| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"UR Welcome! UR" |
| Date: |
22 Jul 2007 10:25:56 AM |
| Object: |
1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION
Why the Big Bang is a fizzle
and stars cannot evolve out of gas
---------
This chapter is based on pp. 1-47 of Origin of the
Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution
Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at
least 104 statements by scientists. You will find them,
plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
INTRODUCTION
Look about you. There are clouds, seas, and
mountains, grass carpets, the plains; and birds sing
in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and
water brooks run through the fields. In city and country,
people use their astounding minds to plan and produce
intricate things. At night the stars come out, and overhead
are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100
billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.
Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy.
Where did it all come from? How did everything
begin-all the wonderful things of life and nature?
Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from
nothing. Yes, nothing.
That is what is being taught to your friends, children,
and loved ones. You need to know the facts.
In this chapter we shall briefly view what evolutionary
scientists teach about the origin of matter, stars,
galaxies, and planets;-and we will give you basic scientific
reasons why their cosmological theories are incorrect.
(Cosmology is the word used for theories about
the origin of matter and stellar objects.)
1 - THE BIG BANG THEORY
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to
have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless,"
so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow
down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and
moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a
science fiction novel. And that is all it is.
WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT
The originators-*George Lemaitre, a Belgium,
struck on the basic idea in 1927; and *George Gamow,
*R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang
model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist
and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name
and then popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New
Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43). Campaigning for the idea
enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists.
He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details.
The cartoons really helped sell the theory.
The theory-According to this theory, in the beginning,
there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this
nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny
spot; and it decided to explode!
That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons
which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout
empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled
themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said
to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures
of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to
have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds
which then pushed together into stars.
These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen
and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded.
It took at least two explosions of each star to produce
our heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific
terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled
from the vacuum of space-and rushed into a superdense
core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature
in excess of 1039 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density
and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially
when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get
hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of
it.)
Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow
solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said
it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness
made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true
scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing,
"ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that,
many people thought this must be a great scientific truth
of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add
an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything
was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the
145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density
of water!
Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!
Let's take it point by point-That is the theory. It all
sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction
novel. And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear
violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common
sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why
the Big Bang theory is unworkable and fallacious.
THE BIG BANG EXPLOSION
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical
extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it
can't actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so
tightly together that it blew up and produced all the
matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale.
It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else.
It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical
extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize
that something is true, when it has never been seen and
there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened.
But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have
no way to push itself into a pile.
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness
got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a
total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness.
No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical
explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a
nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand
what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could
somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then
cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity"
which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense
heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have
changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer
space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot
magically change itself into matter. Third, there can
be no heat without an energy source.
7 - The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect
an explosion would be required. On many points, the
a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked
out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists
call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations
would have to be met which would be next to impossible
to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some
require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill.
One example of this is the expansion of the original
fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely
within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer,
*R.H. Dicke, says it well:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster,
the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103
times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1
percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only
3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this
maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would
have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the
present mass density. No stars could have formed in such
a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to
form stars."-*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe
(1969), p. 62.
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a
universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed
a complicated mathematical equation that showed
that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward
into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says
the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place)
would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole!
This means that one imaginary object would swallow another
one!
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe.
This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big
Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter
(matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small
amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much an-
timatter as matter-if the Big Bang was true.
"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects
but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness,
any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should
have to create the other, and the universe should be made
of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory
tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation
refuses to back it up."-*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's
New Guide to Science, p. 343.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the
universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."-*
Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe,"
American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have
destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known
to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory,
they instantly come together and annihilate one another.
We have mentioned ten reasons why matter could
not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will
discuss what would happen IF it actually had.
THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES
1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the
particles rush outward from the central explosion, they
would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.
2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be
no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated
on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a
single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There
would be no way those particles could ever slow.
3 - The particles would maintain the same vector
(speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles
were moving outward through totally empty space, there is
no way they could change direction. They could not get
together and begin circling one another.
4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They
are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer
would separate them farther from one other.
5 - There is no way to change the direction of even
one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never
slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get
the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous
clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be
needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.
6 - How could their atomic structures originate?
Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures.
There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually
separating farther from each other as they travel,
could arrange themselves into atomic structures.
We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws,
(1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward
one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow
down and change directions.
THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS
AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS
The theory-Gradually, the outward-racing particles
are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms.
These atoms then changed direction further (this time
toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then
pushed together into stars.
This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange
as that which preceded it.
1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated.
By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium
which are separated from one another. All gas in outer
space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the
emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any
laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less
dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.
2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space
would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth
that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not
push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium
would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.
We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely
fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big
Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form
themselves into immense clouds.
GAS CLOUDS
PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS
1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the
gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it
together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form
itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in
outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog,
whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls.
Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but
there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together
in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a
vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it
will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before
the star exists, gas will not push itself together and
form a star-or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen
and helium are gases, they are good at spreading
out, but not at clumping together.
