The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??

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 = mv
L = r x mvL = 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/particlem = mass of object/particlev = velocity of object/particleThus 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 Or as one of my other favorite quotations from a very famous and wise President states: 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

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

Agreed. Did you not read my next paragraph? I guess I was not clear enough in explaining this even though I said the following: 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 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