|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Go out into your yard with a small weight tied onto the end of a thread. Swing this around over your head until it's going fast enough for the thread to snap. Then come back and report how much of the angular momentum was conserved."
All of it. Until inertia acted on it. If I spin the weight clockwise, and the tread snaps, it will travel away from center, rotating clockwise, and vice versa. "Not gravity then?" Since I'm assuming you don't understand how planets and stars are formed, I'll respond with a question. Where is the gravity force coming from? Since the big bang only contained the elements helium and hydrogen that formed gas clouds, what is celestial body is acting on these elements?? Heres a better question. What causes gravity? I'm going to bet you don't know, because no one knows. They only know that it acts on MASS. "The BBT has nothing to do with the piddling business of solar system formations." Since the Helium and Hydrogen from the big bang formed that clouds that formed all planets and stars (with the help of radiation), I would suppose your an idiot. "Did you take magnetic drag into account?" No. Dumb question. I took the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum into account. I didn't take it into account with the figure skater either, just so you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4829 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Hi Dennis,
dennis780 writes: All of it. Until inertia acted on it. If I spin the weight clockwise, and the tread snaps, it will travel away from center, rotating clockwise, and vice versa. Careful. You will find yourself contradicted by all physics books and reality on this one. The weight will travel in a trajectory tangent to the circle in the position it was in when released. It will not continue to circle at all. Just try it. Trust me.
dennis780 writes: Heres a better question. What causes gravity? I'm going to bet you don't know, because no one knows. They only know that it acts on MASS. Mass causes gravity. But we don't need to know the details. All we need to know is that gravity is what causes gas clouds to collapse.
dennis780 writes: Since the Helium and Hydrogen from the big bang formed that clouds that formed all planets and stars (with the help of radiation), I would suppose your an idiot. Careful. lyx2no is one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, but he will not hesitate to write something witty and demeaning in response to your post. Obviously what he meant was that talking about the big bang is irrelevant in discussing the specific mechanics of solar system formation. Just like it's irrelevant when discussing the aerodynamic properties of a beetle's wings. Welcome to EvC. -Meldinoor Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given. Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"I've got to get up early to go to school."
I'm sorry, are we writing a biography? Or debating? OR, are you letting me know that you promise to educate yourself (if this is the case, I'm impressed). "See my previous post. And a physics book." Your previous post does not respond to the rotational energy of the sun, or lack thereof. Response? "Why set such a low standard of evidence? Makes me think you aren't really trying. How much surface evidence would your knowledge expect to find of a collision that would liquify said surface? How much on a gas giant? oow! Trick question." Actually, no it's not. Since none of the planets with retrograde orbits are gas giants. And liquify the evidence? Are you kidding me? I don't know what your taking in school, but i hope your money is refundable. "In the most simplistic of terms; a meteor crater is the result of the damage and destruction that has been caused after a meteor has crashed into a planet’s surface. The size and speed with which this extra-terrestrial body is hurtling towards the unfortunate planet will have a determining factor on the scale of impact crater that is left behind."Meteorites.org Read the rest of the source, educate yourself. "Is it only Jupiter that you have confused with Uranus? Or are you confusing Uranus for a font of knowledge?" No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking.
A quick check of Wiki shows that Uranus has an axial tilt of 97.77 while Jupiter's is only 3.13 and neither has a retrograde orbit, maybe you should re-check your sources. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
All of it. Until inertia acted on it. Until inertia acted on it? You realize, don't you, that we're talking about inertia from the get go right?
If I spin the weight clockwise, and the tread snaps, it will travel away from center, rotating clockwise, and vice versa. The nut will not be spinning at all.
I took the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum into account. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum doesn't exist in a vacuum, ya' know? Hey! wait yes it does. You tricked me. You're tricky.
Since I'm assuming you don't understand how planets and stars are formed, I'll respond with a question. It's starting to look like you should assume nobody understands anything about anything 'cause your statements make you look a bigger ass then your questions.
Where is the gravity force coming from? Gravity is the warping of space reacting to mass.
Since the big bang only contained the elements helium and hydrogen that formed gas clouds, what is celestial body is acting on these elements?? None: mass attracts mass. Not celestial body attracts stuff. Both He and H have mass, ipso facto, mutual attraction.
Heres a better question. What causes gravity? I'm going to bet you don't know, because no one knows. They only know that it acts on MASS. Well, I live in MASS. so maybe I've got an in. Clue: we don't need to know its cause nearly so much as we need to know its behavior. That we have down pat.
