Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
763 online now:
Hyroglyphx, nwr (2 members, 761 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,911 Year: 21,947/19,786 Month: 510/1,834 Week: 10/500 Day: 10/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3146 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 31 of 99 (559918)
05-12-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by dennis780
05-12-2010 3:39 AM


Re: Or Not
dennis780 writes:

Cepheus B is the closest anyone has gotten to witness star formation. But the data there shows that radiation triggers the collapse.

Indeed, radiation can help trigger a collapse of a star, as I suggested. That still doesn't negate the fact that gravity is what's responsible for the accretion of sufficient matter to ignite nuclear fusion. Radiation may very well play an important role in triggering star formation, but without gravity, it wouldn't be able to produce a single star.

dennis780 writes:

Right, but mass is required for the force of gravity to act.

Well yes. Mass responds to the force of gravity, but mass will also exert a gravitational force on other masses. Like the two balls that attract each other. It's not just planets that attract mass. Every molecule in my body is currently attracting every molecule in your body with a teeny tiny gravitational force. All mass in the universe attracts all other mass in the universe with a force proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses squared. This has been demonstrated since the days of Newton.

dennis780 writes:

No idea what that is, so I can't make any promises

An ad hominem is when you attack the person instead of the argument. Calling someone an idiot, for instance, does nothing to discredit their argument, and will only make you appear weak and desperate.

dennis780 writes:

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.

This is a hobby for me too, although I'm here mostly to learn from the experts and to learn to understand other points of view. Attempting to change people's minds by simply asserting things and calling them names never works, and I recommend that you slow down a little bit, read up carefully on the subjects that you're debating, and always provide sources. As you did very well with regards to Cepheus B.

dennis780 writes:

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?

CMB radiation is ubiquitous and in the low-energy radio-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Stars, on the other hand, that radiate upon a portion of a gas cloud, can push the gases in the cloud to create dense areas more favorable for star formation. CMB doesn't have this effect because of the low energies and the fact that it doesn't produce a differential effect on a gas cloud. All portions of the gas cloud get about the same amount of CMB radiation. At least I think that's a pretty good way of explaining it.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:39 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 32 of 99 (559919)
05-12-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by dennis780
05-12-2010 3:11 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
Prove it. Thats an opinion without supporting evidence.

Dude, bust loose with the 17.027¢. and head out into the yard already. While you're out there climb up onto the roof and drop a golf ball and a bowling ball at the same time. There are things one should be able to do for themselves.

I`m hoping you are being sarcastic.

Not a lot of people hope that.

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.

I'd not be so sure it's your computer. My computer isn't able to see the my hilarious "… in a vacuum." idiom just yet. I only know it printed because you referred to it. But not to worry, you're making enough errors of fact that I don't have to deride you for the technologically induced ones.

OH GOOD!! So you have documented evidence of gravity causing star formationÉÉ question marks...

Cause I have evidence saying it#s radiation...hmmm, which should I go with...

You should go with mine, 'cause you don't read so good. What you have is, as you've already been told, radiation compressing stellar gasses. It's rather obvious that external radiation pressure can cause gasses to compress. But by the same token internal radiation pressure causes the gasses to disperse. Thank goodness for gravity being able to take over and overwhelm to save the day.

Speaking of days, do you know how many days it takes for a star to form? Hint: more days than anyone has ever had at their disposal to watch Cepheus B become a star. We know how stars form because we have millions of them in various stages of formation and can infer the formation in the same way we infer dancing on a TV screen.

OH GOOD!!! So you have evidence to support your theoryÉÉ question marks.

An alert reader would note that the phrase "magnetic breaking during star formation" was tinted blue. That means if you click on it you will be wisked off into the magic land of internet evidence (Not "proof": it's an epistemological thing.) of my statement.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

Edited by lyx2no, : I was tired. Typo.


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:11 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:37 AM lyx2no has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 33 of 99 (559920)
05-12-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
05-12-2010 3:36 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
Okay, first, I can't remember who I was debating, but you sound the smartest, and gave the longest response, so your in.

Your right, i made an error in saying orbit, instead of rotation, my bad.

What else...

Uranus and Pluto rotate on their side (Pluto moreso than uranus). And fine, don't call pluto a planet, I don't really care, it has retrograde rotation, so I consider it relevant. There are moons that have retrograde rotation as well. Any celestial body that has rotation can be considered relevant.

