Big Bang Theory is a myth

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whoa. For a minute there I thought you were serious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

Of course there is.

Obviously she doesn't if she thinks that atoms don't have gravity. Ask her to explain the general theory of relativity to you.

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.

Because gravity is incredibly weak over long distance; its power decreases proportionally with the square of the distance.

What's condensation, other than 'gas clumping', whatever that means?

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.

 

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.

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.

 

!

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:

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

 

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 do/ 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:

This is the one thing in your post that I do not agree with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. 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

 

Or, Crisp ...

A skydiver's dream: Continuous freefall!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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?

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?

 

Mr. G ...

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.