Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Zain]

Hello all, first off, I'm not here to fight beliefs, I want to discuss science.

So here we go...

The Conservation of Angular Momentum. I'd like to describe this with a very simple explanation.

Say you put some kids on a Merry-Go-Round and get it spinning extremely fast. The ride is spinning clockwise so fast that the kids fly off. For one, this is poor parenting. For two, the kids will spin clockwise in the air before they hit resistance. This will happen every time.

Let's back up a few years...

The Big Bang consists of every atom, every piece of matter in the Universe coming together into a space much smaller than the size of a period on your screen. Then, it began to spin, faster and faster, until it exploded and bam, here we are billions of years later.

According to the Conservation of Angular Momentum in physics, it would seem that every body of the Universe would spin in the same direction. But, coincidentally, compared to the Earth, two of the planets of our solar system spin the wrong way. 8 of our known 91 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have seperate moons that spin both directions. Even our galaxy spins the wrong way.

Of all things that should follow our Laws of Physics, our Universe should. And then again, it does not follow the Conservation of Angular Momentum in conjunction with the Big Bang Theory.

Also as a side note, both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are destroyed in our Universe. The first saying that "Matter cannot be made nor destroyed" and the second saying "Everything goes from order to disorder." Thus, makes me question Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Under these examples, using Science and Laws that can be observed and proven right now, the Big Bang Theory is an impossible answer to the creation of the Universe.

My beliefs...

I believe there is a God. The God who created our Universe in a literal six day creation just as the Bible States.

Thank you, I am up for discussion. NOT debate.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, the big bang theory is the best science have. It is not perfect, mind you.

Do you have a better theory?

You ended by saying you have a "belief"... That's cool and all that. However, it has nothing to do with science.

But if you want to have a scientific discussion, you can not go: "some parts of this theory might prove wrong, so I decide to go with pink elephants being the cause".

Get my point?

Oh, and there are scientific research to explain what you wrote, I however am not intelligent or well read enough to understand it.

But I urge you to do some research on the topic if it fascinates you! Please report your findings

[Zain]

Well, the big bang theory is the best science have. It is not perfect, mind you.

Do you have a better theory?

You ended by saying you have a "belief"... That's cool and all that. However, it has nothing to do with science.

But if you want to have a scientific discussion, you can not go: "some parts of this theory might prove wrong, so I decide to go with pink elephants being the cause".

Get my point?

Oh, and there are scientific research to explain what you wrote, I however am not intelligent or well read enough to understand it.

But I urge you to do some research on the topic if it fascinates you! Please report your findings

I agree, I should have been more clear with my ending.

But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in. They say nothing came out of nowhere and exploded, it rained on Earth for billions of years and somehow the rock came to life. You have to have faith in that theory because you werent there to know it happened without a shadow of a doubt.

Same for me. I believe and trust that God created this Earth. I see life and see purpose in it instead of it being an accident.

Belief has everything to do with Science.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. I believe in the Lord God and the big bang, I think they're very compatible. Course it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.

I think applying the conservation of angular momentum to the big bang theory doesn't fly. Where's your source that the singularity point was spinning in one direction? A quick skim of wiki doesn't say that.

Also; matter collided after the big bang, as the universe expanded. Such collisions would easily change the direction of the particles impacting, so that they didn't match the initial spin, if there was one. I'm not sure the basics of this criticism of the big bang theory really holds up.

I've listened to a couple very smart people make very pointed criticisms of the big bang theory, but they didn't mention this. Nor do I think it violates the laws of thermodynamics you mention. IIRC, according to the theory, matter isn't created; it is simply that all of the matter in the universe was in one point (wow!). Nor does the formation of planets violate the second law. The universe before the big bang was very ordered, in the way of matter not being spread out over vast empty areas. Okay, I'm not quite sure that's a good explanation for the second law, but I am sure the theory doesn't violate it.

CR

[Zain]

Hmm. I believe in the Lord God and the big bang, I think they're very compatible. Course it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.

I think applying the conservation of angular momentum to the big bang theory doesn't fly. Where's your source that the singularity point was spinning in one direction? A quick skim of wiki doesn't say that.

