About this "big bang" thing (long winded)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

WARNING WARNING - long, windy, semi-technical, geeky, picky, $2 worded
response.

Oh Brother Masoner, are we going to play??  I haven't gotten to play in
a long time. \o/\o/

Richard Masoner wrote:
> 
> It's "Devil's advocate" time, so to speak:

He needs one.
 
> > 4) How come the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated?
> 
> Space and time did not exist prior to the "Big Bang" and thus the 2nd
> Law of Thermodynamics did not exist.

That being the case, then no currently accepted laws of physics
existed.  BTW, the intial bang didn't violate 2nd law of therm, the law
was violated as the stars, planets, and such were formed.  The chaos of
an explosion, becoming a highly ordered object.
 
> > 5) Since Gravitational force between objects is directly proportional to
> > mass of the objects and inversly proportional to the distance between
> > the objects, if all matter(therefore all mass) were concentrated at the
> > center wouldn't that make infinite gravity?
> 
> The mass is finite, not infinite, thus gravity is also finite.  You're
> playing games with assumptions here, Bro George.

Fgravity = G(m1*m2)/(r^2)  where Fgravity = gravitational force G =
gravitational const m1 = mass of object 1 m2 = mass of object 2 r =
distance between the two objects.  Since the limit of Fgravity is
undefined, Fgravity, just before the Big Bang, approaches infinity.  

> > 6) With infinite gravity how come the universe is expanding?
> 
> See answer to question 5. i.e. gravity is finite because there is a
> finite amount of mass.  What hasn't been determined is if the universe
> is expanding at the escape velocity of itself.

I seem to remember 25000 miles per sec as the speed of expansion, 

Vesc =  (2Gm/r)^1/2  where Vesc = escape velocity, G = gravitational
const, m = mass, r = radius

therefore as radius increases Vesc increases.  And since light (the
currently accepted speed limit and one of the lightest objects) cann't
travel fast enough to exit a black hole, how am I supposed to believe an
explosion blew objects many times heavier FASTER than light?
      
 
> > 7) Is the universe expanding at a constant speed?
> 
> No.  Gravity is slowing the expansion down.

Point

> > 8) With all matter concentrated at one point, wouldn't the explosion
> > cause a uniform distribution of matter(relative to distance from center?
> 
> Umm, the uniform distribution of matter and energy, which was observed
> earlier this century, is what gave rise to the "Big Bang" theory in the
> first place.  It's also why all galaxies appear to be moving away from
> us.

I may have used an improper term, elements and compounds would be a more
accurate choice.  At a given point from the center of the blast, similar
distributions of elements should be found.  Our little piece of the
universe has little argon, neon,  and such; but an abundance of water,
oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide.

> > 9) With the explosion of approx. infinite force matter leaving in
> > "straight lines" how could gravitational force overcome the inertia to
> > form objects that orbit other objects?
> 
> The force wasn't infinite, just as matter and gravity aren't infinite.
> This is a finite universe we live in.

Since mass increases as light speed is approached, and gravitational
force was Approx infinit (see 5 & 6), then kinetic energy would also be
near infinity ke = 1/2 mv^2.   With momentum near inifinity how long
would it take to slow the universe down enough to allow the galaxies to
form? 
 
> > 10) Since all matter was at the center of the universe before the Big
> > Bang and was scattered from that point, is there a hole in the center of
> > the universe?  If so will it suck everything back someday?
> 
> The Big Bang Theory doesn't answer all the questions about cosmology,
> nor does it claim to.  Scientists take "stumpers" as a challenge --
> something new to discover.  The Big Bang Theory is also readily
> acknowledged as imperfect -- there are observations which apparently
> fit the observations.
> 
> Scientists make observations, then postulate a theory to explain the
> observations.  The theory is then tested by making different
> observations and comparing them with what the theory predicts.  If the
> observations match the predictions, then people begin to think the
> theory is pretty good.  If the observations do not match the
> predictions, the theory is thrown out or modified.
> 
> Richard Masoner
> Champaign Illinois USA

For a modification to the Big Bang follow this link.

http://www.king.igs.net/%7Erogersk/uverse.htm/


Skip 

-- 
In the begining God said BANG! and it was BIG