Nathan David
Well-Known Member
Where are you getting this from? I've been reading about cosmology since I was a little kid and I don't remember any scientist saying anything about the early universe spinning.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
But it is spinning backwards!
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
Where are you getting this from? I've been reading about cosmology since I was a little kid and I don't remember any scientist saying anything about the early universe spinning.
Whatever you want to call it, swirl, spin, rotate, whatever.
"the unified theory would describe the frantic dance of subatomic particles and the majestic swirl of heavenly galaxies using one single master idea, a master equation so to speak, and that's where we see elegance; that the universe, although it's rich and wondrous may be founded upon a few basic principles of incredible planetary power."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/april99/bigbang_4-26.html
Upvote
0
Nathan David
Well-Known Member
JohnR7, that quote and article say nothing about the matter in the early universe spinning.
Upvote
0
I just skipped on to the last page of this thread, to see if anybody questioned the bit about the early universe spinning. I'm glad Nathan David is doing just that. Good job!
Yes, JohnR7, I'd like to see what cosmology reference you're using for this. I'm really curious. Thanks!
Yes, JohnR7, I'd like to see what cosmology reference you're using for this. I'm really curious. Thanks!
Upvote
0
Good lord. 7 pages on an incorrect assertion about the Big Bang (that it was spinning) and an equally incorrect assertion that "once something spins one way, it always has to".
Goodness, John. Did you take high school physics? Have you ever played billiards? Net angular momentum must be conserved.
I can slam two pool balls together, both of which have zero spin at the moment of impact, and end up with two balls spinning in different directions.
Yet I've certainly broken no laws of physics.
Anyone whose ever put a bit of English on their shot knows better.
Goodness, John. Did you take high school physics? Have you ever played billiards? Net angular momentum must be conserved.
I can slam two pool balls together, both of which have zero spin at the moment of impact, and end up with two balls spinning in different directions.
Yet I've certainly broken no laws of physics.
Anyone whose ever put a bit of English on their shot knows better.
Upvote
0
I really do not understand what your talking about. The "big bang" was not like a explosion in that everything went straight out. The universe started expanding in a swirling, spinning motion. Everything went out spinning & rotating. If your not aware of that, then maybe you need to do your own research on the "big bang" I am getting tired of doing free research for people on here.
Go to the library, there are people there that have degrees and they will do free research for you.
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
I'm sorry John, but you are misinformed. The Big Bang does not say that the Universe began spinning and rotating. It is that simple.
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Let me guess the bottom line here.....
Not only did God intentionally reverse spin on objects, He also planted bogus dinosaur bones all over the place, made a young universe look old....all this and much more, in an elaborate scheme to trick scientists.
In other words, God never wanted science to explain His creation. He always wanted to be at odds with science.....
Is this the crux of what you are saying, John?
Not only did God intentionally reverse spin on objects, He also planted bogus dinosaur bones all over the place, made a young universe look old....all this and much more, in an elaborate scheme to trick scientists.
In other words, God never wanted science to explain His creation. He always wanted to be at odds with science.....
Is this the crux of what you are saying, John?
Upvote
0
John, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the spinning of "things". Gravity started the spinning. After the big bang. You follow?
Upvote
0
DNAunion: Someone already pointed this general idea out, but...
Thought experiment. Take two basketballs and give each a very good counterclockwise spin on a frictionless surface. Make sure that they are close enough that they collide. What happens? Their rate of spin is changed. Why? Because at whatever point the two balls meet, those parts of the balls will be going in opposite directions, even though they are both spinning counterclockwise. Now increase the number of basketballs to a hundred: you would end up with a wide variety of spin rates and some would probably end up spinning clockwise.
Let's try to relate this to our solar system. Our solar system started off from a collapsing cloud of gasses that was spinning. Let's skip ahead to the point where there are solid bodies forming, assuming that everything is revolving around the (proto)star counterclockwise. Suppose a body is either in an unstable orbit or has its stable orbit perturbed: its orbit is or becomes highly elliptical - BUT IS STILL COUNTERCLOCKWISE. Now suppose that body strikes Venus...what could happen? It could strike Venus deadon, or a glancing blow: and a glancing blow could strike either the "frontend" of Venus or the "backend" of Venus. If it hit the frontside of Venus it would assist Venus in rotating counterclockwise: but if it struck the other side of Venus - the back side, which is just as likely - it would work against Venus's counterclockwise rotation, and if the impact were strong enough, or if enough smaller ones accumulated, it/they could cause the planet to end up rotating clockwise.
Thought experiment. Take two basketballs and give each a very good counterclockwise spin on a frictionless surface. Make sure that they are close enough that they collide. What happens? Their rate of spin is changed. Why? Because at whatever point the two balls meet, those parts of the balls will be going in opposite directions, even though they are both spinning counterclockwise. Now increase the number of basketballs to a hundred: you would end up with a wide variety of spin rates and some would probably end up spinning clockwise.
Let's try to relate this to our solar system. Our solar system started off from a collapsing cloud of gasses that was spinning. Let's skip ahead to the point where there are solid bodies forming, assuming that everything is revolving around the (proto)star counterclockwise. Suppose a body is either in an unstable orbit or has its stable orbit perturbed: its orbit is or becomes highly elliptical - BUT IS STILL COUNTERCLOCKWISE. Now suppose that body strikes Venus...what could happen? It could strike Venus deadon, or a glancing blow: and a glancing blow could strike either the "frontend" of Venus or the "backend" of Venus. If it hit the frontside of Venus it would assist Venus in rotating counterclockwise: but if it struck the other side of Venus - the back side, which is just as likely - it would work against Venus's counterclockwise rotation, and if the impact were strong enough, or if enough smaller ones accumulated, it/they could cause the planet to end up rotating clockwise.
Upvote
0
Take your own advice. The simple fact is that the Big Bang does not predict that the universe is rotating. Your only evidence is a huge misreading of poetic language used in a TV interview transcript.
But if you like you can bring up this issue on this astronomy board where you will get proptly corrected by several professional astronomers.
In any event, what do you think things in the universe are rotationing around? Bear in mind that there is no center of the universe in Big Bang cosmology.
But if you insist that we do your research for you, click on the following URL:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae230.cfm
Upvote
0
I wonder if JohnR7 is ever going to admit he was wrong about the Big Bang demanding a "rotating" universe?
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
No John won't ever admit being wrong since John personaly speaks for God, at least he believes he does, and therefore can never be wrong.
Upvote
0
I believe you're taking some words out of context. In any case...
He spoke of the dance of electrons, beautiful to a scientist who first beheld them. And if you cannot see the milky way as a dance of stars above us, then you have no poetry in your heart.
Upvote
0
Didn't your mamma teach you that if you can't say something nice about someone, then don't say nothing at all.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
