About this "big bang" thing (long winded)
Richard Masoner (richardm@cd.com)
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:19:47 -0500 (CDT)
> WARNING WARNING - long, windy, semi-technical, geeky, picky, $2 worded
> response.
Ditto :-)
Should we take this off list?
> > It's "Devil's advocate" time, so to speak:
>
> He needs one.
No he don't ;-)
> 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.
Very good response there.
Have you ever pulled the plug on a bathtub, BTW? Even if my son is in
the tub splashing with all his might, there's a nice,
structured-looking whirlpool right where drain is at.
> > 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.
You are correct that gravity approaches infinity at time 0, because r
is approaching zero. But approaching infinity and infinity can be two
different things entirely. As r increases, Fgravity drops.
> > > 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 should add that r is no longer 0.
> 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?
Light and other heavier particles were created somewhat after the Big
Bang.
> 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.
Very true. This is thought to be caused by localized "eddies" in
space. While on large scales the universe is uniform, we do have
things like galaxies and dust clouds and such. You are correct, BTW,
that this presents a conundrum for cosmologists. They call this "The
Grand Challenge."
The National Center for Supercomputing Applications here in Champaign
has a "Cave," where researchers do simulation and visualization work on
how the galaxies and other large structures formed. There's some
pretty nifty stuff that your tax dollars are buying. You can see some
pictures at:
http://zeus.ncsa.uiuc.edu:8080/chdm_script.html
> 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?
A really long time. That's why "they" say the Universe is 50-60 Billion
years old.
> For a modification to the Big Bang follow this link.
One of the cooler theories I've seen is one postulating that we are in
a "fractal" universe, that galaxies themselves are parts of even larger
spiral structures (which have been observed), which themselves are part
of even larger structures, which themselves are part of a huge,
universal mega-structure. Cosmic, dude.
> In the begining God said BANG! and it was BIG
--
Richard F. Masoner Central Data Corporation
richardm@cd.com Champaign, IL 61821 USA
+1 217 359 8010 http://www.cd.com/