The Big Bang

Great Debates
1

In the thread, “You’re not a Good Christian,” Jedi-667 said:

Wow. So much to say, so little understanding of physics.

Well, young Jedi, let’s start by explaining a few things. First, the planets didn’t just form directly out of the Big Bang – the universe didn’t explode into a bunch of stars and planets shooting all over the place like a bunch of balls on a pool table. They formed via various processes of physics. In doing so, nuclear forces and gravity came into play.

When physicists note that an object in motion will tend to stay in motion, that doesn’t mean it never stops – it means it will keep going unless something stops it. Many things can stop it – friction, gravity, etc. In the case of planets, it’s gravity that keeps them going around their associated star.

First, it’s Kelvin. Second, they didn’t “survive” a blast – they were formed from elementary particles after things cooled down a bit.

Well, the extra exclamation points will definitely convince us.

Tell me, where did you “learn” this science?

2

That was seven exclamation points, David.

One for each of the six days of creation, and one for the Sabbath.

3

No, it is not Kelvin, it’s Calvin. And whatever he chooses, those are the rules.

(Unless this is double-reverse day, in which case Hobbes gets to set the rules by proclaiming the opposite.)

Tom~

4

I’m not sure why the Big Bang is so incompatible with “God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”

Sounds to me like the latter is a poetic interpretation of the former, if one wanted to try to reconcile the two.

5

Including the concept that at Planck time (i.e., the instant 10^-23 seconds after the Big Bang) the only things that could exist at the temperature postulated for the Universe at that moment were photons.

6

Actually,the “big -bang” was really God’s way of creating the universe.You see,it was His fart! :smiley:

7

Poly, Planck time is 10^-43 seconds.

Just thought I’d mention that. :slight_smile:

Please continue with your discussion.

This space for rent.

8

What’s a little matter like being 10^20 off? Oh, you’re thinking I’m referring to Max Planck – I meant his cousin Fred Planck, who was always a little slow! :slight_smile:

9

“But wait… That’s not what it says in the manual…”

Yer pal,
Satan

10

IMHO, I think that God did create the Universe with a big bang. My God would not create the universe with a small pop or an uneventful it just happened. No, it would be a briliant display of creation.

And Poly I had always heard that Fred was a little slow and now you have confirmed it.

Jeffery

11

Satan may have a point here. The problem with the Universe has been clearly defined. Have you ever run into any Product with an Owner’s Manual that made any sense?

12

… probably written by some Japanese employee who thinks he knows English…

13

isn’t that Engrish?

14

Just don’t try to tell me that the Universe’s owner’s manual was written in Hebrew and Greek, ifyouknowwhatImean.

Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

15

Nah, Tracer, that would be a User’s Manual. Unless you’re implying you own the…

Maybe you want to check out the Job Opportunity thread! :wink:

16

jedi, I suppose it is easy to see physics as nonsense when you break it in to inaccurate bits

you say:

It is interesting that you seem to think that physics is different in space than it is on Earth. Physicists haven’t thought that since the 17th century. Let me just go ahead and correct what you said:

In space or on Earth, an object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force

Without that “the unbalanced force” idea, it’d be pretty hard for you to get out of your chair, wouldn’t it?

17

Especially the “unbalanced” part.

Waste
Flick Lives!

18

In fact, Newton’s 1st and 3rd laws of motion are both consequences of the Conservation of Momentum. Newton only broke it down into 2 separate laws because vectors hadn’t been invented yet.

(Hah. The man invents integral calculus, but can’t do good old-fashioned trigonometry. Why, I learned Trigonometry 2 years before I learned Calculus! Some “genius” Newton was. Pah.)

Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

19

Ok, while we are still big banging around, and I won’t be taking the thread to Cuba, or anything, I got a serious question about this whole big bang thing.

Ok, long about Plank time, Things enter the realm of at least some sort of space/time, what with there being more than one place to be, and somewhere else to have been, and a when to have been there. Prior to that, our definitions are all wrong.

So, here we are, up to our milli-micro angstroms in hot quark soup. Fine, I got no problems yet. Pico-shakes go by, and the universe gets positively roomy, nearly as big as say, a Ping-Pong ball, and there are bosons galore, every one bustin’ out, and rampaging into each other, making anti-particles, and such, and chaos heads for the horizon, at the speed of light.

Now, as far as I can tell, no matter how you slice and dice it, by three or four hundred thousand years or so, there are genuine Fermions, of at least two types. Not long after that, you pretty much got all the mass the universe is ever gonna have, already in existence. Up until now, nothing but massless, or nearly massless particles, and no such thing as gravity. Now, you have mass, and therefore gravity.

My question: How much less than 300,000 light years is the Schwartschild radius of a mass the size of the entire Universe? How the heck is this big bang going to avoid turning into the Great Suck?

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

20

Tris, I think Alan Guth’s “Inflationary Scenario” fixed that problem. Apparently, the inflation was too fast for gravity to collapse the Universe. In fact,inflation is still occuring today, although at a much reduced pace.

There are others on this board who can explain it more elegantly, but that’s the gist of it.

This space for rent.