Big Bang - Big Dud

Urea?

Ether.

Eta's probably going to freak, but ...I have heard that the "extra" precession of the orbit of Mercury which was eplained by relativity can be thought of as due to the gravitational field of the Sun's gravitational field. That is, the matter of the Sun has a gravitational field, which has a gravitational field, which has a gravitiational field, ... and so on to infinity (but presumably a finite sum!). Overall the gravitational field around the Sun is larger than is due to just the matter.Dunno if it's realistic, but it sounds cute.

if light is a particle and a wave then as a particle it has mass but as a wave it has none so it is both matter and not or does a wave have mass and is therefore matter as well ???

quote:

---

if light is a particle and a wave then as a particle it has mass but as a wave it has none so it is both matter and not or does a wave have mass and is therefore matter as well ???

---

Actually, anything with velocity and mass has a wavelength. Using de Broglie's equation:wavelength = h/m*vwhere
h=Plank's constant
m=mass
v=velocitySo even a car going down the freeway is both matter and a wave. However, the wavelength at 100 kmh is so long it becomes meaningless. It is only at relativistic speeds does the wavelength become an influence on how something behaves. Just for an example, a human moving near the speed of light may actually refract, just like light, if they passed through a small enough aperature, say a door way. Just from memory, but the variable m*v is changed to momentum (p) when dealing with photons. I am not sure if this means that the mass of a photon can not be measured or if it is impossible to separate the mass from the momentum. Been a while.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-19-2004]

So your saying that after a neuclear reation takes place you have more energy than when you started?

More energy and less mass, as far as I understand it. Of course you could consider that mass as potential energy, so the math works out.

Mmmm

As I remember it, the atom bomb at Hiroshima used up about a gram of matter and poofed it off as energy. 1 gram x (30,000,000,000 cm/sec)^2 = 9 x 10^20 ergs = 3.3 x 10^7 horsepower-hours. So yup, you have "more energy", since it's not in the form of matter anymore.

I said after the reaction not during it... and if Im not mistaken the energy must have been harnessed within the matter. and after the reaction...matter conversion and explosion heat loss...what was left? massive entropy? useable energy to unsusable energy...you couldnt re assemble the original componants and make another device to have the same reaction...you would need more material. right?

I would assume so today but in the 60s there was some idea that biological transmutations could exist in Lobsters and Baked Bread where new phyiscs of isotopic regularities were being researched for anew in the Sahara desert to which I thought of again philosophically when Von Weiscker used the ENGLISH word "transformation" in some association to biology before WWII refering to any the same objects.

Well, yes. You've more or less turned energy in the 'form' of matter into energy in the form of kinetic+heat energy.The point is that there is no reason for matter to be conserved in this case.

quote:

---

Argument against the Big Bang
By CreationScientist
The definition for the Big Bang I took out of page 362 of the �HBJ General Science� 1989 Edition Textbook.
�In the realm of the universe nothing really means nothing. Not only would matter and energy disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion 16.6 billion years ago.�

---

General Science Texbooks are usually a simplified introduction to a subject and no one would consider them to be the full body of knowledge.

quote:

---

Also from the �Scientific American� May 1984 Edition Page 128.
�The observable universe could have formed from an infinitesimal region� The entire universe evolved from literally nothing.�

---

See above.

quote:

---

As stated above in the beginning there was nothing than it exploded. Does everybody know what the first law of thermodynamics says? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Here matter is definitely being formed from nothing. This is just bad science; even the most basic scientist knows that matter could not have arising from nothing exploding.

---

So it is likely that there was something and that the reference is wrong.

quote:

---

On page 61 of the 1992 Edition �Prentice Hall General Science� textbook it states.
�Most scientists believe that 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason this region exploded. This explosion is called the Big Bang.�
In this at least there is matter to begin with.

---

Very good. Now we have replaced Nothing with Something. It is a beginning.

quote:

---

On page 69 the book states that �as the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster.� So this region is spinning. Does everybody know what the law of conservation of angular momentum is? This law states that in a frictionless environment, remember above it said all the matter in the universe was concentrated, if a spinning object brakes up the pieces will spin in the same direction as the original object.

---

Spin must be in relation to something. If there is only one object it is impossible to know whether it is spinning or not. If you have moved forward in time to the period when there are separate nebula or galaxies, almost any direction of motion is possible. You are no longer dealing with a single object but rather with multiple objects that will have a relationship and effect on each other.

quote:

---

Two planets spin backwards, one spins on its side, and Jupiter has several moons that orbit the planet backwards and spin backwards. Doesn�t this seem just a little strange to you?

---

No!

quote:

---

You may say that maybe something struck the planets to make them spin backwards. Do you know what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet? I think it would leave a dent.

---

Whether or not there was a dent would depend greatly on what the state and condition of the objects were. But there are quite a few other mechanisms that might lead a planet sized object to spin in one direction or another. For example, a captured moon could well have been spinning in most any direction before being captured. It would most likely continue spinning in the same direction until tidal or other forces changed its spin.

quote:

---

Evolution is every bit as much as a religion as creation is. When you get right down to it, you must believe something without knowing why it happened. �For some unknown reason this region exploded.�

---

I believe that you misunderstand science. Science is not involved with WHY something happens or happened. Instead it is a documentation of WHAT happened and HOW it happened. That is far different than why it happened. It is totally immaterial WHY the Big Bang happened. If you are religious, then you can say GOD made it happen. That is fine with any scientist I know. The scientist would then ask, How did he (or she) do it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which two? Uranus "spins" on it's side.There is an explanation for the mechanics of various rotational axis tilts. This site does point out that the Uranus system is a "difficult problem". What is your point exactly?CANOPUS 03/11 - The Minor Planets

the energy you spoke of, rineholdr, is binding energy (BE). this also explained as mass defect(dM), the mass equivalent of (binding energy), the energy used to bind the nucleons together(overcoming the EMF, i think). you may be aware of the "energy well" analogy used with electrons. it works similarly with nucleons. we add energy to "fissionable" nuclei, usually by throwing a neutron at it. this raises their nucleons to an excited state or makes the atom's nucleus unstable(protons' charges repelling each other overcomes the strong force holding them together) to a point where fission is probable.so what is left after fission? usually two fission products(smaller, usually radioactive atoms), some neutrons, and some gammas(high energy photons). remember that the energy released here(neutron KE, photons, and fission product KE is all due to the binding energy being released. kinda like letting out a fart after holding it for a half an hour. well, not really.dont't know how entropy work's into this. i guess it goes up like to always does.do you need more fissionable material? yes, unless you want to go chasing around some fission products i'd suggest finding more uranium/plutonium.