2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not
enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.
3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to
reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so
it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that
the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars
were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about
2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their
dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly
faraway quasars (which we will discuss later),
some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they
have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15
billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory.
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in
this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not
enough time.
4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not
contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything.
Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate
the stellar evolution theory.
5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a
universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of
fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/
or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever
slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it
to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion
would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as
solid as the ones mentioned earlier.
6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would
have to move in several directions. First, it would have
to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving
in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating
gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer
together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions.
The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just
keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have
to mysteriously change to angular momentum.
7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction
in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep
moving forward.
8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common
center would fly apart, not condense together.
9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the
various theories of origin of matter and stars. The
total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100
times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory.
The universe has a low mean density. To put it another
way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing
mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big
Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists
(*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Uni-verse,"
Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers
are agreed on the existence of this problem.
*Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the
universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change
into stars.
"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe
and the condensation of galaxies must be largely
contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field
under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy
of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against
the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation
under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially,
the formation of galaxies is passed over with
little comment in most systems of cosmology."-*F.
Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe
in Motion (1984). p. 8.
10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump
together. *Harwit's research disproves the possibility that
hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a
major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related
origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is
twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space
is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles
of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think
about it a minute; don't those facts make sense?
This point is so important (for it devastates the origin
of stars theory) that *Harwit's research should be mentioned
in more detail:
*Harwit's research dealt with the mathematical
likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and
form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking
of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as
they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable
conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability
for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time
needed for gas or other particles to clump together
into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter
in radius-would take about 3 billion years! Using
more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required-to
produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space.
As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution
Disproved Series (which this book is condensed
from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical
Concepts, 1973, p. 394).
11 - *Novotny's research findings are also very important.
*Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University,
discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion."
It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead
of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into
stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot
happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?
If you agree, you are being scientific (for you are agreeing
with scientific facts); if you disagree, you are fooling
yourself.
We will now ASSUME that the clouds formed themselves
into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or firstgeneration
stars.
STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS
PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS
The problem-The Big Bang only produced hydrogen
and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium)
elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out
a way to account for their existence.
The theory-The first stars, which were formed, were
so-called "first-generation stars" (also called "population
III stars"). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen
and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded.
Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for
billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to
have produced all our heavier elements.
This concept is as wild as those preceding it.
1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other
aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow
get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the uni-verse.
The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would
only have produced hydrogen and helium.
2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible
for hydrogen or helium to change itself into
any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important
point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap"
(that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore
exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements.
(Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced,
but even that would not be enough to supply all the
heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides
that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8.
Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass
5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton
nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass
4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can
normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this
gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb
explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn,
forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction
of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever
heavier elements until it reached uranium;-but the process
is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that
gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!
"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8
are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or
mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of
elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process
could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned
this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic
objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment
in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness
of the idea."-*William A. Fowler, California Institute
of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.
Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of
the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen
is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a
weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by
lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps
in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.
But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No.
Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly
halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion
(a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into
deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4-
and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star)
does not go across the mass 5 gap.
We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium
explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:
3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to
produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist.
We know from spectrographs that heavier elements
are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to
have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big
Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20
billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered
to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the
gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars, most of them
are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years
later, reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are
said to have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our
sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.
4 - There are no population III stars (also called
first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory,
there should be "population III" stars, containing only hydrogen
and helium, many of which exploded and made
"population II" (second-generation stars), but there are
only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's
New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).
5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits.
The theory requires that countless billions of stars
exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the
marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of
suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within
each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are in-volved
in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful
balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the
stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers-
or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky
are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one
another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result
of explosions? Because there are no "first generation"
("Population I") stars, Big Bang theory requires that every
star exploded at least one or two times. But random
explosions never produce orbits.
6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to
produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable
elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual
properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is
called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely
bright for a few weeks or months and is called a
supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas
could produce much of the needed heavier elements,
yet there have been relatively few such explosions.
7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been
almost no supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred
in the past, they should be occurring now. Research
astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions
are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our
galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully
recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185,
and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the
Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks.
It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes
Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next
bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil
Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24,
1987.
"Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers
are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty
is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average
for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda
was the closest to us in the last 350 years."-
*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.
8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously
stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often.
The observable facts are that, throughout recorded
history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this,
evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions
suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the
theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes
astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion
light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15
billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive
numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars
are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.
9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date
nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not
exploding,-and yet they contain heavier elements. We
can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big
Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now
see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists'
theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the
farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"),
and they are not exploding any more frequently
than are the nearby ones.
10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to
make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions
and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions.
Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion
only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova
explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that
amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements
found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas-
Gamow's fuel source for nearly all the elements
in the universe-occur far too infrequently and produce
far too small an amount of heavy elements-to produce
the vast amount that exists in the universe.
11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found
in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The
theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to
produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,-
and research indicates that they do not produce
heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope
toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements
in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K.
Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula
(resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen
and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature
of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never
bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would
generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But
the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)
12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another
star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions
would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself
into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot
outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along
with it.
So we find that the evidence does not support the various
aspects of the Big Bang and stellar evolution theories.
==
.
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 11:24:52 AM |
|
|
"UR Welcome!" <UR Welcome!_fan_club@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:13sif9.qlv.19.1@news.alt.net to alt.atheism:
1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION
Why the Big Bang is a fizzle
and stars cannot evolve out of gas
---------
This chapter is based on pp. 1-47 of Origin of the
Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution
Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at
least 104 statements by scientists. You will find them,
plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
INTRODUCTION
Look about you. There are clouds, seas, and
mountains, grass carpets, the plains; and birds sing
in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and
water brooks run through the fields.
The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me"
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
"If you are informed by God, you can be misinformed by nobody" - Osama
Bin Laden
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 11:25:41 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to
have flowed outward through frictionless space
What gas? The BB itself did not flow "through space" as there was no
space to flow through; gases _inside_ the BB could flow through space,
though, as space is an internal aspect of spacetime.
The originators-*George Lemaitre, a Belgium,
Lematire is a country?
struck on the basic idea in
1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic
Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist and
science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then
popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, p.
43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince
many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the
details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.
I rather suspect they helped sell it only to the general populace;
cartoons have little place in formal science.
The theory-According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no
matter, just nothingness.
A lack of matter does not imply nothingness.
Then this nothingness condensed by gravity
into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!
You're repeating yourself - and getting it wrong again.
That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed
outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no
other matter in the universe.
Actually, those came somewhat later.
These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium).
Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded.
They did? All of them? Repeatedly? What a novel concept. I'm sure
you'll write this up and submit it to a refereed journal; they could use
the laugh.
It took at least two
explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements.
So how many times, exactly, has the sun exploded? It's a star and
according to you it has exploded at least twice. Not sure anyone else
buys this.
Gamow described
it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled
from the vacuum of space
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Emptiness doesn't flee, and
the vacuum of space *is* emptiness - modulo some dust and trace
hydrogen and the like.
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look
good in math calculations, but it can't actually happen.
Funny, then, that the people capable of actually describing it accurately
seem to think it can. Why is it only the ones who cannot even summarize
it sensibly - can't get even the basics right - who seem to think it can't
happen? Oh, right, because they insist upon examining incorrect models of
the processes. Yes, well, bathtubs can't drain, because elephants won't
fit down the drain hole. Perfectly clear.
[snipping the rest, as it appears to be nothing more than an extension of
the prior drivel]
--
Religion? Hardly! Though I have been told that the Ets religion IS the
physical laws of the universe. (This was told to me by a multiple
abductee, brother of my late room--mate, who witnessed several of his
abductions, and was also abducted herself several times.) -- Ivy
Iverson (From the SKEPTIC echo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 06:28:16 PM |
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason held us spellbound with...
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
But feeding the troll "UR Welcome is.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
==================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 06:02:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
You're trying to teach Load-o-Lice science. It's easier to teach a
brick to float.
.
|
|
|
| User: "True 2 Form!" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 06:11:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:8eo7a3h6hnqba213uh2mvolfemjjeorei8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
You're trying to teach Load-o-Lice science. It's easier to teach a
brick to float.
Actually I have floated several bricks, on a board! (-;
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
22 Jul 2007 06:36:27 PM |
|
|
True 2 Form! held us spellbound with...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:8eo7a3h6hnqba213uh2mvolfemjjeorei8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
You're trying to teach Load-o-Lice science. It's easier to teach a
brick to float.
Actually I have floated several bricks, on a board! (-;
How did you get your brains out of your head?
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
==================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
23 Jul 2007 09:18:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:36:27 -0400, St. Jackanapes
<larry_jackowski@hotmail.com> wrote:
True 2 Form! held us spellbound with...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:8eo7a3h6hnqba213uh2mvolfemjjeorei8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
You're trying to teach Load-o-Lice science. It's easier to teach a
brick to float.
Actually I have floated several bricks, on a board! (-;
How did you get your brains out of your head?
He was born that way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: 1- THE BIG BANG AND STELLAR EVOLUTION |
23 Jul 2007 01:47:47 AM |
|
|
St. Jackanapes <larry_jackowski@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.210db4035cf83aaf98969f@news.alt.net to alt.atheism:
True 2 Form! held us spellbound with...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8eo7a3h6hnqba213uh2mvolfemjjeorei8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:25:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:25:56 -0400, UR Welcome! wrote:
The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of
scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing
Energy is not "nothing"
decided to pack tightly together,-and then explode
Nor does energy "decide" anything. Nor was the BB an "explosion",
properly speaking.
You're trying to teach Load-o-Lice science. It's easier to teach a
brick to float.
Actually I have floated several bricks, on a board! (-;
How did you get your brains out of your head?
He borrowed this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Elektronenmikroskop.jpg
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
"If you are informed by God, you can be misinformed by nobody" - Osama Bin
Laden
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
