the big bang ( Questions from a Teen )

Gary -
"I have a question. What accounts for the comets, distant asteroids such as the Trojan asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects such as Pluto, Charon, Quaoar, and Cedna, and the Oort Cloud? Aren't all those objects made of heavier materials? Why didn't they fall into or towards the sun?"Miek -
Centripetal force allows these objects to be 'always; falling toward the sun, but at an arch. Since space is a vacuum, an object flinging toward, but parallel to the sun will catch the suns gravitational pull, and gradually pulled into the sun in a spiral like fashion.Centripetal force allows these objects to be 'always; falling toward the sun, but at an arch. Since space is a vacuum, an object flinging toward, but parallel to the sun will catch the suns gravitational pull, and gradually pulled into the sun in a spiral like fashion, until A) oscillation occurs, as with our 9 planets and asteroid belt, and becomes satellites, B) collapse into the sun, due to flux in gravity pulls, C) falls out of the field of the suns gravity, because a flux between the sun and or another gravity source like Asteroid -> Sun to Asteroid -> Earth.Try to remember one thing. The simplist answer is oftin the right answer.
- Miek

Miek,Please see your previous posts on this thread. I removed your extremely long cut and paste jobs and replaced them with the links to the websites you copied. These posts were a huge waste of space that one man pays for to keep this site up and running. Bare links are also against our Forum Guidelines.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

I should have observed and abided the policies obf the board. I am grateful you found links which the papers came. I have an archive of many papers witch I saved into Word. Sometimes I refer to these papers for my research papers. Most of my posts, including this one, are written in word. Understand that I had no intent to take credit for these sources in any way.I stumbled across this board by accident and decided to read up on a few subjects. After reading the first few post for this subject, my intent was to bring up some subjects in mind, then write my comments following that. However, at the time of the posting, I was very tired after having a few drinks. In fact I was going to do a follow up tonight.And so, I hope you accept my apologies.-- Miek

No harm, no foul hun.Welcome to EvC.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

quote:

---

I was under the impression that the inner planets did at one point contain large amounts of hydrogen and helium but due to their proximaty to the sun and relatively low gravity, the solar winds 'blew' these gases further out. This is a very simplistic explanation and I could have remembered the details incorrectly.

​

Is this accurate, or was it an example of Discovery Channel getting things wrong again?

---

This does not sound like the currently accepted explanation for the formation of the planets.I often watch the discovery channel, and I think perhaps you were watching one of those programs where they presented a non-mainstream scientific theory and you happened to missed the part where they said "this is not mainstream science...."But again, if you ask an astro-physicist directly how the solar system was formed, you'd probably either hear "I don't know..." or "this is what we think happened...."

Entirely possible. This is from a number of years ago and I barely remembered enough to give a summary so I could easily have forgetten or missed something like that.I'll look it up, thanks.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

I'm curious which parts of the explanation offered by Compmage were incorrect. Are you saying the inner planets didn't begin with large amounts of hydrogren? Or that though they began with large amounts of hydrogen, it wasn't low gravity and solar winds that caused them to lose their hydrogen, but some other cause?--Percy

The questions that you ask are unanserable, no one was there to prove there was a big bang at all. When our cosmological fact books are rewritten everytime we send a probe into space that should make you question the reliablity of any cosmological so called fact. We cant even get straight with any certainty our own human history so how could we possibly think we have a factual grasp on somthing that happen in space billions of years ago. Lets be realistic...
Recent computer siimulations indicate that a system of gravitating mases breaks up, even when the total energy is negative. As a result, almost any inital phase-space distribution results in a universe that eventually expands under the Hubble law. Hence Hubble expansion implies little regarding an intial cosmic state. Especially it does not imly the singularly dense superpositioned state used in the big bang model.
Physicist D.R. Humphires has outlined a creationist model of the origin of the cosmos which postulates an expanding universe, and which explains redshifts and the microwave background radiation at least as well as the big bang model does.
Dr. Geoffrey burbidge, a notable evolutionist cosmologist warns:
The evidence in favor of a big bang cosmology is much less definite than is widely realized... I believe that if one attempts to evaluate this evidence objectively there is still no really conclusive evidence in favor of such a universe. big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth...this situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.My question is why do we not hear more from evolutionist scientists like Dr. Burbidge and others who can elucidate well-reasoned criticisms of the big bang theory? The answer appears to be that the controlling establishment does not want anybody to "upset the apple cart" of the current popular theory in cosmology. Professor Burbidge complained that organizers of a recent international conference on astronomy flatly refused to give him or his cooleagues a chance to explain their scientifically based criticisms of the big bang theory. he lamented, "Silence, that most potent form of scientific censorship, is already being employed.
Ref:
Allen, "the big ban is not needed" 6 foundations of physics 59
DR Huphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books,
Burbidge, Was Teher Really a Big Bang? 223 Nature 36, 39
Geoffrey Burbidge, Why Only One Big Bang? Scientific American Feb 92 P. 120
The Sunday Telegraph London reprinted in Trio claims Big Bang is Myth. The West Australian 1993 P. 3 of Earth 2000 Supplement

