Big Bang

[nova_explored]

But the idea of a 'bang' outside of point singularity does make sense. Considering that an isotropic view of the universe reveals everything to be moving away from everything else is one clue into an origin of this universe; outside of redshift this is observable. A static universe with infinite time, and this is the key to a static model, and its further demise, that static state leads towards entropy, which is in no way what the universe is tending towards, just the opposite actually; this is another clue. <br /><br />And, it is out of these relevancies of our known universe that lead science to an idea of a big bang model. Whoever said religion, plz, plz, plz, know your history. What science did is give support to religion. But that is really where the joining of the two end, as neither rely on the other for evidence or acceptance, but sometimes inadvertently lay credence to the other.<br /><br />it's kind of laughable that people pull that card out, and out of left field at that, for those in a scientific field who know better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

My theory is that when all matter has been gobbled up by black holes and all the black holes have been gobbled up by the baddest black hole it will rip apart and start the next big bang and so on and so on <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Kyle_baron: <br />There are two types of space. Energized (energy fields within the BB space)... <br /><br />Me: <br />I hadn't heard this in the cosmological community before but it makes the most sense to me, in part because I think of it in roughly these terms. Do you by chance have a link to anything referring to this?</font><br /><br />No, sorry. It's just my interpretation of space, from reading the two books by Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe, and Fabric of The Cosmos.<br /><br />The Elegant Universe p.396: Quantum Uncertainty implies that energy in the field- even in an empty region of space fluctuates up and down, with the fluctuations getting larger as the distance and time scales on which the region is examined get smaller (vacuum fluctuations).<br /><br />Fabric of the Cosmos p.29-76:<br />The concept of NOTHING gets complicated, and is interpreted by Newton to be related to the MOTION, of a hypothetical bucket 1/2 full of water, ROTATING in empty space.<br /><br />Two other philosopher/theologian ideas of space:<br />Henry More- If space were empty, it wouldn't exist.<br />Gotfried Leibniz- Without objects in space, space itself has no independent meaning or existance.<br /><br />Both are good examples of the so called pre-BB space. And Einsteins SR (space- time) is a good example of post-BB space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

Actually. He never indicated nothing escapes while the black hole is active, simply that the black hole consumes everything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<b></b>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br /><i>And, it is out of these relevancies of our known universe that lead science to an idea of a big bang model. Whoever said religion, plz, plz, plz, know your history. What science did is give support to religion. But that is really where the joining of the two end, as neither rely on the other for evidence or acceptance, but sometimes inadvertently lay credence to the other. <br /><br />it's kind of laughable that people pull that card out, and out of left field at that, for those in a scientific field who know better.</i></font>/i><br /><br />laugh all you want. the BB was proposed by a priest. it jibes well with Genesis:<br /><font color="yellow">"In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” Lemaitre’s theory, the idea that there was a burst of fireworks which marked the beginning of time and space on “a day without yesterday”, was a radical departure from prevailing scientific understandings, though it has since come to be the most probable explanation for the origin of the universe."</font><br />from:<br />http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html<br /><br />as far as i'm concerned, science and religion are nearly the same. science has it's pantheon of demi-gods that are worshipped as in any religion. the science is not necessarily true. and neither is the religion. but both are safe institutions with faith-based ideas. science is less faith-based than religion. <br /><br />BB is religious = scientific = religion.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><i>"But the idea of a 'bang' outside of point singularity does make sense. Considering that an isotropic view of the universe reveals everything to be moving away from everything else is one clue into an origin of this universe; outside of redshift this is observable. A static universe with infinite time, and this is the key to a static model, and its further demise, that static state leads towards entropy, which is in no way what the universe is tending towards, just the opposite actually; this is another clue." </i></font><br /><br />this is now picking the flavor of the singularity for convenience purposes. the infinite singularity is uncomfortable, so the definition and meaning must be adjusted to make all disciples of BB comfortable. that is all this is. it's either a singularity or it is not. but we must have this updated grey area for comfort purposes. and it is very searching.<br /><br />the static universe of infinite existence is as well assumed. straight away, the hater of this idea goes right to the intellectualized canned-boilerplate standard default setting to "static," as in non moving things. why is this assumed right away? who is to say that we must have a stasis if the universe is infinite? moving matter and mass does not at all point the way to a big bang. this is entirely erroneous. certainly, if one <i>believes in the BB,</i> observations of moving galaxies in general relation to each other <i>could lead one to assume a BB event occurred if the belief is there, but that is all that it is --belief.</i> <br /><br />if anything, an infinite universe could very well have movement abounding everywhere, as is observed. assuming right away that infinite universe = static is entirely premature of an idea to be so in love with, and not necessarily true whatsoever. who says we even know the true nature of the cosmos? how can we even say we do? <br /><br />moreover, all matter is not perfectly traveling from a common point of origin

