| | Big Bang question
| nobody
User ID: 812707
 United States
11/7/2009 12:16 PM
Report abusive post | Big Bang question
| Quote |
This is annother reason that I can't believe evolution:
If you know about laws of physics and I heard about the "conservation of angular momentum" and this takes effect when something is spinning wildly. So when the big bang happened it was spinning while it happened. So that means that all the planets that came out of it should be spinning in the same direction.
Questions: Why are all the planets different if they all came from the sun and why are some of them spinning in a different direction than the rest? Uranus, earth, and Neptune are spinning in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets.
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons orbiting in different directions. There are galaxies spinning in different directions.
I can't wait to hear these know-it-alls answer this one. |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
 United Kingdom
11/7/2009 12:19 PM
 | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 300884
 Sweden
11/7/2009 2:21 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Questions: Why are all the planets different if they all came from the sun and why are some of them spinning in a different direction than the rest? Uranus, earth, and Neptune are spinning in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets. Quoting: nobody 812707
Answer: Our solar system has gone through cataclysmic events recently. The Asteroid belt, and the scarred surface on many planets and moons show it was a pretty wild show.
By the way, these events gave rise to many ancient myths around the world about "the Gods fighting in Heaven". |
| mystylplx
User ID: 807177
United States
11/7/2009 2:24 PM
 | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
This is annother reason that I can't believe evolution:
If you know about laws of physics and I heard about the "conservation of angular momentum" and this takes effect when something is spinning wildly. So when the big bang happened it was spinning while it happened. So that means that all the planets that came out of it should be spinning in the same direction.
Questions: Why are all the planets different if they all came from the sun and why are some of them spinning in a different direction than the rest? Uranus, earth, and Neptune are spinning in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets.
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons orbiting in different directions. There are galaxies spinning in different directions.
I can't wait to hear these know-it-alls answer this one. Quoting: nobody 812707
To start off, no planets came out of the big bang. It's far more complex than that. If you really want to learn about it then read and study (not from creationist sites). Don't expect an education in astrophysics to be handed to you in 3,000 words or less on a forum like this one. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 804974
 Australia
11/7/2009 2:32 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Do you also think all the galaxies should be rotating in the same direction?
maybe we should all be the same sex and have no night and day or left and right etc |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 2:36 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Don't expect an education in astrophysics to be handed to you in 3,000 words or less on a forum like this one. Quoting: mystylplx
Indeed, OP needs to start with a fundemental understanding of the four forces, he needs to learn valence shell theory in chemistry, nuclear fusion.
I could actually atempt to try and explain some of it, but i really cant be bothered.
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| momoliver1 
User ID: 804421
United States
11/7/2009 2:53 PM
 | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Makes sense. But, what if some thing collided into it, causing the planet to rotate differently. Or perhaps it has something to do with the elemental make up of the planet and the magnetic and gravitational forces acting on it.
Just my 2c |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 812874
 Portugal
11/7/2009 3:00 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
This is annother reason that I can't believe evolution:
If you know about laws of physics and I heard about the "conservation of angular momentum" and this takes effect when something is spinning wildly. So when the big bang happened it was spinning while it happened. So that means that all the planets that came out of it should be spinning in the same direction.
Questions: Why are all the planets different if they all came from the sun and why are some of them spinning in a different direction than the rest? Uranus, earth, and Neptune are spinning in the opposite direction than the rest of the planets.
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons orbiting in different directions. There are galaxies spinning in different directions.
I can't wait to hear these know-it-alls answer this one. Quoting: nobody 812707
*facepalm* |
| mystylplx
User ID: 807177
United States
11/7/2009 3:05 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
One way to visualize it is to watch a whirlpool. Smaller circular eddies will form around it, some of which will be spinning in the opposite direction. The formation of a solar system is a very turbulent event, much like a whirlpool in that sense. Lot's of complex interactions. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 812704
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 3:06 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Don't expect an education in astrophysics to be handed to you in 3,000 words or less on a forum like this one.
Indeed, OP needs to start with a fundemental understanding of the four forces, he needs to learn valence shell theory in chemistry, nuclear fusion.
I could actually atempt to try and explain some of it, but i really cant be bothered. Quoting: Atheist
atheist, can you answer an honest question from me please?
they reckon now that they can see 'almost back to the big bang'
how is that even possible? every atom in the astronomers eyes was actually in the location he/she is staring at through the lens of the telescope focused to 'almost back to the big bang'
this is something I find hard to understand, and even harder to believe.
how can light from these primordial galaxies be traveling 13 billion years across the universe to our eyes when the time it SET OUT on it's journey, WE, every atom in our bodies, was THERE, in the same general vicinity as well?
tia
(this REALLY bugs me!  ) |
| Majick
User ID: 782145
United States
11/7/2009 3:07 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Shut up we all know God made the Universe
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 526155
 Canada
11/7/2009 3:09 PM | | nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 779945
United States
11/7/2009 3:13 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
This one's been going around for a bit...origins are one of those Young Earth Creationist lie machines. There was a video drifting around here earlier.
