Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,232 Year: 5,489/9,624 Month: 514/323 Week: 11/143 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 410 (456061)
02-15-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Crooked to what standard
02-13-2008 7:29 PM


The big problem is that stars did NOT begin at the same point.
According to actual cosmology the first stars did not form until some time after the Big Bang - and stars have gone on forming to the present day. So the analogy fails badly even there.
(Added This article reports an estimate that the first stars formed 100 million years after the Big Bang)
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-13-2008 7:29 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-15-2008 3:13 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 9:52 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 9 of 410 (456123)
02-15-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Crooked to what standard
02-15-2008 3:13 PM


quote:
I got lazy and didn't want to continue repeating 'all of the cosmological gases and matter produced at the Big Bang', and simply summarized it with the word 'stars'.
But even that doesn't work because matter itself only appears after the Big Bang. And who says that the thermal energy of the particles of matter (their speed) will take them in the same direction as the general expansion ? I don't see any reason why it would have to.
And later stars - practically all the stars we can see (we need very sensitive instruments to see the earliest, "Population III" stars) - incorporate matter thrown out of supernovas. A major part of the velocity of that matter will be due to the supernova (a real explosion), not the Big Bang (not really an explosion).
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-15-2008 3:13 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 43 of 410 (457031)
02-21-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
02-21-2008 9:52 AM


Re: Re-Start of Race
quote:
If all mass and energy was compressed into such a small area, why didn't everything start at the same place?
It's really really simple and I already explained it. THere were no stars in that volume. Stars did not exist then. Matter didn't exist then. Stars formed much later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 9:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 12:46 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 51 of 410 (457054)
02-21-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
02-21-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Re-Universe
quote:
I am having a real problem here. Son says the whole universe was about the size of a pea.
That means everything in the universe had to be in some form at the point Son is speaking about.
It certainly doesn't mean that there had to be stars there ! The mass/energy would have existed in exotic forms that can only exist under such extreme conditions.
Which doesn't include normal matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 12:46 PM ICANT 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