Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]How could anything at a singularity be spinning?

Ask the guy that came up with the big bang theory. Read any Science texbook that explains the big bang theory and you'll see that no reason is even given for the matter to start spinning in the first place.

Please cite a source for the "Law of Circular Momentum".

I could not find o ...[text shortened]... you ask me i'll say God created the universe that way to make the big bang theory look stupid.[/b]

No1's article did a great job showing that you are talking out your *** here, and I rec'd him for it, but there are a few small points I want to clarify for you.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with matter spinning. In fact, none of the particles we see today existed until after the big bang. Some galaxies don't spin at all, those that do spin because they were formed from turbulent gas clouds. Multiple protogalaxies are created, mass accumulates in the center, and they exert tidal pressure on each other. The gravity BETWEEN PROTOGALAXIES is what sets them spinning. The net angular momentum for the region remains 0, but individual galaxies begin to spin. A good example of this is that our galaxy and Andromeda (the nearest galaxy) spin in opposite directions. As the protogalaxies collapse into galaxies, they obviously spin faster to conserve momentum, they stop collapsing when centripetal force balances out gravity. (Just in case you were going to ask)

Not all the matter in the universe was squished into a dot. A singularity is a point of infinite density, but I believe we are talking about energy density here since particles weren't created until shortly after the big bang except as virtual particle pairs. I don't remember ever reading or hearing that the singularity was spinning, I'll look it up later, but what is your source for this?

The Big Bang had nothing to do with matter disintergrating or forming planets either.

No1 dealt with your second "problem" pretty well but

YOUR FIRST "PROBLEM" WITH THE THEORY IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS! MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS REMARKABLY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED (homogenous for those of us who have actually READ a textbook or two, and the isotropic cosmic microwave background shows that the energy from the big bang was evenly distributed as well).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Something tells me you have a severe misunderstanding of inertia and angular momentum.

Something tells me that all you can do is make unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Take your own advice and read an Astronomy textbook and you'll see that matter wasn't "spinning" in the singularity. The rest of your crap is confused rubbish; there was a long time from the Big Bang to the formation of planets and the theories of solar system formation explain the rotation of the planets.

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.

http://www.alumni.ca/~khak4a0/problems.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
Something tells me that all you can do is make unsubstantiated claims.

A rudimentary understanding of Newton's first law of motion should lead you to conclude that you have incorrectly analyzed the merry-go-round experiment.

Do you really believe that if you let go of a spinning merry-go-round, you will start spinning in the same rotational direction as the merry-go-round, rather than follow a linear and spinless trajectory tangent to the orbit of the merry-go-round?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
No1's article did a great job showing that you are talking out your *** here, and I rec'd him for it, but there are a few small points I want to clarify for you.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with matter spinning. In fact, none of the particles we see today existed until after the big bang. Some galaxies don't spin at all, those that do spin b ...[text shortened]... icrowave background shows that the energy from the big bang was evenly distributed as well).[/b]

particles weren't created until shortly after the big bang except as virtual particle pairs.

So you are saying that nothing exploded to create matter???

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A rudimentary understanding of Newton's first law of motion should lead you to conclude that you have incorrectly analyzed the merry-go-round experiment.

Do you really believe that if you let go of a spinning merry-go-round, you will start spinning in the same rotational direction as the merry-go-round, rather than follow a linear and spinless trajectory tangent to the orbit of the merry-go-round?

Do you really believe that if you let go of a spinning merry-go-round, you will start spinning in the same rotational direction as the merry-go-round, rather than follow a linear and spinless trajectory tangent to the orbit of the merry-go-round?

My merry-go-round was an analogy of the big bang theory. As you have pointed out, it contradicts the conservation of angular momentum...

Would you mind exlpaining to me why the planets are spinning?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody believe that the big bang occured? I don't believe it. I believe that the big bang is still coming...

2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a [b]great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.[/b]

I do not believe in the Big Bang. I do believe in the scientific method and currently accept as fact that the big bang occured because scientific method has provided enough evidence to convince me that it did. However if I was shown sufficient scientific evidence that it did not occur I would readily accept that.
This is unrelated to religion. I believe that if God exists and if he created the world exactly as stated in the Bible as creationists believe then he created it in such a way as to be exaclty equivalent to a world created by a big bang (with evolution) and he probably intended us to think the big bang occured. The world could have been created in the year 2000 and you cant prove otherwise but all scientific evidence (and most peoples memories) implies otherwise.
Also the physics that we use to deduce that the big bang occured is sufficiently accurate for almost all intents and purposes and can be used for many usefull things and should not be discarded just because it appears to conflict with the writtings in the Old Testament.
To meaningfully debate the exact physics theories behind the big bang cannot properly be done (as appears to be taking place in this thread) by people who have not all done enough research into the subject but rather wish to debate it as a Christian - nonChristian debate which it is not.

The real question should be: do you believe that the Scientific method is the correct way to learn about our world? Or should we deny anything it implies if it conflicts with our personal beliefs?

Would you mind exlpaining to me why the planets are spinning?[/b]

Because it's harder for the batsmen/women to get their 😉 in! 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not believe in the Big Bang. I do believe in the scientific method and currently accept as fact that the big bang occured because scientific method has provided enough evidence to convince me that it did. However if I was shown sufficient scientific evidence that it did not occur I would readily accept that.
This is unrelated to religion. I believe ...[text shortened]... bout our world? Or should we deny anything it implies if it conflicts with our personal beliefs?

A point that must be realised is that the big bang theory is not scientific. Science, as Mendeleev, Mach and Einstein pointed out, deals with what can be measured, everything else is speculation. Recorded human history goes back approximately five thousand years. No scientist can go back in time to take measurements of what happened before that, so when scientists make statements about anything that happened more than five thousand years ago they are dealing inevitably with speculation. The current fashionable speculation on origins is known as the "Big Bang Theory".

Originally posted by dj2becker
A point that must be realised is that the big bang theory is not scientific. Science, as Mendeleev, Mach and Einstein pointed out, deals with what can be measured, everything else is speculation. Recorded human history goes back approximately five thousand years. No scientist can go back in time to take measurements of what happened before that, so when sc ...[text shortened]... speculation. The current fashionable speculation on origins is known as the "Big Bang Theory".

This is idiocy. Einstein would "spin" in his grave for his name to be used as part of an argument that science can't be used for events that happened more than five thousand years ago!! Look up in the sky and you can see events that happened millions of years ago with your naked eye. Your ignorance is appalling.