Most of the objects in our solar system spin not because they were born of something that spun, but because they were born of the gravitational collapse of an irregular mass; those irregularities translate into spin. It's what happens if you try to shove a box across the floor, but your hand isn't right in the center; your shove imparts a rotation as well as a proper motion.
Still, the simplest reason we don't look to the early days of the universe, when all matter and energy was compacted into a tiny spot, as the origin of all angular momentum of all parts of the universe of today, is because there is no consistency of axis.
All you have to do is look up at the sky. The Earth rotates in a plane which is twenty-six degrees off the rotational plane of the Solar System. The sun does not travel around the Equator; it crosses it. Similarly, if you have any stargazing, you have learned that the plane of our Solar System is tipped some sixty-three degrees from the plane of our galaxy.
Going further out, galaxies (all with various proper motions) are found in all directions. They are not all orbiting in a plane, around some common center!
The person you got this idea from, OP, lacks the knowledge an ordinary star-gazer has about the structure of our universe. |
| Dervish
User ID: 811951
 South Africa
11/7/2009 3:13 PM
 | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
As someone said earlier op, no planets came out of the big bang.
What came out was something that eventually formed into hydrogen gas. some of that gas eventually attracted more gas just hangin around and turned into stars. The bigger stars exploded and the resulting implosion made helium--the byproduct of hydrogen fusion -turn into something heavier. This happened a few times and and the resulting elements got heavier.
So, everything around you, in you and that you see, thats denser than hydrogen literally came from the inside of an exploding star..cool huh.
The guys who actually remember astronomy class can correct me if I am wrong, and elaborate on the finer details.
I was really going to right something smart-assed, but that wouldn't be fair...you are the product of our education system.
"Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war"
----------------
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
Rudyard Kipling |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
United States
11/7/2009 3:19 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
they reckon now that they can see 'almost back to the big bang'
how is that even possible? every atom in the astronomers eyes was actually in the location he/she is staring at through the lens of the telescope focused to 'almost back to the big bang'
this is something I find hard to understand, and even harder to believe.
how can light from these primordial galaxies be traveling 13 billion years across the universe to our eyes when the time it SET OUT on it's journey, WE, every atom in our bodies, was THERE, in the same general vicinity as well?
tia Quoting: Anonymous Coward 812704
Yup. It is freaky trying to think about it. Our matter was indeed in the same spot...billions of years ago. Since then we've been flying apart. When you point a microwave dish at any part of the night sky, you will pick up a whisper of microwave radiation at 3.6 K. What you are seeing, though, are the very first free photons ever to exist in our universe. They've been traveling ever since, and because the Universe expanded much faster than light, they've covered tremendous distances as well.
One of the things that makes this hard to understand is that matter itself is not moving; the "metric" -- the ruler itself -- is getting longer. So distant quasars are not flying around the Universe at over the speed of light; as far as they are concerned, they are moving no more quickly than we are. The distance between us, however, is growing. |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 3:32 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
atheist, can you answer an honest question from me please?
they reckon now that they can see 'almost back to the big bang'
how is that even possible? every atom in the astronomers eyes was actually in the location he/she is staring at through the lens of the telescope focused to 'almost back to the big bang'
this is something I find hard to understand, and even harder to believe.
how can light from these primordial galaxies be traveling 13 billion years across the universe to our eyes when the time it SET OUT on it's journey, WE, every atom in our bodies, was THERE, in the same general vicinity as well?
tia
(this REALLY bugs me! )
Im not sure at all, my scientific grounding is not really in physics/astrophysics.
The universe is expanding, this article may answer some questions.
[link to www.space.com]
Im pretty sure the age is not calculated on light but other quanta too, and the background radiation of the universe etc.
Light is limited to the speed of light but i think technically it can travel faster if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 3:44 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
As someone said earlier op, no planets came out of the big bang.
What came out was something that eventually formed into hydrogen gas. some of that gas eventually attracted more gas just hangin around and turned into stars. The bigger stars exploded and the resulting implosion made helium--the byproduct of hydrogen fusion -turn into something heavier. This happened a few times and and the resulting elements got heavier.
So, everything around you, in you and that you see, thats denser than hydrogen literally came from the inside of an exploding star..cool huh.
The guys who actually remember astronomy class can correct me if I am wrong, and elaborate on the finer details.
I was really going to right something smart-assed, but that wouldn't be fair...you are the product of our education system. Quoting: Dervish
As far as i am aware only hydrogen and helium existed shortly after the big bang, stars were formed because of the four forces and inside the cores of stars, under imense pressure and forces, super heavy elements were formed via nuclear fusion, when the star exploded in a supernova these heavy elements formed planets.
Last Edited by Atheist on 11/7/2009 at 3:45 PM
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
United States
11/7/2009 5:08 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
As far as i am aware only hydrogen and helium existed shortly after the big bang, stars were formed because of the four forces and inside the cores of stars, under imense pressure and forces, super heavy elements were formed via nuclear fusion, when the star exploded in a supernova these heavy elements formed planets. Quoting: Atheist
Yup. Good enough explanation at that level.
If you want to get more elaborate, the fusion processes inside a healthy star can only get up to iron; fusing iron is a net-loss reaction and can not sustain a star.
