Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Liability of the Theory that the law of Angular Momentum disproves Big bang.
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 1 of 41 (50770)
08-17-2003 7:53 PM


Hi,
This has been pointed out to me that the Big bang theory defies this law of physics, The law of angular momentum. Now the big bang started with this "ball" of matter that spun clockwise faster and faster until it exploded and all of the matter flew off of it and made other balls of matter that made the galaxies and planets. Now according to the law of angular momentum these balls of matter would all have to spin clockwise. But there is a planet and some moons that spin counter-clockwise. Does this approach against the big bang work and if not why? It seems logical to me but if not please respond.
------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis
holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 08-17-2003 8:02 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 3 by DC85, posted 08-17-2003 11:19 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 11-03-2003 9:28 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2003 10:36 AM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 41 (50771)
08-17-2003 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2003 7:53 PM


Let me put it simply. Whoever invented this argument is living in a fantasy world. It is one of the worst arguments ever invented. It is wrong about BOTH the "BIg Bang" AND conservation of angular momentum.
Lets go over the problems
1) The "Big Bang" does not start off with a "ball of matter".
2) The "Big Bang" theory does not propose that the initial singularity was spinning - let alone that it was spinning clockwise.
3) The "Big Bang" happened about 9 BILLION years before our solar system formed. The direction of spin will be a product of the formation of the solar system and later interactions (possibly including the capture of material from outside the system). And all this is completely in accord with conservation of angular momentum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2003 7:53 PM Trump won has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 3 of 41 (50791)
08-17-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2003 7:53 PM


our Solar System is the Product of a Super Nova Blast NOT the Big Bang. the Planets in our Solar System are the Only ones they can be Talking about since they are the only one we KNow of real well(there are suspected planets around another star)
[This message has been edited by DC85, 08-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2003 7:53 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by smartalec_3, posted 11-02-2003 10:48 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 41 (50792)
08-17-2003 11:25 PM


Just another case of a creationist cooking up a strawman version of a theory, so that their feeble brains can come up with ways to attack it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 08-18-2003 4:08 AM Beercules has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 41 (50804)
08-18-2003 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Beercules
08-17-2003 11:25 PM


MessenjaH,
What a gullible fellow you are. And what strange people you hang out with. Your mind is being fucked up by those who 'point things out' to you. What you need to do is spin 180 degrees (clockwise or anti-clockwise, it doesn't matter) and run to the nearest library. Pick up some books about cosmology and/or physics. Actually do some reading and thinking of your own.
Have you ever been on a merry-go-round? And did you jump off while it was still spinning? If not, try it one time. It's a revealing experience. One thing it will reveal is that you will not be spinning yourself while flying through the air, unless you were already spinning around your own axis while on the merry-go-round, independent of it.
Another thing: you said that the pre-Big Bang ball of matter was spinning clockwise. Let me tick off some mistakes:
1 - Prior to the Big Bang there was no ball of matter. In fact, there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. Hell, there wasn't even 'prior'.
2 - The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Not even a very big one. The Big Bang was the coming into existence of space, time and energy. Not the release of energy, which is what an explosion is, but the coming into existence of everything. (Actually, 'Big Bang' isn't a very apt name. 'Big Birth' might have been better. Although, on second thought, I see a whole host of objections and misunderstandings looming on the (event) horizon, so never mind changing the name of the Big Bang. As long as you understand it wasn't an explosion.)
3 - If something spins clockwise, try looking at it from the other side: you'll notice it spins anti-clockwise. You might want to go back to this person who told you about the ball of matter spinning clockwise, and ask them where they imagined themselves to be standing when they imagined themselves looking at it. Watch their puzzled looks.
Cheers.
P.S. Sorry Beercules, this was of course not meant as a reply to you. My mistake.
[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Beercules, posted 08-17-2003 11:25 PM Beercules has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sonicxp, posted 03-02-2004 6:46 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 41 (50836)
08-18-2003 10:24 AM


The real question is whether to blame the schools or the parents...