Also; matter collided after the big bang, as the universe expanded. Such collisions would easily change the direction of the particles impacting, so that they didn't match the initial spin, if there was one. I'm not sure the basics of this criticism of the big bang theory really holds up.

I've listened to a couple very smart people make very pointed criticisms of the big bang theory, but they didn't mention this. Nor do I think it violates the laws of thermodynamics you mention. IIRC, according to the theory, matter isn't created; it is simply that all of the matter in the universe was in one point (wow!). Nor does the formation of planets violate the second law. The universe before the big bang was very ordered, in the way of matter not being spread out over vast empty areas. Okay, I'm not quite sure that's a good explanation for the second law, but I am sure the theory doesn't violate it.

CR

My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.

I do not believe the two theories are related in that way. We can still have evolution and be on our way to the heat death of the universe.

CR

[Tribesman]

You do not support your theories but only attack mine and my arguments.

Are you unable to defend your theories from simple questions.
Or is it simply that you cut and pasted an article and don't actually understand the theories you are putting forward yourself.

you have no room in this thread.

Thats debateable , though it could seem that someone who knows very little of science and very very little of scripture really doesn't belong in this topic.

You do know that gluttony is a sin and being a glutton for punishment upsets god.
This defiance of the order of reason is unchristian, John of the cross speaks clearly against spiritual gluttony you indulge in.

OK philipvs , you can take Zain for his much needed lessons on scripture, I really can't be bothered.

[drone]

Thank you, I am up for discussion. NOT debate.

What's the difference?

Also as a side note, both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are destroyed in our Universe. The first saying that "Matter cannot be made nor destroyed" and the second saying "Everything goes from order to disorder." Thus, makes me question Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Under these examples, using Science and Laws that can be observed and proven right now, the Big Bang Theory is an impossible answer to the creation of the Universe.

In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

I don't believe the conservation of angular momentum applies, because the singularity was not spinning homogeneously, it was more just a highly dense mass at high temperature and pressure. Moons spinning in the "wrong" direction can be explained by the fact that moons are created by collisions of debris, thus they have already hit resistance and can spin any way they like.

And get the laws right. The first law is:

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

Einstein's E=mc^2 shows the relationship between energy and matter. Nuclear reactions destroy matter and turn it into energy, not sure where you got your text for law 1.

And the Big Bang is just a theory, being refined and tweaked as scientific observations and progressions are made. Not some book written/edited/translated by fallible humans with different agendas and points of view and now can no longer be questioned.


Either way, I foresee thread lockage before 60 posts.

[Zain]

What's the difference?


In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

I don't believe the conservation of angular momentum applies, because the singularity was not spinning homogeneously, it was more just a highly dense mass at high temperature and pressure. Moons spinning in the "wrong" direction can be explained by the fact that moons are created by collisions of debris, thus they have already hit resistance and can spin any way they like.

And get the laws right. The first law is:

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

Einstein's E=mc^2 shows the relationship between energy and matter. Nuclear reactions destroy matter and turn it into energy, not sure where you got your text for law 1.

And the Big Bang is just a theory, being refined and tweaked as scientific observations and progressions are made. Not some book written/edited/translated by fallible humans with different agendas and points of view and now can no longer be questioned.


Either way, I foresee thread lockage before 60 posts.

I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder?

I hope to keep this thread scientific. I don't want to attack or be attacked, nor do I want to convert or be converted. I want to learn in all respect.

[gaelic cowboy]

I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder?

I hope to keep this thread scientific. I don't want to attack or be attacked, nor do I want to convert or be converted. I want to learn in all respect.

Well to be honest the second law is correct if our universe is isolated, however we cannot be certain of that but it does not give you the right to claim god is real if our universe is not isolated.

[Zain]

Well to be honest the second law is correct if our universe is isolated, however we cannot be certain of that but it does not give you the right to claim god is real if our universe is not isolated.

I have the right to say God is real because the Universe exists.

Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have the right to say God is real because the Universe exists.

Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.

I have the right to say pink elephants is real because the Universe exists.

Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.

[drone]

I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder?

Second law:

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.

I didn't address this, because I fail to see how it comes into the argument. If the Universe as a whole is an isolated thermodynamic system, we are headed eventually towards heat death. It's going to take a long time though.