When did they kick Pluto from the system anyways??

"And you're calling me stupid? Ha! You're a funny guy Dennis."

Thanks. And my mom always said I'd be good at nothing hey? But at least I'm getting called stupid for making spelling errors. You're still drowning in a sea of retrograde orbits and rotational energy.

I thought you had a response about the sun losing mass, thus leading to less rotation...hmm.

I will respond anyways, that way whoever wrote it can enjoy my cheesecake.

Did the sun lose 95% of it's mass over several billion years? Because thats what it would take to slow it to it's current status. Did the sun engulf everything in our solar system? Whoever said that is a poopdink.

Not you Huntard. Your diggity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 05-12-2010 3:36 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 05-12-2010 4:30 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 4:34 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 50 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2010 7:49 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 99 (559921)
05-12-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by DrJones*
05-12-2010 3:27 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
They have retrograde/reverse rotations but not retrograde orbits. Unless I'm confusing terms.

You are, of course, right. My brain immediately corrected orbit to rotation without registering. I'll also go back and edit my post for your asterisk.


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 05-12-2010 3:27 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 5:02 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 35 of 99 (559925)
05-12-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:03 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
dennis780 writes:

When did they kick Pluto from the system anyways??


See, it are things like this that make people wonder if you know what you're talking about. This was back in 2006 as a simple search on google or wikipedia would have told you. It does not fit the qualifications of a planet as decided on by the IAU.

Thanks. And my mom always said I'd be good at nothing hey? But at least I'm getting called stupid for making spelling errors.

You did far more than make spelling errors. You said Jupiter was on its side, it isn't, you said Uranus wasn't, it is. You said only Jupiter had a weird axial tilt, it doesn't, yet the two retrograde planets do. As does Pluto, by the way, its axial tilt is about 120 degrees. If you can't even get those simple facts straight, what else do you get wrong? And to top it all off, you said I was the stupid one for "copy pasting from someone" with no intelligence. First of all, I didn't copy paste that, I wrote that myself, second, you were implying it was completely wrong by saying it was written by someone with no intelligence. Yet it is you who makes the most fundamental mistakes in your reply to me. And now you act all hurt because somebody called you stupid because of a few "spelling errors", which weren't spelling errors, but complete word errors, changing the meaning of what you were trying to say completely. You repeated these several times, so it's not like it was an isolated mistake either. I don't care about simple spelling errors, they can happen to anybody, but getting the simple facts of the matter wrong (saying Jupiter is on its side, for instance) is inexcusable, and shows a lack of knowledge large enough to question anything else you have to say about this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:03 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:58 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 36 of 99 (559927)
05-12-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:03 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
But at least I'm getting called stupid for making spelling errors.

If you're going to try to pretend that repeatedly saying "orbit" instead of rotation was a spelling error, then "stupid" is probably the mildest thing you're going to get called.

Especially in the light of your next sentence in this post.

You're still drowning in a sea of retrograde orbits and rotational energy.

You should get yourself one of these.

Did the sun lose 95% of it's mass over several billion years? Because thats what it would take to slow it to it's current status.

No it isn't. It would have to lose that much of its angular momentum, which is a different thing from mass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:03 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 37 of 99 (559929)
05-12-2010 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by lyx2no
05-12-2010 4:03 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
"Dude, bust loose with the 17.027¢. and head out into the yard already. While you're out there climb up onto the roof and drop a golf ball and a bowling ball at the same time. There are things one should be able to do for themselves."

I gave you logical evidence using the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and the best you can do is, prove it? So I should prove the Law, while you offer no intelligent answer in the beginning? Evolution must be true. It's the only logical explanation. You just haven't gotten the rest of the way yet.

"Not a lot of people hope that." I hope that. You see, you think your the big guns in life because you managed to keep all your teeth brushing twice a day, and spewing 30 year old insults at random online geeks. Your biggest problem each month is finding enough change between the couch cushions so that your mom won't disconnect the internet again, and ruin your midnight WoW sessions. Your not cool. And judging from your responses, you're not all that intelligent either.

I know...graphic. The truth stings like pee on a jellyfish tenticle wrapped around your nutsack. trust me, I'd know.

