Forums → WEPR → The Big Bang?
| 44 | 16178 |
I have been think about how people keep saying that the big bang is a fact and that if one believes in creationism they are considered "dumb" (from a lot of my college professors), but i never found a way were a big bang could ever work. and here are my reasons why:
1. the starting point for this big bang has to be a star because a solid rock or gas planet couldn't make the stars we see today.
2. Since it is a star that means the core of this star was able to contain everything we see today and the other universes we have yet to discover.
3. when a star goes supernova it is because the core has been changed into iron and the iron takes all the energy away from the star and is blows up. So that would mean everything past iron in the periodic table couldn't exist. Right?
4. when the star goes supernova all the energy is transferred to the core so using E=MC^2. and since there was nothing but this "star" there would be no C and would be E=M. a star that size and mass should have been able to create a black hole that would suck up every little particle that could have been shot out in the explosion.
5. if they had made it past that point why are all the different galaxies a disk? if there was an explosion we should have more of a sphere shape.
- 44 Replies
Mercury doesn't have a much different angle then our own just 5-10% depending on the time of your point of reference. But shouldnt there be a planet going somewhere at 20-90% which would be more likely due to the face there is a 70% difference then the 5 on Mercury
Mercury has a very eccentric orbit pattern, when it orbits, its distance to the Sun can vary from46,000,000 to 70,000,000 km. The Earth has an axial tilt of 23.4 degrees, whilst Mercury's is almost 0.
well then my biggest question would be why even consider the big bang if there is no way of knowing how the thing even happened. i could say that the big bang was a rip in a different demention and that is how we all came to be but that would be shot down because that is too far fetched but a super heated big bang sounds more realistic. even if that would be the death of any bacteria that crashed on the earth due to the harsh heat to cool change in the climate. which in turn would cause the "evolution" theory to not have happened
well then my biggest question would be why even consider the big bang if there is no way of knowing how the thing even happened.
Because we have plenty of evidence for the BBT. For starters, the earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the red shifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. Together, these are known as the Four Pillars of the BBT.
One thing that irks me, is the constant mixing of TBBT and evolution. They're not related!
the tilt and its distance from the sun was not what i was talking about. i was saying if you hold your fist up we(all the 9 planets(I include Pluto and always will)) are pretty much going east and west around the sun( your fist). why isn't there anything going north and south
the tilt and its distance from the sun was not what i was talking about. i was saying if you hold your fist up we(all the 9 planets(I include Pluto and always will)) are pretty much going east and west around the sun( your fist). why isn't there anything going north and south
Held by the Sun's gravitational pull, although I have no idea why this is even relevant.
im not mixing but if this version of the theory is correct then the whole start of life could not possible
im not mixing but if this version of the theory is correct then the whole start of life could not possible
No it doesn't conflate. TBBT and it's initial phase is hypothesized to have happened billions of years before any life on Earth, far away from the heating phase.
because if different bodies are being flung out by this expansion from the cosmic soup. causing all obits before the expansion to fall apart due to the new found acceleration there should be bodies orbiting one source at different angles(not distances i still dont know where you got that one) meaning that disk shape solar sytems, universes, etc. could happen but should be a rare occurrence due to the fact that the angles have to be pretty close to each different body
okay then how did life start? did it get its own big bang a mixture of elements that created a single celled organism? that cant be so. if there was a cell it would have to be during the beginning(the big bang) during the heated phase
Please ask any questions on the origin of life and evolution (which are entirely seperate theories) here.
i'm not really asking for the answer sorry if i made it seem like that. i was just trying to prove that if this version of the big bang is true that the whole reason there is live on earth would never existed
i could say that the big bang was a rip in a different demention and that is how we all came to be but that would be shot down because that is too far fetched
...how is that far-fetched? Just because you don't like the idea?
