ForumsWEPRThe Big Bang?

44 4312
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

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
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

The reason you've never understood it, and that most of us don't understand it, is because we don't take college physics.

Yeah.

1) No. That's not one of the properties of the star. And it's not even part of the theory.

2) You haven't even established solidly that it's a star.

3) No. When a star goes supernova, it indeed does so most of the time because it's iron core collapses, which explodes in a nuclear reaction, reactions which produce highly unstable nuclei that are rich in neutrons. These decay rapidly into more stable forms, responsible for the creation of approximately half of the neutron-rich atomic nuclei that are heavier than iron.

4) All I'm going to say here is, may Einstein curse you in his grave. That, and the fact that the BB was not a supernova explosion.

5) I'm curious as to why you think sphere only. It's an explosion, not a perfectly choreographed ballet dance.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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"


It's not so much as proven fact as "the most likely explanation we currently have from available data."

But yes, generally people who tout off ridiculous claims without evidence that directly conflict with all available data are considered either ignorant, blind, or stupid.

As for everything else, Nicho covered it. Don't bonk the theory when you don't understand what it's even saying.
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

who said i took college level physics? english teachers could think that the concept of creationism is only for the uneducated mind.

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.

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

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

1) 5)


Big Bang Theory

Please, at least read the wikipedia so you have a rudimentary knowledge about what it actually states.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

who said i took college level physics? english teachers could think that the concept of creationism is only for the uneducated mind.


No one said it?

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.


Meh, try learning some bits of the Theory first before lambasting it. The BBT doesn't result in planets or stars forming directly. It is theorised to have resulted initially in what we layman would call ''cosmic soup'', i.e a state of high energy density, huge pressures, and particles. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

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


What you think, has no bearing on TBBT. Clearly you haven't seen many explosions before.
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

there are two forms of this theory as far as I know and the cosmic soup sounds really close to creationism due to the fact that some outside force that no one can say did it. be it a supernova or different random impact with the different bodies. so i didn't bother with that one.

i have been around many different explosions where is be a sonic boom to tnt but if you see a slow mo explosion it does send a shock wave in a sphere. if you are thinking of a mushroom cloud from like a nuke that is caused by the difference in air pressure

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

there are two forms of this theory as far as I know and the cosmic soup sounds really close to creationism due to the fact that some outside force that no one can say did it. be it a supernova or different random impact with the different bodies. so i didn't bother with that one.


Well, then too bad. You can't criticize a theory without even having some grasp of what it actually means. And no, it's not like Creationism. Far from it.

i have been around many different explosions where is be a sonic boom to tnt but if you see a slow mo explosion it does send a shock wave in a sphere. if you are thinking of a mushroom cloud from like a nuke that is caused by the difference in air pressure


Maybe it's also time to highlight to you that galaxies are not always disc shaped. Ellipse, spiral, just to name two. Also, would like to point out before this just degenerates further, that galaxies are formed over time, and not magically spring up after the BBT throws particles around. So I don't even understand why you want to bring point 5 up.
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

i cant criticize this theory? scientist cant even understand this theory. so they make different versions of the same theory.

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. so should there be a planet even in our solar system that doesnt share this disk(Ellipse, Spiral, etc.) shape that we have. and time doesn't change an orbit that drastic where a planet is "above" (i know there really is no up or down in space just what one see relative to where they are) the star to the sides of it.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

i cant criticize this theory? scientist cant even understand this theory. so they make different versions of the same theory.


No, the mainstream version and core is surprisingly supported by much of the scientific community. Most scientists in the field have accepted it, and have long moved away from the BBT vs Steady State Theory phase.

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. so should there be a planet even in our solar system that doesnt share this disk(Ellipse, Spiral, etc.) shape that we have. and time doesn't change an orbit that drastic where a planet is "above" (i know there really is no up or down in space just what one see relative to where they are) the star to the sides of it.


This doesn't even make sense. And when it does, I would also like to point out that not all bodies have the same gravitational force, so no, no sphere.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

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.

xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

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?

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

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.
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

[quote]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.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

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.
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,095

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

Showing 1-15 of 44