|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Liability of the Theory that the law of Angular Momentum disproves Big bang. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sonicxp Inactive Member |
So let me get this straight, your saying that from 'nothingness' everything came into existance. So 'nothing' exploded and here we are today debating about 'nothing' exploding. So every scientific law we have today is from 'nothing' (lol) exploding.
Love your science mate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Did you reply to the message without reading it? Or did you read it and not understand it?
None of your comments makes any sense with regard to what Para wrote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
deleted.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-02-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fringan Inactive Member |
sonicxp writes: from 'nothingness' everything came into existance I like to think that 0 (nothing) became +1 and -1 in the big bang. Matter and antimatter? And there probably wasn't any explotion, just the "birth" of alot of mostly hydrogen gas. [This message has been edited by Fringan, 03-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I like to think that 0 (nothing) became +1 and -1 in the big bang. Matter and antimatter? From what we see, matter and antimatter are pretty unlikely ... but it is a very real possibility that the total energy content of the Universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative and appears to be pretty close to the amount of positive energy, maybe even exactly cancelling it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spencer Inactive Member |
anti-matter ...
isn't it dark matter? Is that what you are referring too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This is going off topic but:
No, anti matter is created (among other places) in the lab and well understood. It is a "mirror" form of matter that we are made of. So, for example, an anti electron (called a positron) has exactly the mass of an electron but a positive charge. If a matter particle and the corresponding anti matter particle collide they annilate each other and produce just energy. (this is because all the quantum numbers associated are opposite so they all cancel out). This is used everyday to power the star ship Enterprise. You should watch more TV . Dark matter is the generic name given to the matter that supplies the excess gravitational pull of galaxies. What it is is not known. Brown dwarves has been suggested, the mass of neutrinos also and other stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 248 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Eveolutionists always change there theories. That's why different peoples knowledge of the big bang theory are inconsistent.
Creationists never change their theory because the bible said that in the end times people would turn away from religion and make there own theories and blo blo blo you know the rest.(Actualy you probably never even touched the bible so you don't know the begining.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Creationists never change their theory
Which is why they all say that the Earth is flat, probably disc-shaped, and immovable, with the sun and moon revolving about it. This is what Scripture teaches, and those heretics and unbelievers like Galileo won't, and can't, change The Truth (TM). (We all know that the Roman Catholic Church, that Whore of Babylon, only absolved galileo of wrongdoing as a publicity stunt....)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hmm, I can't be reading that right. You seem to be saying that people who change their ideas as they come into contact with new data and new observations are not to be trusted as much as people who never, ever change their minds, no matter what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Message 154
dynamo321 writes: How does one explain "the conservation of angular momentum" not having adverse effects on the evolution theory? why do entire solar systems spin in reverse if there was a big bag? This is a bump and an attempt to bring this one back on topic. In the first page of this thread this is discussed but I will discuss it again. Individual solar systems may spin in all sorts of directions depending on what happened during their formation. It is generally chaotic. Whatever angular momentum the universe had when it got started must be conserved. The angular momentum of the individual parts must add up to the same angular momentum as there was initially. If they do there is not problem. How about an example: a pool table has a bunch of balls rolling around on it with zero friction with the table but some friction with each other. Their motion will have some total angular momentum as each rotates around it's axis. Some may be still and have zero. As the balls collide others may be stoped cold, some sped up in their spinning and some slowed down. The sum will remain the same as long as it does the balls may end up in any configuration at all. Perhaps we start with them all still. We hit one to get it spinning and moving (that is the big bang). As that one hits others some angular momentum may be transfered. Eventually several will have angular momentum. The original will be stopped perhaps. It doesn't matter as long as the total is still the same as was imparted to the first ball at the "big bang". In fact, the idea of the universe rotating may not make any sense at all. However, the individual particles will have had specific motions that, when added together, give some angular momentum in total. That is what has been collected into stars and solar systems and galaxies. That is conserved. Hovind is either willfully ignorant on this (he's had time to learn) or out right lying. Total dishonesty in either case. Deliberately praying on those who don't know enough to question him. The behaviour of the carnival huckster, a crook, a con man. (small aside: The evolution theory has nothing at all to do with the big bang or cosmology, it talks of how life changes )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4913 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
This may be a little off topic, but it is definately very much related to the question so needs saying.
In what way can the universe as a whole be said to have any angular momentum? Motion is relative, so what could the universe be said to be spinning relative to? For the objects within the universe it is impossible to define a single frame of reference where everything is static with no spin, so we can definately say objects within the universe have angular momentum. But with the universe, as far as we're aware there is nothing else. Of course this is totally irrespective of the fact that even if the universe DOES have angular momentum, that wouldn't in any way stop individual objects from having angular momentum of any value and direction, as long as the total spin of all objects adds up to the right value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
guidosoft writes: Eveolutionists always change there theories. That's why different peoples knowledge of the big bang theory are inconsistent. Very Vey true. I been hearing diferent versions since I was like in seventh grade when I had to digest a lot of Big Bang stuff for science competition. I won the competition but still dont know anything about the big bang. I dont know which theory is the best. Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Evolutionists always change there theories. That's why different peoples knowledge of the big bang theory are inconsistent. This is not true. The current cosmologist views on the Bib Bang are very consistent. The problem arises when laypeople watch a NOVA episode on PBS and only remember partial bits from the program and meld these bits together in a hodgepodge incorrect manner. Of course it doesn't help that the program itself, by necessity, skirts around issues and uses incomplete or misleading analogies. Thus, it appears to many people that Big Bang Theory is inconsistent when the inconsistency lays with everyday interpretations from the viewers. This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 11-25-2004 01:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
guidosoft wrote: Eveolutionists always change there theories. That's why different peoples knowledge of the big bang theory are inconsistent. To which jazzlover_PR replied:
quote: 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. Any answer that does not change or that does not take into account new discoveries is simply wrong. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024