Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Big Bang?

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:23am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

Oh you can criticize a theory, provided you actually know a bit of it. But suggesting that stars and planets just popped up of no where. Well, I rest my case.

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:28am

xxalphaninjaxx

xxalphaninjaxx

16 posts

just because two things don't have the same gravitational pull doesn't mean that it isn't influenced at all. that's like saying i have a super magnet and a normal magnet they wont connect or repel because the super magnet have a bigger magnetic field. once a body is caught and kept in an obit i shouldn't matter what the pull of the two is. or do you believe the earth has the same pull on the sun as the sun has on the earth?

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:32am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

just because two things don't have the same gravitational pull doesn't mean that it isn't influenced at all. that's like saying i have a super magnet and a normal magnet they wont connect or repel because the super magnet have a bigger magnetic field. once a body is caught and kept in an obit i shouldn't matter what the pull of the two is. or do you believe the earth has the same pull on the sun as the sun has on the earth?

I didn't say it's not influenced at all. I said that they don't influence each other exactly the same, hence it's not always a spherical explosion. Once a body is kept in orbit, it does matter what the pull of the two is. The different pulls affect the shape and angle of the orbit for one. Mercury orbits at such a weird angle precisely because of the difference in gravitational pull.

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:33am

xxalphaninjaxx

xxalphaninjaxx

16 posts

Oh you can criticize a theory, provided you actually know a bit of it. But suggesting that stars and planets just popped up of no where. Well, I rest my case.

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.

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:36am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

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.

It's not a new theory. And no, there's nothing to suggest that we are now in the cooling phase. And no, different physicists will tell you different things. Big Crunch, Big Freeze, Big Bounce, these have all been put up for debate. Yet, it has no real consequence as of yet on what we currently understand about its origins.

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:37am

xxalphaninjaxx

xxalphaninjaxx

16 posts

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

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:43am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:44am

xxalphaninjaxx

xxalphaninjaxx

16 posts

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

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:46am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

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!

 

Posted Jan 3, '13 at 12:48am

xxalphaninjaxx

xxalphaninjaxx

16 posts

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

 
Reply to The Big Bang?

You must be logged in to post a reply!