"Thank goodness for gravity being able to take over and overwhelm save the day."

I'm not going to answer that until you promise to read up on star formation.

"Speaking of days, do you know how many days it takes for a star to form? Hint: more days than anyone has ever had at their disposal to watch Cepheus B become a star. We know how stars form because we have millions of them in various stages of formation and can infer the formation in the same way we infer dancing on a TV screen."

No, and neither do you. Because all you have is a THEORY. In fact, cepheus B was not OBSERVED either. We saw evidence of after the fact. Scientific facts are not theories. Please do NOT tell me how many days it takes unless you give me a SCIENTIFIC source showing the formation of a star. Stars have stages. Good for you. Again, we've only observed stars die, never born. Write that down.

"That means if you click on it you will be wisked of into the magic land of internet evidence "

I'm going to guess that isn't the only blue thing you've ever used to take you to a magical land.

I clicked on your blue thing. HEY guess what? A theory. I don't see any references to observed or documented cases of this phenomenon...strange how that works hey? Evolution is very good at this. Writing theories based on no physical evidence.

Is there a link you can make blue that has proof?

Cause I have a link...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 4:03 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 5:55 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 38 of 99 (559931)
05-12-2010 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2010 4:34 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
" It would have to lose that much of its angular momentum, which is a different thing from mass."

So mass and angular momentum are no longer related...your parents don't let you play with sharp objects do they? Or wait...should they....hmmmm

I like the ball of yarn though. I could make a good set of slippers out of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 4:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 5:01 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 39 of 99 (559932)
05-12-2010 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Huntard
05-12-2010 4:30 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
"shows a lack of knowledge large enough to question anything else you have to say about this subject."

I've got a boner. that was awesome. you should talk to my wife. tell her I want to go camping with the guys first weekend of June. She'd let me go for sure.

First. If you think I was acting hurt, you misread. If you think a internerd has the ability to do anything other than make me laugh, you are more wrong than black midget porn.

Second, you haven't answered the question, that dates from the beginning of my first post. Why do some planets (minus freakin pluto to make you smile), have retrograde ROTATION? You can sit there in your computer chair naked from the waist down beating it to power rangers all you want, just don't get your keys sticky, and don't dance around the facts. Planets, and moons, have OBSERVED retrograde rotation. Your inability to explain this turns me on like the BP oil spill.

It's 4 am here, and I'm getting paid good money to sit here and make you mad. So whenever you settle from your hissy fit, please, explain retrograde rotation. Unless you don't believe in retrograde rotation anymore. Did I spoil it for your pooky? Want me to kiss it better?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 05-12-2010 4:30 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2010 6:38 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 40 of 99 (559933)
05-12-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:48 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
So mass and angular momentum are no longer related

Earth to dennis ... the fact that two things are different does not mean that they are unrelated.

Do you understand that? Only if that is too complicated for you, I don't see how I can make it any simpler for you except just by saying "YOU ... ARE ... WRONG".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:48 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 41 of 99 (559934)
05-12-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by lyx2no
05-12-2010 4:07 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
k I don' t know who's reply i didn't answer, but one at a time please. My profile says I missed someone here...I don't know who so repost or something...this website is confusing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 4:07 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 5:24 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by hooah212002, posted 05-12-2010 5:43 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 9:27 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Admin, posted 05-13-2010 4:31 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 42 of 99 (559942)
05-12-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by dennis780
05-12-2010 5:02 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
k I don' t know who's reply i didn't answer, but one at a time please. My profile says I missed someone here...I don't know who so repost or something...this website is confusing...

If there is anything that you don't find confusing, we have yet to discover what it is.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 5:02 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 43 of 99 (559945)
05-12-2010 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by dennis780
05-12-2010 5:02 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
dennis780 writes:

this website is confusing

You've posted 33 messages already and yet to learn the ropes. You've just flown off the handle at well respected members of the community without so much as learning how to format your posts. Here, let me help you
(courtesy of RAZD in Posting Tips Message 1):



type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy



or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy



also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.


Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.


type: [url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]
and it becomes:
this message is linked to an url
Long urls force the page to be wider than the screen, and thus make reading the posts difficult. Please edit the one you have in Message 1 so we can read the page.


If you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.


the horizontal line is created by using <hr>


You can use <control><PrtScrn> to capture the whole screen and <alt><PrtScrn> to capture the active window.