 

[qso1]

Kyle_baron:<br />No, sorry. It's just my interpretation of space...<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats cool. It still makes sense to me. I considered space or nothingness to be a total absence of molecules, atoms, any physical basic building block associated with all other matter, or even antimatter.<br /><br />That this is the space I theorize that either one Universe came into being in, or multiple Universes came into being in. Technically, this space should be known as the Universe. But thats just me. In addition, even though it makes sense to me, it does not mean its how it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

Actually, a black hole does consume everything. Arguing at what point it consumes at is useless banter to support your theory that it does not. <br /><br />Black hole info link<br /><br /><i>Once you're inside of the horizon, spacetime is distorted so much that the coordinates describing radial distance and time switch roles. That is, "r", the coordinate that describes how far away you are from the center, is a timelike coordinate, and "t" is a spacelike one. One consequence of this is that you can't stop yourself from moving to smaller and smaller values of r, just as under ordinary circumstances you can't avoid moving towards the future (that is, towards larger and larger values of t). Eventually, you're bound to hit the singularity at r = 0. You might try to avoid it by firing your rockets, but it's futile: no matter which direction you run, you can't avoid your future. Trying to avoid the center of a black hole once you've crossed the horizon is just like trying to avoid next Thursday</i><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />moving matter and mass does not at all point the way to a big bang. this is entirely erroneous. certainly, if one believes in the BB, observations of moving galaxies in general relation to each other could lead one to assume a BB event occurred if the belief is there, but that is all that it is--belief.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'm not entirely up on the detailed science and mathematics of it but I always point out that as long as some kind of evidence is available. There may be something to it. We just don't know entirely what that something might be. Science itself has never really addressed whats outside the Universe we do know because we cannot observe anything.<br /><br />In my variation of a combined big bang steady state model which I use in a purely theoretical way. The void we call space, that blackness we see. Anything that contains no matter, no atoms, etc. Would be the eternal volume in which what we currently call the Universe exists. This void may be what surrounded the big bang of galactic clusters. The Universe we know being those collections of galactic clusters extending to the point of furthest observable so far (13.5 B light years).<br /><br />In this scenario, a neighboring collection of clusters could lie several hundred billion, trillion, quadrillion light years out. It may be younger, older, but unseen because of our technical limitations and as I understood it. Limitations in how far an object can redshift and still be visible. So theoretically whole clusters are around our collection of clusters and unseen due to redshift limitations.<br /><br />As a non scientist, I accept that since I cannot prove in any way any part of this theory. I can accept that and I don't expect anyone else to accept or even consider my theory. Its as soft science as any on the edge cosmology.<br /><br />It all started when I wondered what was well beyond the 13.5 B light year barrier that currently exists. The age old question. What came before the bang? What surro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Actually, a black hole does consume everything. Arguing at what point it consumes at is useless banter to support your theory that it does not.</font><br /><br />Will a black hole consume the entire Virgo Cluster of Galaxies?<br /><br />Will it consume the Great Wall?<br /><br />The answer is no, except if there's a big crunch. Therefore, black holes are unlikely to consume everything. Do you know what everything is?<br /><br />In fact let me put it this way. Everything that is within a distance of 6GM/c^2 from a black hole will be consumed. But this is not "everything in the universe".

 

[bonzelite]

qso, fair enough, yes. <br /><br />i believe we don't really know what we're looking at. many of our theories are beliefs based upon assumed things. and we all know what happens when we start to assume too much. the cosmos is infamous for showing us things that are not what they initially appear to be, as well as things that we assumed just "could not exist." <br /><br />and so it goes...