But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in. They say nothing came out of nowhere and exploded, it rained on Earth for billions of years and somehow the rock came to life. You have to have faith in that theory because you werent there to know it happened without a shadow of a doubt.

"Belief" should never be in science. Everything should be questioned until proven, and even then taken with a grain of salt. The Big Bang and Evolution do not have to be believed in in science. These are theories put forth, to be reviewed and poked at. For the most part, they hold up to a degree, but there are still problems. The number of theories submitted and then found to be junk are countless. Mankind has a long way to go before understanding how this world, or the universe as a whole, operates. Science is about expanding knowledge, not restricting it to 39+27 chapters in some book put together by a committee.


I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous.

[gaelic cowboy]

I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous.

[Centurion1]

i really dont even feel like posting in here after tribesmen has feels like wasted time........

And this topic had potential.....

Well who said the universe before the big bang WASNT ordered. Very possible it was very ordered and then the radius of the "blast" knocked everything silly. They say before the big bang the universe was a much closer tighter knit thing. so in my mind the second law could very well be fulfilled. All this is hypothetical and based on some assumptions.

[gaelic cowboy]

Zeroth Law If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

First Law The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system.

Second Law The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.

Third Law As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes".

Brownian motion first proof of Atoms

299,792,458 m/s speed of light

Facts


Belief God created man

Life did not come from nothing the very fact we have a universe to exist in gave evolution a vast amount of time to evolve a being that could live in said universe.

By the way evolution is not a consious thing like a god its a process.

Proved by the mistakes evolution makes along the way otherwise no animal would ever go extinct and no part of us we evolve would ever be faulty if a designer made us.

Go check out whale and giraffe biology you can see the many problems and vestigial elements both of these mammals have.

[Zain]

Second law:

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.

I didn't address this, because I fail to see how it comes into the argument. If the Universe as a whole is an isolated thermodynamic system, we are headed eventually towards heat death. It's going to take a long time though.


"Belief" should never be in science. Everything should be questioned until proven, and even then taken with a grain of salt. The Big Bang and Evolution do not have to be believed in in science. These are theories put forth, to be reviewed and poked at. For the most part, they hold up to a degree, but there are still problems. The number of theories submitted and then found to be junk are countless. Mankind has a long way to go before understanding how this world, or the universe as a whole, operates. Science is about expanding knowledge, not restricting it to 39+27 chapters in some book put together by a committee.


I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous.

Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

Thus, we are headings towards death. I agree. But how does increased entropy create life?

Also, you must believe in something to care to argue about it. Plus Something from Nothing seems very religious to me.

[drone]

Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

Thus, we are headings towards death. I agree. But how does increased entropy create life?

Also, you must believe in something to care to argue about it. Plus Something from Nothing seems very religious to me.

Entropy does not create life from nothing, I don't believe the theory of Evolution ever tried to state that. In most life creation theories, life begins as chemical reactions. Various elements and molecules interact, given enough variety they form proteins, etc, and eventually single-celled replicating organisms.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems to me that you have proposed an extremely dangerous philosophical model, that a theory or theoretical system can be rejected wholesale if one part of it can be shown to be not entirely correct.

Ergo, if your Bible contains a single error your entire belief system must be wrong.

This seems a very odd proposition, given the circumstances.

[Zain]

It seems to me that you have proposed an extremely dangerous philosophical model, that a theory or theoretical system can be rejected wholesale if one part of it can be shown to be not entirely correct.

Ergo, if your Bible contains a single error your entire belief system must be wrong.

This seems a very odd proposition, given the circumstances.

So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.

Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.

Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the first diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.

To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.

So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.

[Zain]

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.

Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.

Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the fist diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.

To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.

So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.

I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.

I will do some research

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

[drone]

And where did those gases come from drone?

Gases are elements. I think the proposal is that the elements were formed from the energy to matter conversion (E=mc^2 works both ways) of the big bang. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter.

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

Unless your belief structure is wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemns you to the hell of the extra-spicy marinara for your heresy.