Then paste into a slide program where you can modify it if necessary and then export the slide as an image or into paint and use save-as.

<PrtScrn> (Print Screen) is left over from the dos world (pre eukaryotes) and it would cause the text (of course, you think computers need pictures?) on the screen to print.



... tips about posting pictures and where to host them may be appreciated. Deep links (to the jpg on some website) should be discouraged for a number of reasons.

Enjoy.

Also, as far as seeing who it is you need to respond to, just click on the arrow indicating the unreplied message and it will take you to the message you have not replied to.


"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 5:02 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 44 of 99 (559947)
05-12-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:37 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
Firstly, you were not being called stupid for spelling errors. You were being laughed at for a spelling/grammar error. You wrote "… your an idiot." If you are going to call someone and idiot it would be a whole lot more effective it you were to write "… you're an idiot."

I gave you logical evidence using the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and the best you can do is, prove it?

Logical argument (not evidence) takes a back seat to empirical evidence such as you could garner for 17.027¢.

But your logical "evidence" falls short because it is only part of the story; hence, the line about LoCAM not existing in a vacuum. The phrase "not existing in a vacuum" is an idiom that means "Does not act alone." Yes angular momentum is conserved. But that does not mean it can not be transferred from one body to another. Stars have very powerful magnetic fields that are able to interact with the charged gasses that are being ejected from the stellar cloud during star formation. If this effect isn't taken into account one does in deed have a conundrum of LoCAM. But with it, that problem evaporates. And I certainly never said prove it. You are projecting.



[OT autobiography time]
You see, you think your the big guns in life because you managed to keep all your teeth brushing twice a day, and spewing 30 year old insults at random online geeks.

My insults are fresh, hip and tubular. And I am a geek.

Your biggest problem each month is finding enough change between the couch cushions so that your mom won't disconnect the internet again, and ruin your midnight WoW sessions.

My mum pays for the internet entire. She also gives me lunch and milk money. If Mum knew I was on the computer this much past my bedtime she'd disconnect me in a heart beat. But unfortunately for you she's in Maryland trying to fix her sister's family at the expense of her own.

Your [sic] not cool.

No, I'm not.

And judging from your responses, you're not all that intelligent either.

I don't think you've put in the effort to understand my responses.

I know...graphic. The truth stings like pee on a jellyfish tenticle wrapped around your nutsack. trust me, I'd know.

The folk tale is that urine relieves the sting of jellyfish not intensifies it. So your metaphor doesn't work save by my grace. In other words: I'm intelligent enough to know your intent and accord your allusion.[/OT autobiography time]


In fact, cepheus B was not OBSERVED either.

I do think "more days…" covered that.

I've got a bus to catch. Go ahead, speculate upon the length of the bus.

Edited by lyx2no, : Pound.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:37 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1981 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 45 of 99 (559949)
05-12-2010 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:58 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
I've got a boner. that was awesome. you should talk to my wife. tell her I want to go camping with the guys first weekend of June. She'd let me go for sure.

First. If you think I was acting hurt, you misread. If you think a internerd has the ability to do anything other than make me laugh, you are more wrong than black midget porn.

Hey, I recognise all this sex-obsessed talk - I think we've got a born-again Christian. And Jesus loves it when his followers talk shit about stuff of which they have no clue. They get rewarded in heaven for it.

It's 4 am here, and I'm getting paid good money to sit here and make you mad.

You're making no-one mad. You're making me, a cosmologist, piss myself laughing at your ability to be wrong about everything. But you also make us a bit sad that we have to put up with people such as yourself counted amongst humans. We do have standards after all, and we should make some effort to keep them. Have you considered sterilisation? As deliberately passing on your genes could be construed as child-abuse...

Anyway, let me just pick up on your obsession with Cepheus B. You did read the article you cited?

From the article writes:

"Astronomers have generally believed that it's somewhat rare for stars and planets to be triggered into formation by radiation from massive stars," said Konstantin Getman of Penn State University, and lead author of the study. "Our new result shows this belief is likely to be wrong."

In other words, it looks like radiation-catalysed collapse is more common than we thought. You do understand that this does not mean that it is essential? Classic gravitationally-catalyzed collapse via Jeans Instability is still a major process. So what was your point again?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:58 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019