 

[nova_explored]

<font color="yellow">"The steady state model does not appear to agree with the observed dL versus z relation or with source counts ... In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal. The steady-state model is so attractive that many of its adherents still retain hope that the evidence against it will disappear as observations improve. However, if the cosmic microwave background radiation ... is really black-body radiation, it will be difficult to doubt that the universe has evolved from a hotter, denser early stage.</font> - Stephen Weinberg<br /><br />You're absolutely right that what we know is not always what is, that as Richard Feynman said; "the only certainty is uncertainty." To the point, yes.<br /><br />What we can do however is narrow our options in the field, as with Feynman again showing the sum over histories. It is hard to find validation for a steady state because of entropy and thermodynamics. A universe in infinite proportion in time that shows such a great change <br />is everything a system working in entropy is not. What that tells us is that steady state is a poor description, however that leaves the door open for many possibilities. They tend towards a BB model. That model, and it could be anything at this point, can fit within one aspect of steady state, as someone earlier pointed out, Qso1 i think, that there may be a constant cycle of expansion and contraction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree. In the end, we simply don't know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nevyn]

Before the CMB was found, it was theorised by many theories of the day. Most of which were steady state theories (I avoid the term static). The BB theory predicted many different (very different) temp for that radiation. It started at 5, then moved to 7 and then to 50 just before the CMB was actually found to be about 3K. At this point somehow BB was changed to give this exact value. But all of the steady state theories had predicted values around 2 - 5K well in advance of actually finding the CMB.<br /><br />Please explain how this is then used as evidence to the BB?<br /><br />When it is found that there is not enough matter to explain the rotation of galaxies, they introduce strange matter that can not be detected but must be there. And then when it is found that all that dark matter would cause the universe to be too young, they introduce dark energy to slow down the expansion of the universe as it grows.<br /><br />Now I can accept a little change in a theory to bring it in line with observations, but when that little change is actually 99.9% of the universe, I can't call it little. I call it a big fudge factor.<br /><br />As I read these posts, I hear a lot about empty space. We now know that space is not empty at all. It is filled with plasma (ionized gas). An example: solar radiation. A stream of charged particles (both +ve and -ve) leaving the sun and readily measureable from orbit around earth. The problem is that what BB says we should be recieving is not what we recieve. Yet other theories can handle this quit well.<br /><br />I myself am looking at the Electric Universe model or Plasma Universe, which seems to explain a lot of things that others can't: why the sun is cooler in the center, why it rotates faster at the equator than higher or lower latitudes, why we see fibrous structures during sunspots and what they are, how galaxies form into spiral structures (without the need for gravity being the dominant force), the scarring of planets and moons with features

 

[Saiph]

I don't recall any steady state theory being able to reproduce an isotropic, homogenous CMBR that fits a black body curve.<br /><br /><br />And as for early CMBR calculations having varying temperatures means they didn't get it right afterall....that's absurd!<br /><br />First, the main point is that BB theory predicts/requires a black body CMBR, and one was found. The specific temperature calculations rely on lots of nuclear and particle physics, which during the time period when CMBR was discovered, was rapidly advancing.<br /><br />Also, nobody is required to get it right the first time! Literature in all scientific fields is full of back and forth, as the researchers work on a specific subject. They'll throw out a calculation/model, and wait for the response. Usually somebody says they forgot something, or some detail <i>isn't</i> small enough to be ignored. Then the next round goes, with the new calculation that's done better (hopefully) with more of the correct information.<br /><br />Only a decade or so later is the subject really fleshed out to the capabilities of the techniques and instruments of the time.<br /><br /><br /><br />Now, for your EU speil: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I myself am looking at the Electric Universe model or Plasma Universe, which seems to explain a lot of things that others can't: <b><font color="yellow">1: </font></b>hy the sun is cooler in the center, <b><font color="yellow">2: </font></b>hy it rotates faster at the equator than higher or lower latitudes, <b><font color="yellow">3: </font></b>hy we see fibrous structures during sunspots and what they are, <b><font color="yellow">4: </font></b>ow galaxies form into spiral structures (without the need for gravity being the dominant force), <b><font color="yellow">5: </font></b>he scarring of planets and moons with features that can not be explained by meteorite impacts (unless all impacting bodies fr</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

