Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,829 Year: 4,086/9,624 Month: 957/974 Week: 284/286 Day: 5/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 257 of 273 (473734)
07-02-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by onifre
07-02-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
Agobot writes:
According to my calculations, the Earth could be shrinked to just 100 metres.
Onifre writes:
Could you show how you came to that calculation?
By comparing the size of the electrons to the size of the nucleus. Then if it were possible to shrink an atom so that the electrons would touch the nucleus, you'd get a shrinkage of 0.00001:1, that is the Earth diameter would become 12 800km * 0.00001= 0.128km. That is, considering that further shrinkage of the nucleus would not be possible.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 12:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 3:48 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 262 by onifre, posted 07-07-2008 2:23 PM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 259 of 273 (473754)
07-02-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by lyx2no
07-02-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
lyx2no writes:
You've only gotten to the Neutron Earth stage. Not that the Earth has the mass to do it by itself, but to get to the Black hole stage you've go to get down to 8 mm.
Correct me if i am wrong but the average neutron star's size prior to the explosion into a supernova is roughly 6 times bigger than our Sun. Then we have an average size for a neutron star about 10 km in diametre. The Sun's diametre is roughly 1.4 million kilometres, so the neutron star must have been 8.4 million kilometres in diametre. Then we have a shrinkage factor of 8.4 million km/10 km.= 840 000. That would equal an Earth with a diametre = 12 800km/840 000= 15 metres.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 3:48 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 8:00 PM Agobot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 264 of 273 (474759)
07-10-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by tesla
07-10-2008 2:10 AM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Tesla writes:
now..since science is VERY want to push the "chance" scenario, you now have to explain to the entire world what i have been asking you all along:
how can a single entity, with no outside variables, NO outside interactions, become more complex without direction?
you'll never find it. not in nature, not in anything but a directed consequence, or INTERACTIONS with outside forces before any complexity can be found, so also, will you find that more things which are simple, become more complex by there interactions, with directing forces of intelligence within their forms. (DNA etc).
If you are talking about life forms getting ever more complex, you have to seriously consider the fact that life on this planet has been on the verge of extinction on a number of occasions. Some of these near extinction events gave us the variety of species we now have(human beings inclusive). If life was directed and followed some divine logic and guidance, how do you explain the mass extinction events that nearly wiped out all life on Earth?
If we did not evolove to this point to become intelligent human beings, would you consider a planet like ours teeming with other forms of life(but without us), God's creation? Because it seems during 99% of earth's life existence, there have been no humans, hence we have no ground to claim the existence of some divine guidance and direction(at least for those 99% of the period that life existed).
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by tesla, posted 07-10-2008 2:10 AM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 2:19 PM Agobot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5557 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 268 of 273 (474992)
07-12-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by johnfolton
07-12-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
johnfolton writes:
If the elements that make up the earth formed in space (big bang) then no evidence the earth itself is not 6,000-13,000 years of age.
You mean the dinosaur fossils that we keep discovering are 6-7000 years old? It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny. Education is going down the world over these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 2:19 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 11:09 PM Agobot 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