Will you please show me the rewrites you are talking about.Please show me the 'gravitating mass break up' you refer to.Humphrey's cosmology does not predict any such things. In fact it is wrong from the get go.Burbidge, whom I know personally, has become entrenched in his own little world. He is reduced to grasping at straws. What were once valid criticisms have become desperate rants. Sad really.

Allen, "The Big Bang is Not Needed", 6 Foundations of Physics 59
As well I posted the other ref. to the info. sources.
Thank you for responding.

The Allen reference is almost 30 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!My God, no wonder you think there are fundamental problems. I was starting high school then. I think the highest known redshift was about 1.7.Is that the best you have got?

If the universe began in a completely disorganized state as postulated by the Big Bang theory of the orignin of the universe, and stars and planets spontaneoulsy came into being, followed by the spontaneous evolutionary origin of life, finally culminating in the evolutuonary origin of millions of higly complex and diverse life forms, including man, then matter must have the inherent ability ot self-organize itself, and to continuously transform itself into higher and higher levels of organization.
Evolutionists do believe in this supposed self-organizing ability of matter and have defined their theory of evolution accordingly. thus, Julian Huzley has stated:
evolution is the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly hig level of organization in its. products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that whole of reality is evolution- a single process of self-trasformation.
Scientists should have recognized this inherent property of matter and should have constructed a natural law or set of natural laws describing this spontaneous, self-organizing characteristic of matter. However, no such property of matter has ever been recognozed by scientists. Therfore , no such law exists. Just the opposite tendency of matter has been documented by scientists, and this tendency is so universal and unfailing that it has resulted in the formulation of ta natural law to describe it- the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The conflict between the evolutionary need to originate and maintain complexity and the function of the Second Law can be clearly seen by noting the testimony of the following evolutionists who are knowledgeable in the field of thermodynamics:
RB Lindsay states:
There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformations- the law of increasing entropy.
Harold Blum reiterates:
All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entroy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system: the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy.
Issac Asimove concluded:
Another way of stating the Second Law then is: "the universe is constantly getting more disorderly!" Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten aroom, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if w never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain housed, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact , all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, abreaks down, wars out, all by itself--and that is what the second law is all about.

If the english language is meanigful at all, anyone can recognoze the horrendous contradiction between the definition of evolution and the definition of the second law. All scientists agree that even the smallest living cell is an exceedingly complex system. In fact, even the most complex machinery man has ever created appears as utter child's play when comared to the complexity of the tiniest living cell. Could this staggering level of complexity be produced by natural processes in spite of the inplications of the second law? The evolutionists usual, but encredibly naive answer, is they believe it could because the earth is an open system. That is , the earth is open to an influx of energy from the sun. They believe this influx of energy mor than makes up for the degenerative effects of the second law and would allow complexity to arise in spite of the second law. However, as Haarvard scientists John Ross points out, and open system does not automatically rul out the applicability of the secont law:
Ordinarily the Second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally wellto open systems. end quote
Of course, the real question is not can an influx of rw energy cause the creation of complexity, but rather how does raw energy cause complexity to arise from randomness? Let's try an experiment to see how well raw energy can create complexity from disorder.
Evolutionists believe that the influx of raw solar energy was sufficient, with time , to account for the production of a complex living cell from random chemicals. Lets ask soar energy to produce something almost infinitley less complex, a standard three bedroom house. Wel will simply take the raw materials such as boards, bricks, plaster, paint, nails, wires, pipes, etc., and dump them in an open field. Then we will sit down and watch the sun's energy beat upon the materials for many years. As we measure the amount of energy reaching the site, we find that there is plenty of enegy available to build the house. In fact, there is enough energy to build a huge city. but, lo and behold, in spite of the availability of the sun's energy, we see everthing rot, rust and corrode as the years roll by. Instead of the house bing built, we find the raw materials disintergratin into dust. What went wrong?
The problem is that an open system with an energy influx is necessary but not sufficient to generate complexity from randomness. Two oter criteria must be met: namely, an energy conversion mechanism and a direction program.

How, exactly, does the English language enter into "delta S > 0" ?

Looks like as of message 42 things are making a sharp turn off-topic.Adminnemooseus