Kmarinas86-<br /><i>In fact let me put it this way. Everything that is within a distance of 6GM/c^2 from a black hole will be consumed. But this is not "everything in the universe".</i><br /><br /> I think you are lost in translation. The statement was <b>does</b> it consume everything in the universe, i.e. nothing in contact with it, escapes being consumed innitially. I did not say it <b>WILL</b> consume everything in the universe, although such a train of thought does bring us to the big crunch theory, but thats a different subject. With that in mind, you're welcome to start a thread on that, instead of trying to hijack a comment to put it in the context you wish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[nevyn]

Any cosmological theory can predict/require a CMBR. I was pointing out that BB was not the only theory of the day to predict it, but it was the one that predicted a very out of range value. Sure, they don't need to get it right first time, but when it is marked as 'evidence' of the BB, it surely helps to have a valid value for it.<br /><br />1) The sun is cooler in the center because when we observe sunspots, we can see a cooler body underneath the hot surface. You seem to have a lot of ifs in your fun analysis. I never said the sun was a ball of gas. Actually, the Electric Universe model predicts that the sun has a very solid core, but that core doesn't really take part in the workings of the sun. <br /><br />2) can't find my notes on this just yet.<br /><br />3) The standard model doesn't relegate EM forces to a minor role? When it comes to the cosmos it does. Even though the EM force is 35 orders of magnitude larger than gravity, even though gravity weakens with an inverse squared law, rather than the inverse law of EM. However, at that point I was talking about the sun and its operation, which the standard model thinks is nuclear. Using all sorts of nonsense like re-connecting magnetic fields to radiate extra heat from the core to the outer portions. As if a magnetic field could be disconnected.<br /><br />4) Galaxies may have gravity, but what it to say that that is the main force at work producing that galaxy. And if it is, how do stars and planets form out of dust? No viable mechanism has been proposed (that I know of) that can explain dust clumping together under gravity and forming spinning objects, whether they be stars of planets.<br /><br />5) Be that as it may, it does not explain why 2 lines of impacts can cross each other without the 2nd seeming to know that the first existed. ie the 2nd impact line (rilles connecting the impact craters if that is what you choose to call them) looks exactly as if the first was never there.<br /><br />6) I was referring to the fre

 

[Saiph]

Umm...what other cosmology theory predicted an isotropic and homogenous CMBR?<br /><br />1) Umm...but the sunspots are at the same height and have the same composition as the surrounding material. They are not <i>holes</i>, there is stuff there.<br /><br />3) EM forces <i>also</i> drop as a inverse square of distance, or even faster (as with dipolar fields). Also EM forces, unlike gravity, have a self-negating effect. They attract the material or currents that negate their influence. Gravity only attracts materials that <i>increase</i> it's influence. So any mass of charge or current capable of defeating gravity on the <i>long range</i> effects, will quickly negate itself.<br /><br />4) Ahh, now here's the fun bit where EU proponents don't seem to follow the standard formation theories: Initial clumping is indeed due to electrostatic attractions between small dust grains. That and large pressure systems caused by hot vs cold gas interfaces. This is where galaxy wide fields can play significant roles in star formation, from alterations in specific locations, to the density of the resulting cluster. I.e. gravity may effect the cloud as a whole, but where in the cloud the star forms (and how big the formation clouds are), could very well be EM forces at work.<br /><br />5) I need a picture for that one, and maybe someone who knows a bit more about geology can chime in.<br /><br />6) Most supernovae are Type Ia...they're "induced" in a binary where one star is a white dwarf. That's one reason why a second star is usually nearby (that second star induced the white dwarf to novae). As for the unusual planetary orbits...don't know to much about that, so I can't say if you're barking up the wrong tree or not. It's a bit hard to say gravity couldn't explain it though, since we've seen no EM forces capable of effecting planets as a whole.<br /><br />7) Now that's cool, and something to think about. However that's recent enough that I'm not suprised if nobody know's h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">The statement was does it consume everything in the universe, i.e. nothing in contact with it, escapes being consumed innitially.</font><br /><br />everything in the universe ???=??? nothing in contact with it<br /><br />Oh, "escapes being consumed intitally." I get it now.<br /><br />Like I "escaped being consumed yesterday or the week before" .... i c.

