|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
But I'll correct a few errors first. Yeah, that's the spirit
There are actually 3 planets, and 9 moons in our solar system that have retrograde orbits Utterly wrong for reasons explained by others
And you are right, if the 'singularity' was spinning Within Big Bang cosmology, there is no concept of the initial singularity "spinning". This would break rotational symmetry of the Universe.
this would explain the prevelance of rotation in the universe, but would not explain retrograde orbit. 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.
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. No, this is an implication of Cons of Ang Mom, not what it states.
If the Big Bang is true, then our solar system was formed from light gasses. 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 energy caused these gasses to collapse on themselves, forming planets, and of course, our sun. 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.
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. Ah, finally, a statement without gross errors - see, it can be done.
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. 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.
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. As we have seen, this is immaterial. May I ask who is feeding you with this bullshit?
On a side note, the sun would have passed through the T-tauri phase Yes, quite possibly
and blown all the gas off the gas gaints if it were truely billions of years old. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I've only read up to Message 20 so far, but I hope the ad hominem I've seen so far were not just the early stages of a thread spinning out of control. If references to idiots and asses are all just part of a spirited give and take where no one gets offended and the topic still gets discussed then no problem, but as is often said, it's all fun 'till someone gets hurt. So please don't do anything that would cause moderators to have to come in and clean up the mess. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
k I don' t know who's reply i didn't answer, but one at a time please. One at a time isn't likely but relax: It's a debate, not a race. I have another experiment for you, d780. Locate a shallow puddle of murky water. Put your finger in water and move it in a straight line. Take note of the swirl pattern. But since your finger moved in a more or less straight line whence the swirls? And there are clockwise as well as counterclockwise swirls. How can this possibly be since all of the angular momentum of the big bang was either one way or the other? (Note to cd et al: I understand the BBT imparting net ang mo upon the Universe is nonsensical. I'm just not prepared to tackle the obvious with you-know-who.) This Hubble image of Arp128 shows the aftermath of a collision of two galaxies. I hope you recognize this as the galactic "finger-puddle" equivalent. The following Subaru Telescope image of the antenna Galaxy shows clockwise and counterclockwise swirls. We observe cw and ccw swirls on scales ps10-12< planetary scale < ps1012. Can we safely conclude we'll get cw & ccw swirls on the planetary scale merely from random, local motion; aka, turbulence? Do you retire your BBT LoCAM argument? Edited by lyx2no, : Complete question. Edited by lyx2no, : Correct understatement. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
dennis780 writes: 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... Gee, I was hoping for "full featured and taking time to fully appreciate," but I guess I'll have to settle for "confusing." Seriously, if you can think of how it might be made less confusing please send me a PM anytime you get an idea. You mentioned that your profile says you missed someone here. If by "profile" you mean the page that comes up when you click on your name, then the arrows under the "New Replies" column are links to messages you haven't yet replied to. The up arrow points to the oldest unreplied to message, and the down arrow points to the newest. The "Yes" is also a link. If you click on "Yes" it will mark all responses to you that you haven't responded to as "acknowledged", the "Yes" will change to "No", and the arrows will go away. If you click on the "No" it will mark all the responses to you as unresponded to and the "No" will change to a "Yes". Messages you've already posted responses to are unaffected. In addition, on the message pages you'll see links at the bottom of replies to you that say, "dennis780 has not yet replied." If you click on the link it will change to "dennis780 acknowledges this reply." This obviates the need for acknowledgment replies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Hi, Dennis! Nice hobby you're taking up here....
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. Weren't you the one who mentioned figure skaters? They tend to not have intrinsic magnetic fields, and, if they do emit gas, do so on an intermittent basis - and lkely very rarely when they are doing a spin. Stars, though, have magnetic fields and stellar winds. Stars, therefore, have a mechanism of slowing their spin that isn't available to skaters: magnetic braking. They send out part of their mass and stay coupled to it. Skaters stick out part of their mass - their arms - and stay coupled to them. Reading is a good hobby, too, Dennis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4777 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate. Oh look, you said something true.
As distance to the center decreases, angular momentum increases. Oh look, you said something false.
Because of the law of conservation of angular momentum, if all that happens to a body is that it contracts, its angular momentum must stay exactly the same. Otherwise angular momentum wouldn't be being conserved, would it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate. It is your understanding of it that is debatable.
There is a formula for it. L=rmv. Your skater's angular momentum, L, is conserved, so we can set her initial ang-mo, Li equal to her resultant ang-mo, Lr. This is equivalent to rimvi=rrmvr. Setting her mass equal to 1; rivi=↓rr↑vr. As your skater's radius decreased her velocity proportionally increased. Have I established that we got it. You don't need to harp on the obvious. Now, go buy a nut. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate. 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.