I would suppose your an idiot. You're spelling takes the sting out of the slight. Not to mention it seem strangely non sequitur. One would think the early synthesis of the Universe would have a lot to do with ones suppositions concerning the mental capacity of others, but still, I tend to believe other factors nearer at hand would be more pertinent.
Dumb question. I've been told that there are no dumb question when it comes magnetic breaking during star formation. Edited by lyx2no, : Typos. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Mass causes gravity. But we don't need to know the details. All we need to know is that gravity is what causes gas clouds to collapse."
Wrong. Well...sorta. This was a longstanding theory. But ever since Cepheus B (I hope I'm spelling that right) was discovered, it's been accepted that radiation passing through the clouds causes the collapse. You have to understand that before Cepheus B, no one had observed any stars forming, and the gravitational theory was just that, a theory. "Mass causes gravity." No. Gravity acts on mass. "Careful. lyx2no is one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, but he will not hesitate to write something witty and demeaning in response to your post. Obviously what he meant was that talking about the big bang is irrelevant in discussing the specific mechanics of solar system formation." Right, so I shouldn't challenge lyx2no on his beliefs. Good one. I don't even read the names. I see something I can make a point on, and do it. Game. Set. Match. Anyways. The big bang is the source of all light gasses, and is completely relevant to the arguement of star formation, since stars are made up of these elements. Can't know where your going till you know where you've been. One quick question, before I piss my pants about lyx2no, if radiation is required for star formation, where did the first radiation come from? How did the first star ignite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4829 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Hi Dennis,
dennis780 writes: Wrong. Well...sorta. This was a longstanding theory. But ever since Cepheus B (I hope I'm spelling that right) was discovered, it's been accepted that radiation passing through the clouds causes the collapse. I'm aware of suggestions that supernovae explosions and radiation pressure help to push gas together until gravity becomes strong enough to eventually contract it and begin nuclear reactions. As far as I know, nobody denies that gravity plays the most important role in star formation. Do you have any sources verifying your claim?
dennis780 writes: No. Gravity acts on mass. Two metal balls in a lab will attract each other gravitationally. By using this knowledge, the gravitational constant was determined by Henry Cavendish in 1798. In other words, we've known since 1798 that mass creates gravitational fields. (Actually Newton knew that way before Cavendish)
Link dennis780 writes: Right, so I shouldn't challenge lyx2no on his beliefs Go right ahead. I challenge him on his beliefs whenever I think he's wrong. Just don't write anything stupid, and above all, don't go spouting ad hominems.
dennis780 writes: One quick question, before I piss my pants about lyx2no, if radiation is required for star formation, where did the first radiation come from? How did the first star ignite? I'm not sure I agree that radiation is required for star formation. But the first radiation would have appeared with the Big Bang, and early cosmic background radiation can in fact be seen as radio waves to this day. The first stars formed because the universe, even early on, was not completely uniform, but had matter spread out somewhat unevenly. See the discoveries of COBE that demonstrate this. The first stars formed through the gravitational contraction of the denser regions of matter. Respectfully, -Meldinoor Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given. Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given. Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
`The nut will not be spinning at all.`
Prove it. Thats an opinion without supporting evidence. `The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum doesn't exist in a vacuum` I`m hoping you are being sarcastic. Gravity is the warping of space reacting to mass. Wow this computer is bs. I can#t use quotations question marks anything. sorry. Bear with me on this reponse and I#ll reboot after. You didn#t answer my question, what causes gravity thats a question mark... we don't need to know its cause nearly so much as we need to know its behavior. That we have down pat. OH GOOD!! So you have documented evidence of gravity causing star formation question marks... Cause I have evidence saying it#s radiation...hmmm, which should I go with... I've been told that there are no dumb question when it comes magnetic breaking during star formation. OH GOOD!!! So you have evidence to support your theory question marks. Because NASA says I#m right. I#ll stick with them for now. Please go find me EVIDENCE. Because without it, you are stating an OPINION. An educated one, but an opinion nonetheless. Liked the use of big words by the way. You sounded smart at least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
I'm sorry, are we writing a biography? Or debating? It's just that I get, like, 97% of my self esteem fix from correcting errors made on the internet, so I can't let your posts lie without comment. I'm way too jazzed to sleep now. And I don't know if this qualifies as a debate so much as a punkfest.
