|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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." And I think that he doesn't know the difference. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dr Adequate writes: And I think that he doesn't know the difference. That's possible. What we're seeing right now is what happens when someone utterly sure of their position encounters inconvenient contrary facts. He's casting about for ways that he can still be right. I don't think he's yet grasped that he's missing a couple key concepts, so this could go on for a while. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Thank you Dr. Adequate for allowing me to make you look stupid. 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?
I'm going to assume neither of you two knew this. 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...
There can only be two explanations for this. 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.
I recommend you try to respond scientifically Get back to me regarding my post where I demolish everything you have said here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Not to step on the good Doctor's toes, but how are you going to make him look stupid by proving him right? I'm sure he's used to that and has learned to live it down.
This law and formula is used to calculate velocity No it's not. The formula p=mv can be algebraically manipulated to give velocity, but there are far easier ways to calculate velocity. One does not generally know the momentum of an object unless they have calculated it using its known velocity. Then they can use the know velocity to calculate the velocity using the formula v=v.
"momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv)." Thought you were referring to angular momentum, L. Momentum, p, is another kettle of fish that isn't angular.
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. Ouch! Sorry that was a sympathy pain I was feeling for the Doctor. Velocity is a vector quantity. Velocity can change accelerate while maintaining a constant speed by changing direction. You don't think the Sun is speeding up and slowing down as it goes around the Earth in a perfect circle, do you?
The LCAM formula (v = L/(mr) states that: No. That is the formula for velocity as a function of L. The same argument would apply for this as applies to v as function of p: to wit, why?
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. The LoCAM states that ΔLsys = constant ↔ Στext. See that external torque. They mean it. Funny, I know, but the physics gangstas ain't fronten'.
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. Or we could pull our hands from in front of our eye that we might observe the magnetic coupling of other systems forming. Calculate the strength of those coupling forces, note the duration of those forces and calculate just how much L would be transferred to the escaping dust and gas. And what do you know? We get what we observe: a slowly rotating Sun. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
You guys really enjoy attacking people when they have an educated opinion on scientific data. We enjoy attacking you too. Edited by lyx2no, : Because. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thank you Dr. Adequate for allowing me to make you look stupid. Let me know when you propose to start.
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. Whereas you said that a decrease in radius would increase angular momentum. Which would violate the law of conservation of angular momentum. I shall for now overlook your other blunders, because, really, until you can admit that I am right in saying that when angular momentum increases it is not being conserved I don't think you're ready for any more sophisticated concepts.
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. No it doesn't. Nothing 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. And we know for certain that this is the case.
It matters very little which arguement you attempt to make. If you assume that some outside force acted on it, it cannot be proven ... Yes it can. We know that the sun emits charged particles. We know what effect a rotating magnetic field must have on them. It is certain that the sun must lose angular momentum.
You guys really enjoy attacking people when they have an educated opinion on scientific data. Your delusion that you have an educated opinion on these topics lies at the root of all your other delusions. When you realize how much you have failed to learn, then your education can begin. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fiver Junior Member (Idle past 4963 days) Posts: 26 From: Provo, UT Joined:
|
I know others have already responded, but before I look at their responses I'm going to give my own, so you can compare two independent view.s
quote: This is approximately correct... well done.
quote:Whoa... I've read about the Big Bang theory several times, and not one single description that I've ever heard says that the matter was spinning. Where are you getting this description from? Are you sure that you're not confusing it with the Nebulae Theory on solar system formation? quote:Absolutely not. The Law of Angular Momentum only refers to the total amount of angular momentum... you could have large chunks of matter spinning in the 'wrong' direction if the angular momentum of the other chunks still added up to the correct value. You can try this out at home as an experiment! Take a spinning ball and light a firecracker inside it, then videotape the results. When it explodes, pieces go flying off in different directions with different velocities, and some pieces are flung out spinning the "wrong" direction.
quote:It's possible because the universe wasn't spinning at the beginning of the Big Bang. But if you're referring to the Nebulae Theory for the formation of our solar system, this is also no problem: spinning objects can be reversed in spin if acted upon by other forces. You remember those kids spinning off the merry-go-round that you mentioned? Those kids don't spin forever... they'll land on the grass or bump into somebody, and that can stop their spin, or even turn them the other way. Heck, if they get thrown wide enough and do a flip while they're spinning, they'll appear to be spinning the "wrong way". This is precisely what's happened with Venus and Pluto. Pluto is flipped, and Venus shows signs of being hit. But, of course, the overwhelming evidence for the Nebulae Theory is still there: all of the other planets are spinning in the same direction, and every last one of the planets is orbiting in the same direction around the sun.Now... why should this be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: According to George Smoot's book 'Wrinkles in Time', one reason that we do not detect any 'spinning' of the universe is that the initial inflationary period of the universe acted as a 'break' to it's spinning. Just as an ice skater who is spinning really fast will slow down when they spread their arms, the universe would slow down when it 'expanded' in all directions. Instead of just arms slowing down the spin, you would have the matter/energy in the entire universe being 'flung' out to slow down any spin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fiver Junior Member (Idle past 4963 days) Posts: 26 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
This "Wrinkles in Time" I'll need to check out, because every description of the Big Bang that I've ever read never mentions spinning. For obvious reasons: if the Big Bang contained all of the matter in the universe, then what was it spinning in relation to? This still sounds like the Nebulae Theory instead... but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That is probably because the COBE data falsified those models.
A link to the book is http://www.amazon.com/...les-Time-George-Smoot/dp/0380720442
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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? If my understanding is correct, the radiation that we observe as the CMB was not responsible for star formation. The CMB is the result of the universe "clearing" when the first complete atoms formed. Prior to this the universe was made up of atoms without electrons which prevented any radiation from travelling too far. Once the universe cooled enough electrons were able to stick with atomic nuclei and the radiation was allowed to travel for long distances resulting in the CMB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
I cannot find your post where you "demolish everything you have said here"
repost please. Or tell me what page it is on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2294 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
I think he meant his Message 46.
I cannot find your post where you "demolish everything you have said here"repost please. Or tell me what page it is on. I cannot find your post where you "demolish everything you have said here"repost please. Or tell me what page it is on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Lsys = constant ‘ext"
Haha, okay Lynx. I'm an oilfield worker, so if you are going to assume I know what any of the above is, then you are mistaken. I work out here because I DIDN'T learn that. But I can tell you what I do NOT see. You have all these formulas, but I do not see any calculations. Like my dad always told me when I lived at home, don't tell me how to do it, do it. So do it. Calculate it and prove me wrong. It seems apparent that you know how to, and that I do not. No one is debating who knows more formulas. Show me how you get an object with 97% of the overall mass in our solar system to have only 2% rotational energy. I can't respond to the other points either, simply because I am not familiar with this information. I have no idea what magnetic coupling is, and I googled it, but it's over my head, probably because there is some schooling required prior to learning it. I don't mind if you want to respond, but could you dummy it for me so I can understand your points? (easy shot, I set you up!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
See Message 46. You replied very briefly ignoring most of the issues in Message 51, and Cavediver pointed out its errors in Message 54.
What I think Cavediver and others are trying to tell you in this thread is that it isn't that you misunderstand the Big Bang, though you do. It's that you misunderstand an important part of basic physics. You probably disagree, but to settle the issue you probably need to directly address the explanations that have been provided. What you seem to be doing instead is reexplaining your original position, and you already have responses to that. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024