As distance to the center decreases, angular momentum increases. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3102 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
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. What part of "conservation" of angular momentum do you not understand? Let me break it down for you in layman's terms Dennis: L = r x p, also since p = mvL = r x mv L = angular momentum of an object/particle (in relation to a defined point of origin) r = position of that object/particle from a point of origin (another object/particle) p = Linear momentum of object/particle m = mass of object/particle v = velocity of object/particle Thus in this equation mass, velocity and distance are inversely proportional. If one increases the other two factors combined MUST decrease in order to 'conserve' angular momentum. Again the keyword here is 'conservation'. Thus in a physical system (aka our universe) as the distance between the point of origin and an object/particle increases, said object/particle's speed and/or (not angular momentum) has to decrease to maintain this 'conservation of angular momentum'. This angular momentum can be transferred from one object to another, but just like the law of conservation of energy, the 'quantity' of angular momentum in the universe cannot increase nor decrease overall. Does this make since or am I speaking gibberish to you? BTW, who do you think you are debating with here Dennis? You really need to self-educate yourself. Go to college, take some basic astronomy and physics courses and stop wasting everyone's time with your deliberately ignorant creationist pseudoscience and erroneous dribble. It is a waste of people's time on this board trying to teach you the basics especially when you stubbornly and selfishly refuse to admit when you are WRONG! 9 times out of 10 (with a few exceptions) uber-religious creationists come onto this board thinking they can prove professional scientists, who devote their entire lives and careers to conducting scientific research and exploration (no, not me), that they are wrong without doing one ounce of real research or experimentation. 99% of real scientists are so busy doing real scientific work that they don't have time to try to educate deliberately ignorant people like yourself on internet boards like this. Besides, who would want to with your smug self-righteous little attitude? Luckily we do have a few, like Cavediver, who take time out of their busy days to help educate us. If I were a scientist I would, like Cavediver, be laughing my ass off and dismiss you as a crackpot lunatic who is unfortunately making the human race dumber. However, I am not as patient as many people on this board. I will tell it like it is. Stop wasting people's time and educate yourself so you stop looking like a complete fool. I believe nearly every human being has the capacity to use there full intellectual capabilities, but you have to be humble enough to say "you know what, I know nothing about this subject and am going to learn as much as possible before acting like I do". Hopefully you can be humble enough to do this. And doesn't the Bible teach you to be humble and not prideful aka
Proverbs 16:16, 18 writes: How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver! ... Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Or as one of my other favorite quotations from a very famous and wise President states:
Abraham Lincoln writes: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. If I could pass on one thing I have learned in life it is this. Acquire a love of learning and never stop reading, researching, learning, growing, experiencing life. And second, be humble enough to be able to be taught and be humble enough to admit when you are wrong or make a mistake. Go by these two axioms and you will experience a life-long of intellectually stimulating learning and adventure ahead of you. At least I and many other people have. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The origin of your Lincoln quote is actually unknown.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3102 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
The origin of your Lincoln quote is actually unknown. Rgr, thanks Percy. I admit I was wrong about the source of this quote. It shows you shouldn't trust everything you read on the internet Wow, was that so difficult to admit to being wrong? Are you man enough Dennis to admit you are falliblen and are incorrect on many of your assumptions about the origin of the universe and your attempt to debunk cosmic evolution due to an erronous assumption about angular momentum? Or are you going to stubbornly refuse to admit you are wrong? "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thus in this equation mass, velocity and distance are inversely proportional. If one increases the other two factors combined MUST decrease in order to 'conserve' angular momentum. Slow down. You're skipping ahead in a way that is misleading.
L = r x mv applies to a single object, or strictly speaking to a single particle. Now clearly the angular momentum of such an object need not be conserved. We could give it a good kick. The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to systems of objects, where by system we mean a set of objects which interact only with one another and not with anything outside the system. That is, it states that the sum of the angular momenta of a system of objects will be a constant. It only applies to one object if it is a system unto itself --- that is, if it is isolated from the rest of the universe. I emphasize this point because it is one that our silly creationist has so far failed to grasp. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3102 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Slow down. You're skipping ahead in a way that is misleading. L = r x mv applies to a single object, or strictly speaking to a single particle. Agreed. Did you not read my next paragraph? I guess I was not clear enough in explaining this even though I said the following:
DA writes: Thus in a physical system (aka our universe) as the distance between the point of origin and an object/particle increases, said object/particle's speed and/or (not angular momentum) has to decrease to maintain this 'conservation of angular momentum'. This angular momentum can be transferred from one object to another, but just like the law of conservation of energy, the 'quantity' of angular momentum in the universe cannot increase nor decrease overall.
The conservation of angular momentum applies to an entire system. L = r x mv is just a formula. The 'consevation' part implies that L remains constant unless acted by a force outside this system of matter 'particles'. I guess I am not the best at explaining this in layman's terms
Now clearly the angular momentum of such an object need not be conserved. We could give it a good kick. Agreed, which is why I said in an isolated system that angular momentum can be transferred from one particle to another. However the net angular momentum for the system cannot increase or decrease unless this system is influenced by a force outside said system. The real question is what context are we using to define this system. Since we by definition our universe is considered all physical forces/interactions than using this definition the next angular momentum inside our universe is conserved. Am I making any sense here or just adding to the confusion Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I think what Dennis780 was trying to say in Message 51 when he said this:
dennis780 in Message 51 writes: 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. Was that the angular velocity of a spinning body increases as its mass is brought closer to the center of rotation. I know he said "angular momentum," but I think he meant "angular velocity." --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024