Your previous post does not respond to the rotational energy of the sun, or lack thereof. Response? Well, ya' see, that's where the magnetic breaking comes in. I didn't just write that because it's got some of my favorite letters in it. The rotational energy from the gas that remains behind can be bled off into the gasses that escape by magnetic field interactions. That's why it needs to be taken into account. If a magnetic figure skater bled off sufficient quantities of charged gas one would have to take that into account too.
Actually, no it's not. Since none of the planets with retrograde orbits are gas giants. You need to wrap your head around Uranus instead of the other way round. Uranus is a retrograde, gas giant. With an axial tilt of 97.77 it is 7.77 past the mark. (Sorry, Dr. Jones*.) At 177.3 the only other retrograde planet is Venus. That makes two.
That's eight. Didn't miss any, did I?
And liquify the evidence? Are you kidding me? I don't know what your taking in school, but i hope your money is refundable. Them thar' crater makin' pebbles ain't got the juice to turn a planet around. Have you any idea how much energy one would have to impart to reverse the spin of even a wee planet? Crust melting magnitudes worth. Furthermore, your argument for CoAM, insignificant magnetic breaking added to slow retrograde rotation is a good indication that Venus was turned about by collision.
No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking. I can't stop grinning. I just can't stop grinning. Edited by lyx2no, : Insert Dr. Jones* venerable asterisk. Edited by lyx2no, : Typos. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Uranus is a retrograde, gas giant. With an axial tilt of 97.77 it is 7.77 past the mark. (Sorry, Dr. Jones.) At 177.3 the only other retrograde planet is Venus. That makes two.
They have retrograde/reverse rotations but not retrograde orbits. Unless I'm confusing terms. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking. Where are you getting this rubbish from? Jupiter has less axial tilt than any other planet except Mercury; and Uranus has retrograde rotation, not a retrograde orbit. And you could have found that out with a few seconds' research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits due to impact is an OPINION, not a fact. Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits is definitely not a fact.
Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence. You are delightfully amusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
So, this response shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.
I'll list the mistakes to make it easy for you: dennis780 writes: Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits due to impact is an OPINION, not a fact. 1) Only two planets have retrograde rotation. None have retrograde orbits.
And none of the planets have "wierd" axial orbits except for Jupiter, which rotates on it's side.
2) It's called axial tilt, not axial orbit. 3) Jupiter does not spin on its side, it has an axial tilt of about 3 degrees. 4) Uranus has an axial tilt of about 98 degrees. This is the frst planet with retrograde rotation. 5) Venus has an axial tilt of about 177 degrees. This is the second planet to have a retrograde rotation. 6) Compare this to the other planets axial tilts (Mercury 0.01 degrees, Earth 23.44 degrees, Mars 25.19 degrees, Jupiter 3.13 degrees, Saturn 26.73 degrees and Neptune 28.32 degrees), and it's very clear they have "weird" axial tilts. 7) If the third "planet" you were refeering to is Pluto, that is no longer a planet. So, that makes 7 (6 if we're generous) mistakes in a reply that is 4 sentences long. And you're calling me stupid? Ha! You're a funny guy Dennis. If you can't even get these basic facts straight, why in the world would we listen to anything else you've got to say? Edited by Huntard, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If the Big Bang is correct, and The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is correct, then we should observe the sun having 97% of the total rotational energy in our solar system. No. You should observe that only if stars never lose any angular momentum; but it is certain that they must and that they do; specifically, it is transferred to the solar wind. If you'd ever taken any real interest in this question, instead of just learning to recite creationist gibberish about it, you'd know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"I'm aware of suggestions that supernovae explosions and radiation pressure help to push gas together until gravity becomes strong enough to eventually contract it and begin nuclear reactions. As far as I know, nobody denies that gravity plays the most important role in star formation. Do you have any sources verifying your claim?"
Sure:Trigger-Happy Star Formation | NASA Cepheus B is the closest anyone has gotten to witness star formation. But the data there shows that radiation triggers the collapse. "Two metal balls in a lab will attract each other gravitationally." Right, but mass is required for the force of gravity to act. And no one knows what causes it. Maybe planets like each other. Thats my theory. "don't go spouting ad hominems." No idea what that is, so I can't make any promises. This is a hobby for me, so if I can cause the greatest minds in here to think, then I'm having fun, and thats what a hobby is supposed to be. Fun. "But the first radiation would have appeared with the Big Bang" Okay. Lets assume you are correct, and CMB's are responsible for the first star formation. Why then are other observed clouds of helium and hydrogen not collapsing, since CMB's are everywhere? Man it feels good to have my punctuation back! Not relevant to arguement.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024