Big Bang - Big Dud

Popularizations are inaccurate, and 20-ish-year-old popularizations are out of date.It is possible that the total energy content of the Universe is exactly zero. It's certainly close to zero (crudely put, gravitational energy is negative and mass is positive energy and the two are known to be close to cancelling each other out).It's also possible that the law of conservation of mass-energy is only true in relatively small areas, like a galaxy or two. In the curved space of General Relativeity, conservation of mass-energy can't even be defined over large areas.Your "understanding" of conservation of angular momentum is severely flawed. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that, for an isolated system, the total angular momentum does not change. In order to claim that the Big Bang contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:1. State what the angular momentum of the Universe was at the instant of the Big Bang, and give your reasons why you believe that is the amount. (You'll also have to state why you believe it's possible to define the angular momentum of the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang).2. Measure the motion of everything in the Universe, and calculate the angular momentum of every body in the Universe relative to some point. Add up all these numbers.3. Is the result of (1) the same as the result of (2)? If not, the Big Bang may indeed violate the law of conservation of angular momentum!4. Report back when you're finished. I'll wait.In other words, the angular momentum of the Solar System and/or the direction of rotation of individual bodies has absolutely nothing to do with the angular momentum of tehe Universe except that they are an infinitesimal contribution to the total. And, if you don't know the total, you can't make any statements.

Most of us, perhaps all, have not been trying to prove him wrong, because his ideas are carefully crafted to be unscientific, untestable, and unrefutable. Every attempt to find some prediction of his "theory" that could be tested has been met with obfuscation and denial. I noted early in his "bulletproof alternate universe" thread that his ideas could not be refuted.Most of the "discussion" has been attempts to correct his egregious errors and misconceptions about science and the Big Bang.I'm a little troubled by his suspension. However, he has steadfastly refused to support his claims and conduct a good-faith discussion. If this suspension leads hin to change his ways (I doubt that it will) then it will be a good thing.

Er, you're both wrong. Harun Yahya is the nom-de-plume of an Muslim anti-evolution organization. The Hindus Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson wrote Forbidden Archaeology, which includes some anti-evolution material. I've heard tell of small Native American religious anti-evolution groups.Of course, not every religious affiliation is involved in ant-evolution.

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.

For the origin of the first living things you go to abiogenesis research (which is a lot less well developed and understood than the theory of evolution, and has lots of unanswered questions). For the formation of the universe you go to cosmology (which is pretty well developed and understood, but there are still some pretty big uanswered qurestions).Sometimes the formation of the universze is referred to as an evolution, but the theory of evolution is always about biological organisms on Earth. Nobody can beat what Douglas Adams said about this:

quote:

---

A puddle wakes up one morning and starts thinking, "this is an interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me precisely. This whole world must have been made to fit me. As the sun shines the puddle evoporates slowly and keeps wondering how very well everything fits and is convinced that the world is made for it."

---

The Big Bang was not an explosion. The term "Big Bang" does suggest an explosion, and that's unfortunate, but the event was not an explosion.(Historical note; the term "Big Bang" was originated by Sir Fred Hoyle, who had a competing theory and thought the Big Bang theory was silly. The term "Big Bang" was supposed to suggest how silly he thought it was. The term, however, stuck ... and we're stuck with it.) Unjustified assumption, based on our everyday experience and common sense .. which we know often leads us astray when considering things so far outside of our everyday experience.Nobody knows. There is at least one possibility that is perfectly consistent with all the laws of physics that we know, and in which it literally didn't start with something; it could have started with nothing and been generated by a quantum fluctuation. Well, it was never blowing up, but the Big Bang is still going on. The expansion of the Universe that started with the Big Bang continues today and it's almost certain that it's accelerating.You might want to look at Message 1.

Subtract the "found something to marry,(that's a pretty good trick)" part and yeah, that's pretty much what happened. Although it could be described a lot better.Reality doesn't care whether you believe it or not, reality doesn't care whether or not you can conceive of how it could be that way. Reality just is. The Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, abiogenesis, then evolution.¹Every bit of evidence, and that's every bit of a humungous pile of interconnected evidence that we've built up over the years, points to it happening that way (although, as I wrote, we don't know much of where the Big Bang came from). I don't know what you believe but, if the Earth and life really were created ex nihilo about 10,000 years ago, then God put a lot of effort into lying to us about that. Myself, I think that what God wrote in the rocks trumps what Man wrote in the Bible.------------
¹I admit the possibiliity of a God or Gods that set it into motion and may even interfere once in a while; but I can't believe in an omnipotent being who's concerned with a few living things on an unimaginably small dust-speck in one corner of a vast Universe.