Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 12 of 99 (559881)
05-12-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by benjamin.henri
03-31-2010 3:28 AM


Con Angular Momentum
Actually, you didn't really get far enough into this theory. But I'll correct a few errors first.
There are actually 3 planets, and 9 moons in our solar system that have retrograde orbits (which is to say, they rotate backwards based on the majority of other planets).
And you are right, if the 'singularity' was spinning, this would explain the prevelance of rotation in the universe, but would not explain retrograde orbit.
Heres what you missed. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that as the distance from end to center decreases, rotation of the object must increase. This is clearly visible with figure skaters. As they pull their mass closer to their center, they spin faster.
If the Big Bang is true, then our solar system was formed from light gasses. Radiation energy caused these gasses to collapse on themselves, forming planets, and of course, our sun. As these gasses collapsed, they would increase in rotation, based on the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The sun is the largest celestial body in our solar system, having over 97% of all mass.
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. But this this not the case. In fact, it had less than 2 % of total rotational energy. This violates a physically observed law of science, and therefore, does not explain the beginning of our solar system.
On a side note, the sun would have passed through the T-tauri phase and blown all the gas off the gas gaints if it were truely billions of years old. This also shows that either the planets were not here when the sun was formed, or the sun is not that old yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by benjamin.henri, posted 03-31-2010 3:28 AM benjamin.henri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 1:04 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 3:39 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2010 9:33 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 13 of 99 (559882)
05-12-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Huntard
03-31-2010 3:56 AM


Re: Hello Mr. Hovind...
"Suffice to say that none of this is a breach of the conservation of angular momentum, the planets that spin "the other way" do so most likely because of some major impact early in their existence, that made them turn the other way. Notice that they also do this very slowly, and at a very weird axial position."
This is full of holes. Much like the big bang.
The big bang is entirely in breach of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, see my previous post. Saying that three planets have retrograde orbits due to impact is an OPINION, not a fact. There would be evidence of this, on the surface of the planets, of which there is none to my knowledge. And none of the planets have "wierd" axial orbits except for Jupiter, which rotates on it's side.
Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence.
Dennis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 03-31-2010 3:56 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 1:29 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 3:33 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 05-12-2010 3:36 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 16 of 99 (559892)
05-12-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by lyx2no
05-12-2010 1:04 AM


Re: Or Not
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 1:04 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Meldinoor, posted 05-12-2010 1:52 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 2:27 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 18 of 99 (559897)
05-12-2010 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by lyx2no
05-12-2010 1:29 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 1:29 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DrJones*, posted 05-12-2010 2:21 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 3:21 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2010 3:30 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 21 of 99 (559900)
05-12-2010 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Meldinoor
05-12-2010 1:52 AM


Re: Or Not
"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Meldinoor, posted 05-12-2010 1:52 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Meldinoor, posted 05-12-2010 2:47 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 23 of 99 (559906)
05-12-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by lyx2no
05-12-2010 2:27 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
`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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 2:27 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2010 4:03 AM dennis780 has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 30 of 99 (559914)
05-12-2010 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Meldinoor
05-12-2010 2:47 AM


Re: Or Not
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Meldinoor, posted 05-12-2010 2:47 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Meldinoor, posted 05-12-2010 4:01 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 06-04-2010 10:35 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 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 replied

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 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 replied

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 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 replied

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 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 replied

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 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 replied

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

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 51 of 99 (561484)
05-20-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
05-12-2010 9:33 AM


Re: Con Angular Momentum
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate. As distance to the center decreases, angular momentum increases. This is a documented physical observation. There is a formula for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2010 9:33 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:32 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2010 12:50 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 05-21-2010 4:12 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 55 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 05-21-2010 8:20 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 63 of 99 (561811)
05-23-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
05-21-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Just to confuse things further...
Thank you Dr. Adequate for allowing me to make you look stupid.
The LAW of conservation of angular momentum is what I am refering to. This law and formula is used to calculate velocity, it
"momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv)."
Momentum - Wikipedia
Velocity refers to an objects change in position, at a constant rate. Any change to this is called acceleration, or deceleration respectively. If anything, I would be refering to the acceleration of rotation, not it's velocity, since that would imply no change.
I'm going to assume neither of you two knew this.
The LCAM formula (v = L/(mr) states that:
"generally, for rotating bodies, if their radii decrease they must spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum. This concept is familiar intuitively to the ice skater who spins faster when the arms are drawn in, and slower when the arms are extended"
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/angmom.html
Since the sun holds more than 97% of all mass in our solar system, when light elements collapsed, and distance to R decreased, the rotational energy (that must be conserved) would cause the body to rotate similarily around 97% faster than the planets surrounding it. This is not the case. The sun completes a rotation around once a earthly month. This CLEARLY VIOLATES the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
There can only be two explanations for this.
First, that the sun is not a closed system, and an outside force at some time in the past exherted energy effecting it's rotation.
Second, the sun and planets were not created at the same time.
It matters very little which arguement you attempt to make. If you assume that some outside force acted on it, it cannot be proven, and would just be another unproven theory added to the years of theories attempting to support the outdated and untested theory of evolution. If you assume the second it true, then you have to explain how and when the planets came into existance, and why their angular momentum does not match with the suns'.
You guys really enjoy attacking people when they have an educated opinion on scientific data. I recommend you try to respond scientifically, preferably with some sort of data to support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2010 1:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 05-23-2010 7:07 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 65 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2010 8:14 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2010 5:57 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 72 of 99 (565803)
06-21-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by cavediver
05-23-2010 7:07 PM


Re: Just to confuse things further...
I cannot find your post where you "demolish everything you have said here"
repost please. Or tell me what page it is on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 05-23-2010 7:07 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Huntard, posted 06-21-2010 8:02 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 06-21-2010 8:10 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 06-26-2010 3:45 PM dennis780 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024