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 08-18-2003 6:59 PM Karl has not replied
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 08-18-2003 9:28 PM Karl has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 41 (50915)
08-18-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Karl
08-18-2003 10:24 AM


why the schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Karl, posted 08-18-2003 10:24 AM Karl has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 41 (50931)
08-18-2003 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Karl
08-18-2003 10:24 AM


The Distribution of Angular Momentum in the Solar Nebula
"The real question is whether to blame the schools or the parents... "
--or.. Hovind.
--If anyone is interested, here is a quick essay I wrote a while ago explaining how angular momentum was distributed in the early solar nebula:
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...e/angularmomentum.htm
--Sorry, no introduction so you may have to have at least minimal background knowledge on solar cosmogony.
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Karl, posted 08-18-2003 10:24 AM Karl has not replied

  
smartalec_3
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 41 (64064)
11-02-2003 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DC85
08-17-2003 11:19 PM


damn straight
MessanjaH,
Before you believe what someone says, make sure they know what they are talking about before you distribute it to someone else.
Sorry, this was a reply to Messanja, not dc85.
[This message has been edited by smartalec_3, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DC85, posted 08-17-2003 11:19 PM DC85 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 41 (64126)
11-03-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2003 7:53 PM


Well, this has been pretty well beaten to death already, but I can't resist a short note.
messanjaH, angular momentum is conserved. That means that, if you add up all the individual angular momenta1 of the components of a system, the result is always the same. (Note that if something external reaches into the system it's a little more complicated).
So, to see if the Big Bang theory violates conservation of angular momentum, here's what your source should do:
1. Calculate the initial angular momentum of the universe. Zero sounds reasonable to me, but what we need is a mathematical derivation from first principles, not a reasonable guess.
2. Measure the motion of everything in the entire universe, calculate the angular momentum of each thing, and add them all up.
3. Is the answer to #1 the same as the answer to #2?
Of course, since it seems likely that we can't even see everything in the universe, your source did not carry out step 2; and I'll bet they didn't carry out step 1, either.
-----------------
1That may not be the correct plural

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2003 7:53 PM Trump won has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 41 (64142)
11-03-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-17-2003 7:53 PM


Messenjah:
The really important message out of this thread isn't to do with the big bang. (which by the way I recommend you just take as being a mystery for the moment--- there are lots of hard things for you to wrap you head around, you may want to take them in smaller doses). The real message is that there are a lot of people out there deliberately lieing to you to make you believe what they have to say.
Kent Hovind has come up here more than once, he is a very good bad example of the kind of people you have to watch out for.
Whoever told you this story about angular momentum and the big bang probably had no clue what they were talking about, none what so ever. Instead they took some crap that someone else had fed them as true. It will take awhile but after you start to learn a few things you will develop a better BS filter that will make good, quick judgements when you are exposed to junk.
One little quesion you might ask yourself in a case like this is -- Does it seem likely that the researchers in this field didn't think of this problem? -- Is it likely that someone without a background in physics and cosmology would come up with a problem not understood by those working in the area?
It's not impossible in some areas, it is just enormously unlikely. In this particular area it is so unlikely as to approximate impossible very, very, very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-17-2003 7:53 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sonicxp, posted 03-01-2004 7:08 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 41 (89531)
03-01-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
11-03-2003 10:36 AM


Then debate him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2003 10:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sonicxp, posted 03-01-2004 7:09 AM sonicxp has not replied

  
sonicxp
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 41 (89532)
03-01-2004 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by sonicxp
03-01-2004 7:08 AM


Kent Hovind that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sonicxp, posted 03-01-2004 7:08 AM sonicxp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 03-01-2004 4:01 PM sonicxp has not replied
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2004 11:56 PM sonicxp has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 41 (89614)
03-01-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sonicxp
03-01-2004 7:09 AM


Debates are entertainment Hollywood-style. Science is based on evidence, careful consideration and analysis of that evidence, by many people, written down and recorded, without time limits ... all of which is foreign to Hovind.
Hovind's a con-man. His supposed challenge is carefully tailored to be irrelevant to evolution and science, impossible to win, and even with the deck so severely stacked he refuses to consider many serious challengers.
If Hovind really wants a debate let him conduct one in the pages of the peer-reviewed literature. He never will, of course; there's no money to be made from suckers, and he wouldn't have a chance of holding his own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sonicxp, posted 03-01-2004 7:09 AM sonicxp has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 41 (89698)
03-01-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sonicxp
03-01-2004 7:09 AM


Come on in Kent, the water is warm (very)
Why not invite him to a debate here? If his ideas are any good they can stand up to the scrutiny of a bunch of amateurs and a few real scientists.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sonicxp, posted 03-01-2004 7:09 AM sonicxp 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