|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
benjamin.henri Junior Member (Idle past 5111 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
So my question is how can The Big Bang theory fit in with the conservation of Angular momentum?
The conservation of angular momentum says that if an object is spinning and a piece seperate from that object and "flies" off then that piece must spin in the same direction. For example if a kid is on a merry go round and the mery go round speeds up by spinning in a clockwise direction to a point where the kid would literally fly off it then the kid must spin in a clockwise direction when he flies of it. If there was a Big Bang of when the matter was spinning impossibly fast then blew up the everythin in the universe MUST spin in the exact same direction, but this is not aparent as even in our own solar system there are two planets that spin backwards there are ven entire galaxies that spin backwards, how is this possible according to Cosmology Evolution Edited by benjamin.henri, : No reason given. Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSlev Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Hi,
There are two different approach to the question in your OP: 1- How does the conservation of angular momentum apply to the Big Bang ? 2- How does the conservation of angular momentum apply to the formation of a Solar System ? How can we explain planets that move in the opposite direction in our own Solar system ? I'll promote the topic, but I suggest that each question be taken independantly to begin with. Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSlev Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
And welcome to EvC! /sarcasm
You got this from Kent Hovind, didn't you?
benjamin.henri writes:
Perfectly. More explanation below.
So my question is how can The Big Bang theory fit in with the conservation of Angular momentum? If there was a Big Bang of when the matter was spinning impossibly fast then blew up...
There wasn't. Case closed Ok, some more explanation. The Big Bang was not matter spinning very fast and then blowing up, it was the expansion of space-time. Nothing blew up, nothing was spinning. I suggest you read up a bit on what the Big Bang theory actually says before you continue in this vain.
everythin in the universe MUST spin in the exact same direction, but this is not aparent as even in our own solar system there are two planets that spin backwards there are ven entire galaxies that spin backwards, how is this possible according to Cosmology Evolution
I'll leave these to someone else. Suffice to say that none of this is a breach of the conservation of angular momentum, the planets that spin "the other way" do so most likely because of some major impact early in their existence, that made them turn the other way. Notice that they also do this very slowly, and at a very weird axial position. A tip for you, if you use the "peek" button on the lower right of my post, you'll see how I did those quoteboxes. It helps keep your posts looking nice and easy to read. And a bonus tip: Everything else Hovind says is just as wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This is a crazy Kent Hovind argument.
quote: No informed creationist uses this argument. No informed person claims that the Big Bang involved matter "spinning impossibly fast" that "blew up". Kent Hovind appears to have made that idea up. More importantly, there are 9 billion years between the Big Bang and the formation of our solar system. The direction of the orbits of the planets about the sun has to do with that formation, not with the Big Bang itself. Although the galaxies are older the same may be said for them. The argument is simply nonsense. All you have shown is that you are woefully misinformed. Edited by PaulK, : Most of my post disappeared - attempting to restore it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
benjamin.henri Junior Member (Idle past 5111 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
Ohkay so i can provide a better understanding to what you think what would you recommend i read about the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I'd start with this wikipedia article. If there are any questions after that, ask them. We've got actual physicists here on the board, and some very intersted lay people, who I am sure are willing to help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'd suggest an introductory book, laying out the history of the universe, as seen by science, from the Big Bang ay least to the formation of the solar system. Most of the books I am familiar with would be more advanced than that. Even the Wikipedia article recommended by Huntard is a bit more detailed than I would suggest at this point.
