View Full Version : Big Bang Theory is a myth
thefirestarter
11-08-01, 11:04 PM
Planets and stars can't form from gas floating in space because there is no gravity in space that can clump it together. If you think I am mistaken, I asked my girlfriend who is a biology/chemistry major, and a creationists, to describe to me gravity. She described gravity in a similiar way to me: only celestial bodies have gravitational forces in our universe. This is why there is no gravity in deep space. My girlfriend will major with 3.98 in science studies, so she knows what she's talking about. Now gravity doesn't exist between anything but celestial bodies, so atoms can't have gravity, and are held together by, as my girlfriend described it "not as gravity, but the atomic force between matter." Therefore it would be impossible for planets to form by random clumping of particles because there is no gravity in deep space.
Liquids are made by the rate of collisions between atoms. We can't even "clump" gas on earth where there is gravity, how can you do it in freaking outer space where the concept of gravity is nil? I mean in the voidless wonder of outer space, how in hades is there a gravitational pull? Remember, it's a game of rolling the die and having to get one number out of a million. And gases move from a high density to a low density, thus that disproves the idea that gases could 'clump' in outer space. My knowledge of physics is quite limited, but to me it seems logical: only a defined mass can have a gravitational pull.
I have the following questions for you scientists:
1. If gravity is a potent force that would cause gases to come together, why didn't all gas clump in outer space?
2. As my evidence speaks to the fact that gas can't clump on Earth, where gravity is much more potent. Thus, how could it occur in deep space?
Clearly god created the universe.
Whoa. For a minute there I thought you were serious.
thefirestarter
11-09-01, 01:02 AM
I'm being deadly serious. I suppose that because I believe in god you must think I'm some sort of joke. Well your wrong, and I can back up what I say with evidence.
"NASA's Commander Frank Culbertson, at home on the International Space Station, will be wiggling a scale model of the Canadarm2 to duplicate an experiment the students have already tried on Earth.
The goal: To figure out what mass and inertia are like in a place where there's no gravity, and to compare that with the results in Earth gravity. Every few months the space station crew gets a chance to go back to school, doing a quick experiment (it's supposed to take no more than 20 minutes) to show students something about gravity, or the lack of it. "
from the Ottawa Citizen . By Tom Spears.
See. To me this article highlights how outer space doesn't have gravity, and that this is why things float in space. The reason for this is that there is no celestial body in outer space to "pull" things into their orbit. If there is "no gravity" in deep space, how can there be "gravity" between gas particles in deep space?
How do you answer that?
Interesting thoughts - minor problem....
You state that there's no gravity in space. That's not really true. Anything that has a mass (ie any particle, give or take one or two exceptions) will exert some kind of gravitational pull on other particles around it. Thus, when several particles are in the same region of space, they will exert forces on each other, and given enough time, will eventually begin to "clump" together (remember the Universe is several Billion years old, so although it may take a long time, it will eventually happen).
As more and more of these clumps of matter begin to appear, they will exert more and more forces on other particles/clumps and hey presto - you will begin to see the formation of molecules and one day you will begin to see celestial bodies being formed.
Thoughts/Comments?
Cheers,
Henrik
thefirestarter
11-09-01, 01:24 PM
You assume the universe is billions of years old, I see no proof. Red-shift doesn't prove the age of the universe, it is simply one means of measuring it, and not necessarily very accurate. I don't recall anyone going out and physically measuring the age of any of the celestial bodies to verify the truth of it, say with carbon dating (haha).
And why would NASA say "no gravity" when they really meant "some gravity", that's not very scientific. Is there gravity in outer space or is there not? If there is no gravity, like NASA says, then how can atoms "clump" together. The only thing holding atoms together is intra-atomic force, not gravity.
Originally posted by thefirestarter
Planets and stars can't form from gas floating in space because there is no gravity in space that can clump it together. Of course there is.