 

[nevyn]

I'm not sure if they predicted it to be isotropic and homogenous, but then is that what we found? There are small deviations in the CMBR, it is not completely homogenous. I would think that an explosion which is exploding into nothing, infact less than nothing, would be truelly homogenous.<br /><br />1) If sunspots have the same height, and the same composition as the surrounding material, then what are they? You are effectively saying they are the same as their surroundings, and yet we can see them and we can feel them. I don't know if you've seen the pictures I have, but you seem intelligent and educated enough that you should have, but it looks to me that a sunspot is the lack of something and the surrounding area shows the fibrous structure of that something next to the sunspot.<br /><br />3) That's a good point about EM forces attracting what negates them. I will look further into this. However, it is easy to say that on the long range they will negate themselves, but does it actually happen? Especially when we are talking about galactic, possibly inter-galactic, sized currents and fields.<br /><br />4) Ahh, your argument to 3 can be used against this one. If 2 dust grains attract each other, because they have opposite charges, then they become 1 uncharged dust grain. So I can see how all the charged grains can form into slightly larger neutral grains, but not how that process can keep going until we have something the size of a planet or even larger for a star. And then theres the rotation to explain.<br /><br />Large pressure differences would cause some form of communication between the 2 regions, ie the transfer of heat which is just EM radiation. So the pressure differences effectively produce an electric current, which then produces a magnetic field. This magentic field then alters everything in it. This is the complexity of EU models. They cause things that alter themselves.<br /><br />However, I think your point is a good one and deserves some thinking about.<br></br>

 

[enigma10]

Kmarinas86-<br /><i>Like I "escaped being consumed yesterday or the week before" .... i c.</i><br /><br /> I dare ask what is trying to consume you.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[Saiph]

only recently have we seen minor fluctuations in the CMBR, and they are very, very minor. The maps you see are something like a 1 in 100,000 variation. Also, before such fluctions were observed, modern BB theory suggested it should be present. But, the CMBR is isotropic, and far more homogeneous than any steady state theory can accoutn for.<br /><br /><br />Now, I don't have tons of time left tonight, so I'll breifly touch on some things:<br /><br />1) Sunspots are <i>cold</i> spots. They are still 3000 K, but thats 2000 degrees k colder than the surrounding photosphere (at 5000). That's roughly half as hot. Using standard thermodynamics equations, that equates to roughtly 16x fainter! So they're not black, they're just much fainter in contrast to their surroundings.<br /><br />The reason they're so cold is because of intense magnetic fields present really mess with convection currents (the most efficient form of heat transfer at the observed temperatures and pressures). I.e. the magnetic field chokes off the hot material from below, allowing the area to cool. The presence of the magnetic field is confirmed by spectroscopy of the region, which shows Zeeman Line splitting (elemental transition lines undergoing a split into two lines in the presence of a magnetic field).<br /><br />3) Galactic wide fields are able to polarize dust grains...which is how we actually map them. However, there is no indication they do much more than that. Even though the fields are very wide ranging, it is very, very weak. It's really caused more by a little bit of current everywhere, rather than any strong source.<br /><br />4) Simple, there can be mechanisms by which the dust grains become charged in the first place. Left alone, they'd be neutral. But due to collisions with other grains, and light (via the photoelectric effect) the dust grains can become charged again.<br /><br />5) I'll look at that soon.<br /><br />6) Umm....I'll look for electrical influences when gravity is an insu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>4) ... And then theres the rotation to explain. </i><br /><br />Conservation of angular momentum. Stars and everything that orbit around them were originally formed from interstellar gas clouds. These clouds will have had a slight rotation to them and as they collapse to form stars, that slight rotation is increased. Ultimately, everything in that system retains the same rotational direction as the original cloud from which it was formed unless acted upon by other forces.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[nevyn]

You can't pass the buck like that. Planets and stars have rotation because the material that made them had rotation. Then you have to explain how the interstellar gas came to be rotating.<br /><br />Any explaination that refers to itself to be consistant is no explaination at all.