So the star collapses gravitationally, and the matter at the core is crushed so close that short-range nuclear forces dominate -- causing a rebound, and a hailstorm of neutrons that flash through the expanding, exploding outer shell synthesizing new and heavier elements. (And other elements are fused in the last minutes of the collapse, and the first seconds of the rebound...but anyhow! It's complex, and your explanation is quite good enough).
On a larger scale of space and time, the shock waves of supernova may be one of the causes of density waves that cause localized pinches in the diffuse gases (and the traces of heavy elements) that make up the general condensation we call a galaxy; thus leading to the formation of a new generation of planetary nebula. |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 5:15 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Yup. Good enough explanation at that level.
If you want to get more elaborate, the fusion processes inside a healthy star can only get up to iron; fusing iron is a net-loss reaction and can not sustain a star.
So the star collapses gravitationally, and the matter at the core is crushed so close that short-range nuclear forces dominate -- causing a rebound, and a hailstorm of neutrons that flash through the expanding, exploding outer shell synthesizing new and heavier elements. (And other elements are fused in the last minutes of the collapse, and the first seconds of the rebound...but anyhow! It's complex, and your explanation is quite good enough).
On a larger scale of space and time, the shock waves of supernova may be one of the causes of density waves that cause localized pinches in the diffuse gases (and the traces of heavy elements) that make up the general condensation we call a galaxy; thus leading to the formation of a new generation of planetary nebula. Quoting: nomuse(NLI) 779945
You an academic or is this kind of thing just a hobby/interest?
Once i start to clear my student debts im going to go out and buy a huge mofo telescope and a badass radio and dish, id love to spend all night looking/listening at/to the sky but its not a something i have the time for at the moment, the only optics i get to look down are microscope optics!
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| Atheist
User ID: 805039
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 5:17 PM
| | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
If you want to get more elaborate, the fusion processes inside a healthy star can only get up to iron; fusing iron is a net-loss reaction and can not sustain a star. Quoting: nomuse(NLI) 779945
Heard that kind of thing before, is it true stable lead is a result of uranium decay?
If thats true doesnt that mean all the lead we have is at least 4 and a half billion years old?
I haven't seen Avatar, but Titanic had blue people too. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 909168 |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 779945
United States
11/7/2009 7:26 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
No, I'm an amateur. I took an astronomy class in college and got hooked, but I'll never reach an academic level of understanding of astrophysics or cosmology because I lack the mathematical background.
Yah, lead is at the bottom of the uranium decay chain. Many of the heavier elements are unstable -- when you get up into the transuranics, most of them have lifetimes on the order of seconds (like, say, Californium -- you make it in a particle accelerator, and poof, picoseconds later it is gone again).
Oddly enough, a lot of the stuff stars throw together (in stellar nucleosynthesis, and in supernova explosions), is also short-lived isotopes. So besides all of this helium-fusing-into-oxygen stuff, you have one thing fusing into an unstable isotope which then radioactively decays into another element entirely.
The important thing to keep in mind is that there are two potential sources of energy here; fusion, which only works up to a certain size of nucleus, and fission -- for which there are more possibilities in the larger nuclei (aka there are only a couple of possible isotopes of hydrogen -- hydrogen, deuterium, tritium -- but uranium has 140-something neutrons to play with.)
(Well, okay, there are unstable isotopes of hydrogen not found in nature... 4H through 7H...but anyhow!)
Uranium decays primarily via alpha particle, and since an alpha particle is both neutrons and protons, the atomic number of what remains changes as well as the isotope. Thus the uranium decay chain passes through (depending on which paths you take), astatine, bismuth, lead, polonium, protactinium, radium, radon, thallium, and thorium.
And of course various isotopes of all of the above!
Worse yet, if the uranium in question is accompanied by more mass of uranium, with or without neutron-slowing material, it can also capture neutrons to breed plutonium et al.
Like a lot of things in physics, a set of simple rules gives rise to some really, really complex results! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 688990
United Kingdom
11/7/2009 7:35 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
Supposing the big bang theory is correct, could it have happened many times before and could it happen many times again or is this one the only time it will ever happen? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 813046
United States
11/7/2009 7:54 PM | | Re: Big Bang question | Quote |
atheist, can you answer an honest question from me please?
they reckon now that they can see 'almost back to the big bang'
how is that even possible? every atom in the astronomers eyes was actually in the location he/she is staring at through the lens of the telescope focused to 'almost back to the big bang'
this is something I find hard to understand, and even harder to believe.
how can light from these primordial galaxies be traveling 13 billion years across the universe to our eyes when the time it SET OUT on it's journey, WE, every atom in our bodies, was THERE, in the same general vicinity as well?
tia
(this REALLY bugs me! )
Actually, it took 13 billion years for matter to spread to where we are. During that time the solar system evolved and we were made. The light actually traveled 26 billion light years total; 13 billion light years to reach our point in the universe where we evolved, and 13 billion light years more to reach us since our existence. In other words, it took 13 billion years for us to travel from the point of the big bang to where we are now. Then it took another 13 billion years for light to reach us from the point of the big bang. Hence, the universe is 26 billion years old. |
| |
|