I mean..there is not possible way it could ever be true..right?
even if that would be the death of any bacteria that crashed on the earth due to the harsh heat to cool change in the climate. which in turn would cause the "evolution" theory to not have happened
What the-
1) Like nich told you..the planets did not just appear when TBB happened
2) Bacteria wasn't flying around space just waiting to land on a planet
Read this
And this
i'm not really asking for the answer sorry if i made it seem like that. i was just trying to prove that if this version of the big bang is true that the whole reason there is live on earth would never existed
Seriously..go talk to MageGrayWolf. He will set this all straight
I think that the thing with the orbitational angles is that the disc-shaped galaxies and solar systems are more stable, and thus even originally differently shaped ones would over time end up turning like this.
Though this is really just something to think about, I don't know for sure as I'm no astrophysician. And unless you are one, I would say that you should rather try to learn about the theory instead of criticizing on points that you don't know how they found it out.
First off some reading material for you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
I have been think about how people keep saying that the big bang is a fact and that if one believes in creationism they are considered "dumb" (from a lot of my college professors), but i never found a way were a big bang could ever work. and here are my reasons why:
Believing in creationism doesn't necessarily make that person dumb. Though creationism is believed without evidence to support it. What does get presented for it's support is misinformation an flat out lie. Also if a theory is disproven that doesn't automatically mean creationism is right. Creationism or anything else for that matter would still having to demonstrate it's validity in the scientific field. So the attempts of creationists to disprove a theory just so they can try to input their belief is faulty in itself.
The Big Bang is not what you think it is.
1. the starting point for this big bang has to be a star because a solid rock or gas planet couldn't make the stars we see today.
You're right in that it wasn't a solid or gas, though the starting point wasn't a star either. It would have been a singularity. I suppose one way you could think of it would be like the center of the most massive black hole ever.
2. Since it is a star that means the core of this star was able to contain everything we see today and the other universes we have yet to discover.
It would have just been in the form of energy at the time but the singularity (not a star) would have everything in it.
3. when a star goes supernova it is because the core has been changed into iron and the iron takes all the energy away from the star and is blows up. So that would mean everything past iron in the periodic table couldn't exist. Right?
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion but an expansion of spacetime. The likely trigger for this expansion would have been quantum fluctuation, which given the state of things at the point of the singularity could have some serious impact.
The only elements that formed at the Big Bang were basically just hydrogen and helium. Those elements went on to form proto-stars which is where we get the higher elements.
As for your statement on "everything past iron not existing" The higher elements above iron are formed during the supernova rather than while the star is around. But this has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
4. when the star goes supernova all the energy is transferred to the core so using E=MC^2. and since there was nothing but this "star" there would be no C and would be E=M. a star that size and mass should have been able to create a black hole that would suck up every little particle that could have been shot out in the explosion.
Again, not an explosion, an expansion and i have heard hypotheses suggesting we are living in a black hole given the similarities between black holes and the state of the universe as it was at the Big Bang.
5. if they had made it past that point why are all the different galaxies a disk? if there was an explosion we should have more of a sphere shape.
Since it was an expansion of spacetime there wouldn't have been a central point. It would have been a bit like putting two dots on the surface of a balloon and blowing that balloon up. Of course we are dealing with different geometry with the universe compared to a balloon, but it serves as a decent layman way of looking at it.
Also not all the galaxies are disk shaped. For why galaxies form into disks, the short answer has to do with gravitational interactions. Long answer you can read this.
www.astro.princeton.edu/~library/preprints/pop654.ps.Z+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">Galaxy Formation in Hierarchical Models
who said i took college level physics? english teachers could think that the concept of creationism is only for the uneducated mind.
I would suggest you speak to a physicist in this field of study rather than an English teacher. I mean you wouldn't go to a podiatrist for a tooth ache.
1)it has to be a star because only stars can make a new star. thats why i made the statement that the starting point of the big bang has to be a star. when a planetary body explodes it becomes asteroids.
The Big Bang isn't what formed stars. Star formation came after the Big Bang. Also a star doesn't require a previous star to form. All it would require is hydrogen which formed during an early point in the universe.
5)and the reason i think the big bang should make everything look more spherical is because of how explosions. they destroy in a sphere not a disk
Big Bang didn't create galaxies and all that, it was just an expansion of the universe. what happens in it after this expansion is another matter all together.
i cant criticize this theory? scientist cant even understand this theory. so they make different versions of the same theory.
