The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??

Yes, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come up with this Sadly, our new friend has expunged his OP - probably in extreme embarrassment to be caught out by the unbelievable dishonesty and/or unfathomable stupidity of our friend Kent Hovind. 10 years in jail??? It should have been ten years in the stocks.

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. 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? 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.

Yeah, that's the spirit Utterly wrong for reasons explained by others Within Big Bang cosmology, there is no concept of the initial singularity "spinning". This would break rotational symmetry of the Universe. Rotation in the Universe is a result of local dynamics. Conservation of Angular Momentum (simply a statement that the original rotational symmetry of the Universe is preserved) implies that the sum of ALL rotation in the Universe will sum to zero. Retrograde orbits and retrograde spins are simply the result of local dynamics. No, this is an implication of Cons of Ang Mom, not what it states. No, the Solar System was formed from a mix of light and heavy elements, although the light elements of hydrogen and helium certainly dominate. This is trivially true whether or not the Big Bang cosmology is correct. The heavier elements were formed in earlier generation stars and prior supernovae. Radiation possibly catalysed the gravitational collapse of our local gas cloud. This is far from certain and certainly not necessary - the collapse could have been instigated by a number of possible causes. Ah, finally, a statement without gross errors - see, it can be done. False for many reasons. The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with the angular momentum distribution of the Solar System. And given that the spin-up occured while the Solar System formed an extended proto-disc, angular momentum would have been distributed throughout the disc by varying mechanisms. I think lyx2no was instructing you on some of these. You should listen to him. As we have seen, this is immaterial. May I ask who is feeding you with this bullshit? Yes, quite possibly No, it wouldn't, as the gas giants themselves were just larger blobs within the proto-disc at this time. And the proto-disc would itself shield the proto-planets from the outflow. And what has billions of years to do with this? How long do you think the T-Tauri phase lasts?Wow, what a lot of wrong...

Actually, it is It is debatable whether it should be referred to as a "law". Laws are typically observed consistencies of nature, without theoretical underpinning - conservation of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum are all consequences of deeper theory and thus are elevated above the status of a mere law. I think you've managed to confuse yourself here...Look, I listed god knows how many issues, and the only thing you come back on is my minor quibble over how you presented a consequence of Cons of Ang Mom as the statement of Cons of Ang Mon itself - and you even screw up your defence of that! It really isn't looking that good, is it?

you would have trouble showing a retarded goldfish to be stupid next to you...You come here spouting more wrong than Sarah Palin at a Mensa meeting, and yet you show no shame, no embarrassment, and just keep ploughing on. What gives? Both are intimately familiar with this, unlike you as you are blatently unaware of the diffeerence bewteen velocity and angular velocity. Jeez, this is just too painful... No, I provided the explanation but you have conveniently ignored it, along with every otherb point I have made regarding just how unbelievably wrong you are. Get back to me regarding my post where I demolish everything you have said here.

My apologies - I missed your request. Thanks to Huntard and Percy for stepping in, but once more for completeness: Message 46And you still seem to be clinging to your Solar ang mom delusions, so here's a complete paper from 51 years ago that what was part of the early work on the issue. Can I say that again? 51 years ago... and you heard that this was an issue, when? Title: On the Transference of Angular Momentum by Hydromagnetic Waves in a Primeval Nebula.
Authors: Kendall, P. C.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 129, p.194