Since you obviously aren't going to be swayed (I half suspect this whole thread to be a thinly disguised troll), let me ask this question: Why do you think that just because you believe the way you do leads you to paradise and not someone that believes differently? Should a believer that acts in contempt of his fellow man deserve heaven over an unenlightened schmuck that actually helps people?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.

I will do some research

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

You are operating under a missaprehension based on the belief that understanding the origin of the scriptures automatically makes one an atheist. Most Theologians are religious, and they will happily tell you everything I just did.

After all, why would you have faith in an anthology compiled by blind scribes and priests of unknown virtue when you could just have faith in God?

[Pannonian]

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe.

Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.

[Zain]

Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word of God and do not entirely trust the other translations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Zain, no. Just no.

Science does NOT require faith. I say it again to make sure you get this: Science does NOT require faith.

We have scientifical examples, we have theorys, we have a lot of cool stuff. Faith, however, is not among them.

That is why science is never claiming to be 100% correct. Science is just saying "this is the way we think things works from the scientifical results we have at this time".

You seem to have got the very basics of science fundamentaly wrong.

That is the difference between science and religion, science dont claim to know the truth of things. Science strives to LEARN the truth though, and get better at it every minute.

But no, you will not in your lifetime have science proving any religion, or madman, wrong.

That is the wonder of this world! If some lunatic wants to believe that the planets spin the way they do because pink elephants stampeted by, then they are free to believe so! Science can not, actually, prove these lunatics are wrong.

Sure, if someone claims this I might consider him a lunatic from what I have seen of the world, but I can not prove him wrong.

[Zain]

Zain, no. Just no.

Science does NOT require faith. I say it again to make sure you get this: Science does NOT require faith.

We have scientifical examples, we have theorys, we have a lot of cool stuff. Faith, however, is not among them.

That is why science is never claiming to be 100% correct. Science is just saying "this is the way we think things works from the scientifical results we have at this time".

You seem to have got the very basics of science fundamentaly wrong.

That is the difference between science and religion, science dont claim to know the truth of things. Science strives to LEARN the truth though, and get better at it every minute.

But no, you will not in your lifetime have science proving any religion, or madman, wrong.

That is the wonder of this world! If some lunatic wants to believe that the planets spin the way they do because pink elephants stampeted by, then they are free to believe so! Science can not, actually, prove these lunatics are wrong.

Sure, if someone claims this I might consider him a lunatic from what I have seen of the world, but I can not prove him wrong.

If you believe that Big Bang and Evolution as truth, then you must have faith. Like I've said. Life from a rock seems like a fairy tale. Of course I can see how religion would seem that way too. At least my "fairy tale" has an author.

[Kadagar_AV]

If you believe that Big Bang and Evolution as truth, then you must have faith. Like I've said. Life from a rock seems like a fairy tale. Of course I can see how religion would seem that way too. At least my "fairy tale" has an author.

Hmm... I thought I could not make myself more clear, but obviosly I have to.

Zain, AGAIN, you do NOT understand even the basics of science.

I do NOT, again and again and again: NOT NOT NOT "believe" that big bang and evolution is "true". I do however consider them the theorys that, as of this date, explains the universe to the best of our abilities.

Are you able to understand what I am saying?

So no, obviosly I must not have "faith". If these theorys are changed tomorrow and replaced with better theorys I wouldn't be bothered. It would not, so to say, disturb my circles.

And about your "fairy tale" as you call it... Does it matter if it has an author or not? If that is the only claim to "truth", you might aswell worship Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.

[Zain]

Hmm... I thought I could not make myself more clear, but obviosly I have to.

Zain, AGAIN, you do NOT understand even the basics of science.

I do NOT, again and again and again: NOT NOT NOT "believe" that big bang and evolution is "true". I do however consider them the theorys that, as of this date, explains the universe to the best of our abilities.

Are you able to understand what I am saying?

So no, obviosly I must not have "faith". If these theorys are changed tomorrow and replaced with better theorys I wouldn't be bothered. It would not, so to say, disturb my circles.

And about your "fairy tale" as you call it... Does it matter if it has an author or not? If that is the only claim to "truth", you might aswell worship Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.

Can you see, feel, touch, smell, or taste the Big Bang Theory?

Then you must believe in it.