Big Bang vs. Rotation

*
I encountered a creationist recently who assured me that the Big Bang model can't work because there would be no way for objects to start rotating.
*
Is this true? Actually it is this sort of objection that makes me wonder if creationists know the difference between the solar system, the galaxy and the universe as a whole. I've found in the past that they confuse the age of the earth, the age of the galaxy and the age of the universe.
*
The first confusion here relates to the universe as a whole. Does the whole universe rotate? No. If you asked a physicist that question, he'd probably say: "With respect to what?" Since the whole universe doesn't rotate, there's nothing to explain at this level.
*
What is the situation for things that do rotate: galaxies, stars and planets?
*
Presumably what those who use this rotation objection are trying to say is that in physics angular momentum is one of the basic conserved quanities. It can't be created or destroyed except as part of a sum. How does rotation begin? Suppose an asteroid, not rotating, were to pass too close to a large planet, like Jupiter, and break up. If it splits into two halves, one half could rotate clockwise and the other rotate counterclockwise. An initial object with an angular momentum of zero can split into two resultant objects with an angular momentum of -1 and +1. These still sum to zero.
*
In the present theory of the universe, shortly after the Big Bang, huge stars formed, which, being large, burned out quickly and exploded. Later stars formed from the leftover gas. So, if these original stars didn't rotate, could the gas they give off have rotation? Yes, it can, and that may be why stars and galaxies rotate today.
*

The creationist claim has been refutted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html

__________________
Veritas omnia vincit.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Using their version of science, you wouldn't be able to move a chair or toss a ball.

Conservation of momentum (either angular or in a straight line) simply requires that for every change in momentum of one object, a corresponding change in the opposite direction of another object must occur that is equal in magnitude.

Or, as Sir Isaac put it, "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction".

Gravitational interactions are typically how this comes about on cosmic scales.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Don't electrons spin around the nucleus of atoms?

__________________
Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes and no. Electrons spin, but they don't "orbit" a nucleus like most people think they do. They exist in differentiating "probability fields" known as "oribitals" that vary according to the energy of the electron.

Was just wondering if this wasn't what put the "spin" into the nature of everything?

__________________
Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The rotating big bang theory is generally propagated by Hovind (DrDino) and is pretty much a load of bull. The amount of misinterpretation and lies needed to get to that point are pretty amazing to me.

Basically the answer is that no one But creationist claim that the big bang started with rotation, so its a strawman. They make it up, pretend scientists said it, then beat it to shreds.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Creationists misunderstanding of the conservation of angular momentum is very similar to their misunderstanding of the second law. The conservation of angular momentum says that the sum of all angular momentums in an isolated system must be constant. Since the angular momentum of the universe as a whole is probably zero, then the only explanation for this in the creationist's limited imagination is that the angular momentum in every subsection of the universe must also be zero.

With respect to the starting point and the answer is yes it does. But just about the time you get it all figures out, you need to come up with an explaination for the reverse spin. There are a few galaxys that spin in the opposite direction of the majority of the galaxys.

Nonsense!! We KNOW the universe is still expanding so your puny rhetoric is just that a puny sophmoric tirade against Kent Hovind; your big bang itself is an utterly rediculous idea; think about it! & they call it science, what a laugh.