Scientists who are in this field of study have a good understanding of the theory. This statement makes me wonder if you even understand what a theory is?
i bring up the point of the sphere because there is a central point to all these galaxies and gravity works in all directions not just on the sides of the gravitational body.
No there isn't.
doesn't this new theory say that it just been "there". that there was this big expanding heat in the cosmos and now we are here. so there should also have a cooling phase were we are going back to this super heated place or at least close to it. put if you ask an astronomer they would say we are still expanding at the same rate with no end in sight.
The geometry of the universe makes the expansion likely and a collapse unlikely. As for the rate it's expanding, that is actually increasing thanks to Dark Energy.
the tilt and its distance from the sun was not what i was talking about. i was saying if you hold your fist up we(all the 9 planets(I include Pluto and always will)) are pretty much going east and west around the sun( your fist). why isn't there anything going north and south
This again has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Pluto actually deviates from a flat plane orbit by an incline of 17% to Earth. The reason why it's all on generally the same plane has to do with the way the solar system formed. Basically all the stuff that formed our star, the planets and the rest of the stuff in this solar system got spinning. As it spun it took on a disc shape. So as everything began to clump together it stayed spinning in this this disc.
On the point of Pluto being a planet. If you're going to include Pluto, not t be arbitrary about it, you will have to also include the other 4 named dwarf planets such as Ceres which is bigger and more planet like than Pluto. Not to mention the estimated 200-10,000 other Dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt.
because if different bodies are being flung out by this expansion from the cosmic soup. causing all obits before the expansion to fall apart due to the new found acceleration there should be bodies orbiting one source at different angles(not distances i still dont know where you got that one) meaning that disk shape solar sytems, universes, etc. could happen but should be a rare occurrence due to the fact that the angles have to be pretty close to each different body
The expansion of the universe is not what formed the orbits and things like stars and planets weren't flung out by the Big Bang. They formed together in the aftermath.
okay then how did life start? did it get its own big bang a mixture of elements that created a single celled organism? that cant be so. if there was a cell it would have to be during the beginning(the big bang) during the heated phase
Likely the result of abiogenesis and yes that can be so, no a cell wouldn't have to be at the Big Bang and it likely couldn't given the higher elements beyond helium hadn't formed yet.
i'm not really asking for the answer sorry if i made it seem like that. i was just trying to prove that if this version of the big bang is true that the whole reason there is live on earth would never existed
The point you are trying to make doesn't follow at all. Maybe a rundown of events might help.
-First off we have the Big Bang. (not an explosion but an expansion of the universe)
-As the universe expanded the stuff began to cool and formed basic elements. (hydrogen and helium mostly)
-Those basic elements clumped together forming proto-stars. (no planets or anything else yet)
-This clumping together happened on larger scales as well forming galaxies.
-In these proto-stars higher elements (up to iron) formed, killing the star and causing it o go supernova.
-In the supernova elements above iron formed.
-The debris left from these proto-stars began to clump together. (as matter tends to do in space)
-That clumping together formed new stars. (ours included)
-The leftover stuff that didn't make it into the formation of these new stars began clumping together and circling the new stars.
-The biggest clumps of stuff that weren't large enough to achieve fusion we called planets. (like ours)
-On these planets (at least ours that we know of) chemical reactions took place resulting in self replicating molecules.
-As these molecules replicated imperfectly changes happened over time resulting in a wide variety of forms which took on numerous different traits. (evolution of life)
okay then how did life start? did it get its own big bang a mixture of elements that created a single celled organism? that cant be so. if there was a cell it would have to be during the beginning(the big bang) during the heated phase
Abiogenesis. No, since when does the cell have to be present in TBBT?
because if different bodies are being flung out by this expansion from the cosmic soup. causing all obits before the expansion to fall apart due to the new found acceleration there should be bodies orbiting one source at different angles(not distances i still dont know where you got that one) meaning that disk shape solar sytems, universes, etc. could happen but should be a rare occurrence due to the fact that the angles have to be pretty close to each different body
It's not flung out. They coalesce and form into cosmic bodies in the aftermath.
You must be logged in to post a reply!