If you think I am mistaken, I asked my girlfriend who is a biology/chemistry major, and a creationists, to describe to me gravity. She described gravity in a similiar way to me: only celestial bodies have gravitational forces in our universe. This is why there is no gravity in deep space. My girlfriend will major with 3.98 in science studies, so she knows what she's talking about. Obviously she doesn't if she thinks that atoms don't have gravity. Ask her to explain the general theory of relativity to you.
only a defined mass can have a gravitational pull. If by a defined mass you mean anything that has mass, then you're right. But atoms have a defined mass. If you're so convinced that atoms don't have mass, perhaps you can explain how it is that objects made entirely of atoms do have mass.
1. If gravity is a potent force that would cause gases to come together, why didn't all gas clump in outer space?Because gravity is incredibly weak over long distance; its power decreases proportionally with the square of the distance.
2. As my evidence speaks to the fact that gas can't clump on Earth, where gravity is much more potent. Thus, how could it occur in deep space?What's condensation, other than 'gas clumping', whatever that means?
Clearly god created the universe.How do you know it wasn't pixies? What evidence (seeing as you seem so fond of it) is there for god as opposed to Pixies or extra-dimensional Scientologists?
Initially when the forming process starts it is by atomic attraction that brings atoms together and starts the clumping process. This is by random movement of atoms. Later clumps combine to create a larger mass. These larger masses then combine to create still larger masses. As the mass increases the area of the clumps decrease as they contract forming denser matter. Then gravity starts to come into play. Very weak at first and steadily becoming stronger. This is how the forming process iis thought to begin.
thefirestarter
11-09-01, 07:43 PM
Of course there is.
Says rde in response to my question regarding the existence of gravity. And then rde has the audacity to scoff at my claim for the clear obviousness that god created the universe and all that is in it. It says that god created the universe in the beauty that is the earth, the wonder that is the heavens, and the truth that is the bible. All we have for the "truth" that is the Big Bang is the word of scientists, and that is less credible than the wonder I see every day. Worse still, scientists contradict themselves all the time. Here you say "of course" there is gravity in outer space, and NASA says otherwise. I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one, I shall look forward to it.
Initially when the forming process starts it is by atomic attraction that brings atoms together and starts the clumping process. This is by random movement of atoms. Later clumps combine to create a larger mass. These larger masses then combine to create still larger masses. As the mass increases the area of the clumps decrease as they contract forming denser matter. Then gravity starts to come into play. Very weak at first and steadily becoming stronger. This is how the forming process iis thought to begin.
Says wet1. Yet more scientific evangelising. You simply state a process that you assume to happen, because you've been told that it does. Have you ever seen the process happen, have you even got any evidence that this process happens. I think not.
Malaclypse
11-09-01, 07:53 PM
I never agreed with the Big Bang Theory....I'm no scientist but I think we who believe this are correct.
- and a shred of proof proponents offer is the fact that objects are moving away from the Earth.....uh....are we now at the center of the Universe all of a sudden?
thefirestarter,
You wrote:
Yet more scientific evangelising. You simply state a process that you assume to happen, because you've been told that it does. Have you ever seen the process happen, have you even got any evidence that this process happens. I think not.
Hmm..not to put too fine a point on it, but turning this on its head, did you ever see any of the things described in the Bible happen? You're simply doing what we're doing - believing something because we've been taught about it, read about it, but possibly never witnessed it directly.
Proof of interaction between particles is found on a very regular basis by scientists performing experiments in particle accelerators around the world. This proof is captured by photographic evidence, as well as computerised data capture.
And just to re-iterate what 'rde' stated, gravity follows a law that sees the force decrease in proportion to the the distance; mathematically this will never reach 0 (basic maths - do your own sums).
Also, proof of the age of the bodies in the Universe can also be done by observing these bodies. We know about the half-life of the atoms in the Universe, and we know about the nuclear physics that are involved in the fuelling of a star...I think we have adequate proof that the Universe is indeed 12-15 Billion years old....older than the stories in the Bible.
Anyway, enough of my ranting......hope you all have a good weekend.
Henrik
xvenomousx
11-10-01, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by thefirestarter
And why would NASA say "no gravity" when they really meant "some gravity", that's not very scientific. Is there gravity in outer space or is there not? If there is no gravity, like NASA says, then how can atoms "clump" together. The only thing holding atoms together is intra-atomic force, not gravity.
I think the reason why you believe your beliefs and have a hard time is because you take EVERYTHING you see, hear and read absolutely LITERALLY without thinking it through.
