what I am refering to. This law and formula is used to calculate velocity, it "momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv)."Momentum - Wikipedia Velocity refers to an objects change in position, at a constant rate. Any change to this is called acceleration, or deceleration respectively. If anything, I would be refering to the acceleration of rotation, not it's velocity, since that would imply no change. I'm going to assume neither of you two knew this. The LCAM formula (v = L/(mr) states that: "generally, for rotating bodies, if their radii decrease they must spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum. Whereas you said that a decrease in radius would increase angular momentum. Which would violate the law of conservation of angular momentum. I shall for now overlook your other blunders, because, really, until you can admit that I am right in saying that when angular momentum increases it is not being conserved I don't think you're ready for any more sophisticated concepts.
Since the sun holds more than 97% of all mass in our solar system, when light elements collapsed, and distance to R decreased, the rotational energy (that must be conserved) would cause the body to rotate similarily around 97% faster than the planets surrounding it. This is not the case. The sun completes a rotation around once a earthly month. This CLEARLY VIOLATES the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. No it doesn't. Nothing violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.
There can only be two explanations for this. First, that the sun is not a closed system, and an outside force at some time in the past exherted energy effecting it's rotation. And we know for certain that this is the case.
It matters very little which arguement you attempt to make. If you assume that some outside force acted on it, it cannot be proven ... Yes it can. We know that the sun emits charged particles. We know what effect a rotating magnetic field must have on them. It is certain that the sun must lose angular momentum.
You guys really enjoy attacking people when they have an educated opinion on scientific data. Your delusion that you have an educated opinion on these topics lies at the root of all your other delusions. When you realize how much you have failed to learn, then your education can begin. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But I can tell you what I do NOT see. You have all these formulas, but I do not see any calculations. They'd be over your head. If you really like, I'll dig you out links to the relevant scientific literature, but I don't anticipate you getting much out of it.
I have no idea what magnetic coupling is, and I googled it, but it's over my head, probably because there is some schooling required prior to learning it. I don't mind if you want to respond, but could you dummy it for me so I can understand your points? Sure, let's explain this at least as it relates to the Sun. The Sun emits charged particles (the solar wind). As you should know (Newton and all that) if no force acts on these particles, they should go off in a straight line at a constant velocity. But there is a force acting on them, because they are charged particles in a rotating magnetic field. This accelerates them sideways relative to the axis of rotation of the Sun, meaning that they acquire non-zero angular momentum (taking the center of the Sun as the origin of our co-ordinate system). So the law of conservation of angular momentum means that the Sun must slow down. This might be simpler for you if I explain using an analogy without magnetism. Imagine a figure skater spinning clockwise. In her right hand she has a bunch of pebbles, and in her left hand she has a ping-pong bat. Every now and then she throws a pebble straight out in front of her, and then whacks it sideways (to her right) with her ping-pong bat. You can see that this must slow her rate of spin: you can see this either by considering the law of conservation of angular momentum or just by thinking about Newton's Third Law. The ice skater stands for the sun, the pebbles stand for the solar wind, and the ping-pong bat for the action of the magnetic field. It's not a perfect analogy, but it should give you some idea of what's going on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, it read correctly, but when I copied and pasted the formula, it did that. Try using the peek mode before copying.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun? As Coragyps says, they don't emit charged particles.
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it? In what way? If you're still thinking about magnetism, I gather that the average magnetic field of the Milky Way is of the order of one-millionth the intensity of the magnetic field at the surface of the Sun.
The sun is not specific? I'm confused. Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline? Well, here's someone doing the math. I'm not sure that it will leave you any the wiser.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
how do you know what province I'm in?? What the hell. All evolutionists have psychic powers, didn't you know? You're located in Alberta. For my next trick I shall need to borrow a pocket handkerchief. Thank you, sir. Observe that there is nothing up my sleeves ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First the bad, I have no idea what or how we got into Mars. I don't understand why you calculated all that. AT ALL. His point is that it is possible to appreciate the meaning of a bit of physics in a qualitative way without working through the math and physics. You, for example, now know why the Sun should slow down. If you wanted to calculate how much it would slow down over the next million years given data about the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field, you would doubtless be all at see, but you have at least grasped why it should slow down.
You have given variables, such as magnetic coupling, etc., which I fully ACCEPT, but do not understand how it affects the rotation to such a degree, which is what I am waiting for an answer. I read some information on MC, but it's way over my head. I think I showed you some physics. Really there's nothing much you can do except either just take it on trust --- or really get into the physics. For now, isn't it enough to say that since you understand why the Sun must lose angular momentum, you can safely discount any creationist arguments based on the assumption that it hasn't?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024