Jump to content


Photo

Star Formations


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:21 PM

[/b][/size][/font]

That one and a number of others all rely on the misconception that the Big Bang is about matter flying away in a fixed space. What the Big Bang actually describe is space itself expanding, with matter merely around for the ride. The general analogy is to a rubber band or rubber balloon : take a rubber band, draw a bunch of dots on it, then stretch the rubber band. Every dot is moving away from every other dot, whether they're at the center or not. And there is no expanding center containing no dots while the dots are hurled to the edge. In fact, unless you put dots right on the ends of the rubber band (if your rubber band has ends of course), the dots will be moving further away from the edge too ! Because it's the rubber band itself that's becoming bigger, and every bit of it is becoming bigger at the same rate.

[b][b]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]I don't know, I'd heard inflation theory is fairly well-accepted now and dealt with that ? Or I might be confusing it with something else. In any case, major unsolved problems are par for the course in science. I wonder what the author makes of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[b][b]
A quote... from 1981 ? On the subject of the Big Bang ? Now that's credible right there.
Just on the strength of that quote I checked Wikipedia and yep, inflation does deal with the problem of lumpiness. That hypothesis was first proposed in 1980 so I can forgive Ben Patrusky at least for never having heard of it.

And is that rubber balloon analogy proven? Or is it just something that fits so we'll "run with it"...

I'm just a Biologist and I thought this website was interesting, did you read the stuff about how the sun creates its energy from condensing, since if there were fusion apparently there would be lots of neutrinos hitting the Earth.

#42 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:40 PM

And is that rubber balloon analogy proven? Or is it just something that fits so we'll "run with it"...

I'm just a Biologist and I thought this website was interesting, did you read the stuff about how the sun creates its energy from condensing, since if there were fusion apparently there would be lots of neutrinos hitting the Earth.


The website is interesting as it raises a good number of questions. However its conclusions are all outdated. The fact that we do indeed not measure enough neutrino's lies in the fact that our model of neutrino's itself was flawed at the time. In fact new observations were done affirming our model of the sun and questionning the neutrino model.

#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:49 PM

The website is interesting as it raises a good number of questions. However its conclusions are all outdated. The fact that we do indeed not measure enough neutrino's lies in the fact that our model of neutrino's itself was flawed at the time. In fact new observations were done affirming our model of the sun and questionning the neutrino model.


Great to hear :D Thanks for the new info

#44 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:49 AM

the inflation period implies the speed of light wasnt constant but much faster. i have posted this elsewhere.

#45 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:21 AM

And is that rubber balloon analogy proven? Or is it just something that fits so we'll "run with it"...

It's an analogy that describes some of the Big Bang theory's actual implications. I'm not sure what it means to "prove" an analogy... If you mean whether the Big Bang has been proven, that's a question for another thread and one I don't really see the point of discussing when we can't even agree on what the Big Bang theory says. If you mean, whether it's proven that this analogy describes the Big Bang theory's implications in this context, well... the description of the Universe's expansion is derived directly from Einstein's equations of general relativity, so seeing as it's all maths then yes, it's "proven" that the rubber band is an accurate analogy for the Universe's expansion, as far as it goes.

I'm just a Biologist and I thought this website was interesting, did you read the stuff about how the sun creates its energy from condensing, since if there were fusion apparently there would be lots of neutrinos hitting the Earth.

Hey, of course there's no reason you should know this stuff in advance ! General relativity is pretty mind-bendy physics and I don't think it's taught in school - certainly not in enough detail that students can wrap their mind around it. That's why I'm explaining.
I see Athelas explained about the Sun and the neutrinos; that's good I don't have to look it up now :P But offhand I have to say, the way gravitational collapse and fusion create energy (friction and something about "gravitational potential energy", vs atomic nuclei colliding and becoming new elements) are so vastly different that they would produce different amounts of energy by orders of magnitude. Protostars apparently do produce their energy from gravitational collapse, and they aren't on the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Which is to say, the amount of light they produce for their temperature is completely different from that of "ordinary" stars (which produce an amount of light proportional to their temperature so they all fall on the same line, called the main sequence).

#46 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:28 PM

http://curious.astro....php?number=167




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users