I would have thought if you were having doubts about the big bang and gravity and the universe (ie why doesn't gravity make the universe collapse into one big blob) you would go to the library or do a web search and find some information on how gravity works - then you mights see where the theorists are coming from.
But no as always creationists work more with nuances and misunderstandings of grammer and who said what in what book rather than factual information.
Crash course in gravity: All mass has gravity which deforms the "fabric" of space rather like a ball would deform a rubber sheet or trampoline. Put two items on a rubber sheet and they will roll together. So anything made of atoms has gravity. The strength of gravity has to do with density. For example a one ounce ball bearing would make a deeper dimple than a one ounce beach ball. Simple.
Why doesn't the universe just clump together in a big blob? Answer: it MUST be expanding and as a result of inward force slowing down or perhaps accelerating as result of a repelling force. The speed of expansion - measured by red shift directly tells us how old the universe is (15 billion years).
This is also aided by the fact the further you look away into space the further back in time you are looking, so one can be absolutley sure of the immense age of the universe because we [i]do/[i] have a time machine window to look back through.
You should have some understanding of that the big bang debate is about now.
Someone with limited intelectual capacity and poor education (preferably american) would make the brainless assumption that because the astronauts on the space shuttle - as seen on tv - float around, that there must be no gravity in space.
Gosh NASA must be telling some lies mustn't they, or just don't know what they are talking about? Or was it that I took that statement too literally not understanding what was meant... ?
Now the space shuttle zooms around the earth - in a circle at 6
miles per second (fast!) taking 90 minutes to go right around the earth - wouldn't the enourmous centrifugal forces make it fly out into space? How can it fly around in a curve like that with no air or engines to steer it around?
The astronauts in orbit feel no gravity-like effects because the force inward toward earth is almost exactly balanced by the centrifugal forces of them flying in a very big circle.
If you want to make yourself look like less of a fool thefirestarter, you should consider a bit of investigation rather than complaining about discrepencies in who-said-what because you failed understand them. Word games don't consitute any form of argument against a proposed idea or theory.
I'm quite sure you girlfriend wont pass if she's telling you misinformation like that - then again she might, but we still can be sure that will be a question she gets wrong in her exam papers.
Lastly, ask yourself; are NASA/Scienctist/any people in the know, lying? or do you just not understand anything of the concepts in debate?
Hi all,
Small correction to xcenomousx's statement:
The astronauts in orbit feel no gravity-like effects because the force inward toward earth is almost exactly balanced by the centrifugal forces of them flying in a very big circle.
This is the one thing in your post that I do not agree with ;). The reason why astronauts don't crash back onto earth is not because there are centrifugal forces (these are not real forces anyway, but that's another story). The effect you're looking for is that gravity is a central force: the astronauts are always attracted to (roughly) the center of the earth, so they actually are tumbling back to earth. Fortunately, they have exactly the right velocity not to crash back into the earths atmosphere, but to fall past the earth (you should imagine the earth at a distance for a second, and see a small rocket being launched away from the surface under a certain angle - the rocket's path is bent back towards the earth because of gravity, but it just misses earth). This effect is repeated and hence you get "falling past earth" at all times -> orbit.
Bye!
Crisp
A skydiver's dream: Continuous freefall! :D
To thefirestarter:
If you want evidence of the Big Bang and want to learn about how star formed since the beginning of time, the book "ATOM" is what you need to read. It talks about everything since the Big Bang.
Originally posted by thefirestarter
Says rde in response to my question regarding the existence of gravity. And then rde has the audacity to scoff at my claim for the clear obviousness that god created the universe and all that is in it. ... Here you say "of course" there is gravity in outer space, and NASA says otherwise. I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one, I shall look forward to it.
Two people in particular say that gravity is universal; Newton and Einstein. Whereas both theories are incomplete, both have made masses of predictions, almost all of which have since been verified. I'm content that the maths - as far as I can follow them - are correct. Which aspects of Newton's laws of motion do you disagree with? Which part of General Relativity?