We have a forum, "The Book Nook" which might be appropriate to discuss this. Perhaps if you proposed a topic asking for recommendations there you might get some ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
benjamin.henri writes: Ohkay so i can provide a better understanding to what you think what would you recommend i read about the topic? Before you read anything, why don't you just go to a playground, spin yourself around on a merry-go-round until you slide off, and see if you really keep spinning when you do. Or, to make it easier on yourself (and to spare your backside), spin a weight on a string, let it go, and watch what it does when it flies off. A simple experiment suffices to disabuse yourself of the erroneous picture you have of the conservation of angular momentum. You shouldn't simply believe everything people write. (Or anything Kent Hovind writes, for that matter.) Welcome to the forum, by the way. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
why don't you just go to a playground, spin yourself around on a merry-go-round... Yes, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come up with this Sadly, our new friend has expunged his OP - probably in extreme embarrassment to be caught out by the unbelievable dishonesty and/or unfathomable stupidity of our friend Kent Hovind. 10 years in jail??? It should have been ten years in the stocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
cavediver writes:
But lucky for us, he left his Message 1 in his original proposal (The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??) untouched. To keep full disclosure, here is the original OP reproduced:
Sadly, our new friend has expunged his OP - probably in extreme embarrassment to be caught out by the unbelievable dishonesty and/or unfathomable stupidity of our friend Kent Hovind. benjamin.henri writes: So my question is how can The Big Bang theory fit in with the conservation of Angular momentum? The conservation of angular momentum says that if an object is spinning and a piece seperate from that object and "flies" off then that piece must spin in the same direction. For example if a kid is on a merry go round and the mery go round speeds up by spinning in a clockwise direction to a point where the kid would literally fly off it then the kid must spin in a clockwise direction when he flies of it. If there was a Big Bang of when the matter was spinning impossibly fast then blew up the everythin in the universe MUST spin in the exact same direction, but this is not aparent as even in our own solar system there are two planets that spin backwards there are ven entire galaxies that spin backwards, how is this possible according to Cosmology Evolution Don't be embarassed, Benjamin, just realise how wrong Hovind is, and don't buy into any other of his lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4777 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
Actually, you didn't really get far enough into this theory. But I'll correct a few errors first.
There are actually 3 planets, and 9 moons in our solar system that have retrograde orbits (which is to say, they rotate backwards based on the majority of other planets). And you are right, if the 'singularity' was spinning, this would explain the prevelance of rotation in the universe, but would not explain retrograde orbit. Heres what you missed. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that as the distance from end to center decreases, rotation of the object must increase. This is clearly visible with figure skaters. As they pull their mass closer to their center, they spin faster. If the Big Bang is true, then our solar system was formed from light gasses. Radiation energy caused these gasses to collapse on themselves, forming planets, and of course, our sun. As these gasses collapsed, they would increase in rotation, based on the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The sun is the largest celestial body in our solar system, having over 97% of all mass. 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. But this this not the case. In fact, it had less than 2 % of total rotational energy. This violates a physically observed law of science, and therefore, does not explain the beginning of our solar system. On a side note, the sun would have passed through the T-tauri phase and blown all the gas off the gas gaints if it were truely billions of years old. This also shows that either the planets were not here when the sun was formed, or the sun is not that old yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4777 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Suffice to say that none of this is a breach of the conservation of angular momentum, the planets that spin "the other way" do so most likely because of some major impact early in their existence, that made them turn the other way. Notice that they also do this very slowly, and at a very weird axial position."
This is full of holes. Much like the big bang. The big bang is entirely in breach of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, see my previous post. Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits due to impact is an OPINION, not a fact. There would be evidence of this, on the surface of the planets, of which there is none to my knowledge. And none of the planets have "wierd" axial orbits except for Jupiter, which rotates on it's side. Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence. Dennis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
if the 'singularity' was spinning, this would explain the prevelance of rotation in the universe Go out into your yard with a small weight tied onto the end of a thread. Swing this around over your head until it's going fast enough for the thread to snap. Then come back and report how much of the angular momentum was conserved. 9/16ths" nut: 17¢. 2 feet Mercerized cotton thread; 0.027¢. Discovering you've no idea what you were talking about: Priceless.
Radiation energy caused these gasses to collapse on themselves Not gravity then?
The sun is the largest celestial body in our solar system, having over 97% of all mass. 97% of what's left behind. What percentage is it of the original cloud? Now, if there was some kind of interaction with that cloud that could have induced a breaking action Hey! Just sayin'; ya' never know. Well, not if you don't bother to, like, read.
If the Big Bang is correct The BBT has nothing to do with the piddling business of solar system formations. You might as well claim that the 1950s A-bomb tests have something to do with how the dust settles behind skittering cockroaches.
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. Did you take magnetic drag into account? Hey! Just sayin'. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I've got to get up early to go to school.
The big bang is entirely in breach of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, see my previous post. See my previous post. And a physics book.
There would be evidence of this, on the surface of the planets, of which there is none to my knowledge. Why set such a low standard of evidence? Makes me think you aren't really trying. How much surface evidence would your knowledge expect to find of a collision that would liquify said surface? How much on a gas giant? oow! Trick question.
And none of the planets have "wierd" axial orbits except for Jupiter, which rotates on it's side. Is it only Jupiter that you have confused with Uranus? Or are you confusing Uranus for a font of knowledge?
Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence. Nor should one copy from someone who eats their paste. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024