Yet more scientific evangelising. You simply state a process that you assume to happen, because you've been told that it does. Have you ever seen the process happen, have you even got any evidence that this process happens. I think not. For someone who's defending the scientific method so zealously, you're remarkably short on evidence yourself. Where's this proof of god? And something more substantial than "it's in the bible" would be nice. I don't take Lord of the Rings to be proof of the existance of hobbits, so I'm not about to start believing the bible without corroborating evidence.
Impirical evidence and evidence in faith are definitely not the same thing. I will not get into religion here but if you site creatisim theory then show proof with something besides “the bible tells me so” or “I believe”.
Should this thread turn into a religion based post then I will transfer it to the religion forum where it belongs.
Wet1,
How can I accept your reasoning as valid when I know your spelling is inaccurate?
Anyone who has taken the time to read your posts is already aware that you are an anal void.
Don't try to prove that you are an unmitigated one to boot. :rolleyes:
First off, spelling has nothing to do with with the thought that is presented. Did you have some kind of problem with following the thought?
Secondly, when first I came to Sciforums I used to complain about others spelling. Know what? It did not change the validity of the post.
Thirdly, I see no information posted on where the evidence is to support your view.
Chagur,
<,...Anyone who has taken the time to read your posts...>>
You are the poster child of assimilation being merely the first part of synthesis.
Care to attempt to achieve the second part?
wet1,
<<...spelling has nothing to do with with the thought that is presented...>>
Logical thought is about discipline. The mechanics of spelling also is also about discipline.
The easier discipline.
Mr. G,
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Where did you learn to spell Florida?
<<...Where did you learn to spell Florida?..>>
Why, at Sarcasm School. Of course. :rolleyes:
You are truly the antithesis of the 'Big Bang Theory' ... I believe it is the 'Little Crunch Hypothesis' :o
Chagur,
Since when is ad hominem editorializing anything even approximating rational reasoning?
Now, were I inclined to play this debate-by-character-assassination by the same rules as you've introduced, I would characterize you, as the antithesis of the Big Bang theory, as the Big Suck theory. :D
So glad that you are not so inclined.
Ta ta :D
xvenomousx
11-14-01, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by thefirestarter
Says rde in response to my question regarding the existence of gravity. And then rde has the audacity to scoff at my claim for the clear obviousness that god created the universe and all that is in it. It says that god created the universe in the beauty that is the earth, the wonder that is the heavens, and the truth that is the
How and why is the bible the truth? All we have is the word of the bible which says the bible is true. Nothing else physically points to the bible being of significance - its copied text on paper, any siginificance is in the minds of the reader. Exactly as a pet rock only has siginificance if something believes its alive.
bible. All we have for the "truth" that is the Big Bang is the word of scientists, and that is less credible than the wonder I see every day. Worse still, scientists contradict themselves all the
Thats a bad statement really. I think its a highly credible truth, as you DON'T have to take their word for it. Nobody is forcing science down your throat because absolutely anyone can get a telescope and some basic equipment and have a look for themselves. I do a bit of amatuer astronomy myself, I could -if i had doubts get a basic set up and I could measure redshit and other phenomona myself.
When you look through your telescope in the backyard you see an imense universe and you realise the people that wrote the bible couldn't see this
Scientists aren't always contradicting themselves. Scientists contradict EACH OTHER. The only time contradiction occurs on an individual level in science is when a scientist changes their ideas, as happens quite alot. Science is all about proving yourself wrong.
Science is based around individuality - where everybody's opinion and conclusions will always differ. Science as a whole is a collective of a lot of smart people, adding their prespective, experience and experimentation to a larger pool.
Unlike religion where you have your opinion given to you, and everything else is wrong. A large groupe adopts one idea and mindlessly defends it (naturally religion can contradict itself). Rather than a collective of people submitting their own ideas in order to find out the truth. The process of forming your own idea and challenging it against everyone elses is what the scientific process is all about.
Nobody is stopping your from testing and challenging any scientific theory, however people will not hesitate to pick out errors in any submission you make, and attempt to prove it wrong, or support it in proving it right.
Rather like what you've done here - a science forum is probably the worst place to post some rant on creationism if you don't want it picked apart.
Welcome to the scientific way :)
time. Here you say "of course" there is gravity in outer space, and NASA says otherwise. I have yet to hear a good explanation of that one, I shall look forward to it.
NASA never said there was no gravity in space. Get that idea out of your head. NASA people will tell you quite often that "no gravity" and "zero g" etc. are INNACCURATE terms for Weightlessness (one of the proper terms). If you are in freefall you feel weightless - jump off a diving board or better yet a tall building and you'll see what I mean - gravity is still there, but as far as your concerned you'll feel none.
So it is partly accurate to say there is no gravity in space - if you are in orbit around a planet, because from your perspective you would feel none.
xvenomousx
11-14-01, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Crisp
Hi all,
Small correction to xcenomousx's statement:
This is the one thing in your post that I do not agree with ;). The reason why astronauts don't crash back onto earth is not because there are centrifugal forces (these are not real forces anyway, but that's another story). The effect you're looking for is that gravity is a central force: the astronauts are always attracted to (roughly) the center of the earth, so they actually are tumbling back to earth. Fortunately, they have exactly the right velocity not to crash back into the earths atmosphere, but to fall past the earth (you should imagine the earth at a distance for a second, and see a small rocket being launched away from the surface under a certain angle - the rocket's path is bent back towards the earth because of gravity, but it just misses earth). This effect is repeated and hence you get "falling past earth" at all times -> orbit.
Bye!
Crisp
:)
right, keep forgetting about the centrifugal force thing... its not a real force (although it feels like one at the fairground rides) centripetal acceleration is the correct term :)
Now I have to correct you crisp. :) The freefall thing is still not a very good explanation. Take for example the space elevator idea common in science fiction - a 60,000km long cable tethered to earths surface and a counterweight out past geosynchronous orbit..... the space elevator isn't really falling is it? :))
Tim
The freefall thing is still not a very good explanation.
I think it is. How does a geo sync sat stay in orbit?
Have a lookie here
<a href=http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/gal109/LESSONS/TEXT/FREEFALL.HTM>http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/gal109/LESSONS/TEXT/FREEFALL.HTM</a>
Hi xvenomousx,
Wierd stuff, yesterday in a course we talked about exactly the same problem and the course notes also talked about how centripetal forces and gravity counteracted eachother ;). Now the way I see it is that it is true that both forces cancel (you can calculate that in an easy way) but it doesn't really learn you anything (the concept of "force" is somewhat obscure in most cases). The reason why I talked about the free fall situation (also see link that Boris2 provided) is that it gives a more intuitive description of orbitting).
Bye!
Crisp
Can be read here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9704/9704062.pdf)
When you talked about 'free fall', are you talking about terminal velocity?
Just say when you jump off a plane, for a while you'll reach terminal velocity where the gravitational force balances the air resistance so that you fall at a constant rate.
I still perfer to explain the weightlessness in space by that the satellites and the Earth falling at the same rate. When talking about satellite, it's moving in circle, therefore the velocity changes at all time, not the speed it moves but the direction it move. Note where you add and take away vecters, you put the two arrow head to tail, and when you do so, you found that the v and u meet in right angle directed to the centre, and that is centripedal force. Thus, the satellites are constantly accelerating towards the centre of Earth, but as it fall, the Earth is rotating, and it constanly miss it. Remember the Newton's artificial satellites, he knew when it is fired horizontally, it will fall back to the Earth. It will always try to follow an ellipse, but the focus is within the Earth, but if the speed is high enough, as it fall back, the Earth surfaces curves so it will make a full circle and continues the motion.
how can you say that one is defintely true because of something that was written by people 2 thousand years ago that has been translated so many times that it could be saying that exact opposite from what it originally was intended to say and the fact that they can't even figure out if yom in genesis ment day or time period also throws a lot of doubt on the meaning on the creation story and what about the creation of humans at one point says they were created together and then later it says that eve was created from adams rib i don't believe in either theory they both are severly flawed but don't appreciate people saying that one is definately wrong as it is only your opinion and im sure if you found a the definitive way of proving how we got here you would be a really rich person til then keep it as your opinion
Beercules
03-25-03, 05:08 PM
How do creationists like this manage to feed and clothe themselves on a daily basis?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.