How Was The Universe Structured After The Big Bang?

Question

It is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random after the explosion. But, it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. If a bomb exploded in a granary, would that cause all the wheat to fall into neat sacks and bales on the backs of trucks ready to be delivered or, shower the grains every which way.

Answer 1

The only big bang that has ever been proven are the two the USA gave to Japan when they dropped the atomic bombs. Any other big bang is theory from scientists with heads filled with saw-dust and ape $hit.

God structured the earth.

Answer 2

Simple physics:

< The larger the object ... the stronger its gravitational field. Imagine that you want to build a really tall building. You have to make sure it has a really strong foundation, or the foundation will be crushed by the weight of the building and the building will fall. If there was anything really big sticking up on a planet or a star, gravity would pull it down... Even solid rock will flow like a liquid, although very slowly, if it is pulled by a very strong gravitational force for a very long time... Since gravity pulls toward the center of the planet or star, everything gets pulled down into a sphere. >

To read about the big bang: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
Excerpt from above:

Answer 3

the universe is structured out of little bits of dust bunnies.

Seriously, your question contains an error. The explosion in the granary is subject to the laws of planetary gravity, and while physics do not change, the effects do.
As well, you are erring on the subject of scale and comparative matter. The universe is not composed of wheat, but of particles which are selectively 'sticky' and 'slippery' - and sometimes, these particles are both (or neutral). In the 'explosion,' some of these particles will stick together or congeal after the initial blast, or their own very weak em field (that all things generate) would cause them to congeal more quickly than others.
This is why the most common shape for a mass is a circle, and not say, large chocolate easter bunnies or office staplers.
Since i am delving pretty far afield, I will leave it at that. :)


ps - However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster suggests that the entire universe is less than 6,000 years old. Some fairly pin-headed fundamentalists believe this as well. It is an arrogance. I've heard that God doesn't really like that quality in us. He gives us floods and the like when we do stupid stuff like that...

Answer 4

It is not correct to say that once the universe exploded, they disintegrated into neat organised units like planets. On explosion, what started expanding must have been gaseous matters. It was much later that these matters got themselves crystallised into planets etc. The comparison with a bomb in a granary is inappropriate. When a granary is exploded, all the wheat get scattered and later on they are collected into neat packs and sacks.

Answer 5

The question you ask is complicated, yound padiwan learner :D
1I will explane more simply than that cut-and-paste-from-wikipedia-twit.

BTW: The universe is not "Organised" at all. Lookl at a map of the universe. Very random.

You give a poor analogy: a wheat "granary" is of significantly smaller mass than a proto-galactic cloud. A proto-galactic cloud spun, spen up, shrunk, heated, formed into clumps of matter, which exploded and became stars, and the leftovers perhaps became planets. According to Astronomy, at any rate.

The rub is where they invent dark matter to provide themselves with the sufficiant mass quantities. Dark matter is completley undetectable, except for the required mass it provides to allow the galaxies to stay together.

Answer 6

In answer to your header question (your comments aren't a question, so I've stuck strictly to your headlining question):

The universe congealed into a hydrogen cloud a few minutes after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough that atoms could form.

We know from the Cosmic Background Radiation measurements taken by COBE that this cloud was slightly unevenly distributed. The unevenness allowed the first stars to form, as gravity did its thing and the dense parts of the clouds formed into huge gravity wells.

All of these first stars were so big that they burned out within a few million years, but all of them ended in tremendous supernovas, the likes of which we never observe today - in these tremendous explosions, the heavier elements were born, forming heterogenous dust clouds from which modern style solar systems were first born.

Answer 7

I would not be surprized if the standard big bang is abandonded in the 21st century as an explaination of the origin of the universe. The big bang leaves more questions hanging and anomolies unanswered than it answers so it sould go bye bye
There are at least a dozen unresolved problems with the big bang in addition to the non uniform distriburion of matter. There is also the rough quantization of light from distant stars. There are claims of a rotation of the whole universe in the last decade and this may be consisted with Carneli;s adjustments to the theory of relativity for galaxies

In a way the standard big bang is a leap into irrationality. A rabit is pulled out of the hat without a rabbit, without a hat and without a magician. When someone says everything comes from not only nothing, but no place and no where the propper response should not be a gasp of awe but a scratch of one's head and a skeptical eyebrow raised

Lets say the begining, defining the big bang as t=0, I go with Carneli, Arp and Humphreys on this one. Carneli for rotation which explains the universe with NO DARK MATTER OR DARK ENERGY, Arp for the theory of quarks as embrionic galaxies and Humphreys for favoring a universe with finite boundary and time dilation with earth, the priviledged planet, near the center

but the answer depends on which big bang you mean... there are more than one and structure... yes... there is alot of structure and order everywhere ... and how did that pale blue dot get there, eh. And as a depressed Carl Sagan feared... no one will even know we're here As one person says it tells alot about a society who thinks they are the result of an explosion.

But it;s a good question to ask as the earth sits betwixt two giant arms of the mily way with its unique view of the universe seeing far one way and far the other into both near and far reaches of the creation

It would also be possible Hubbel's law is abandoned in the 21st century, also based on work done by Halton Arp of the Max Plank Institute... the redest objects may not be farthest... they may be intrinically red. But dogmas hang on e forever and relgious folk have no monolpoly on dogmas, scientists are often up there with the best of them as far as biases toward their favorite theories

Face it, there is not a naturalistic explaination of where the moon came from, planets, stars or galaxies. The nature of quarks is thrown into question by Halton Arp's theories. How we look at time in the universe by Russ Humphrey's starlight and time. How we apply relativity to galaxies by Carneli.

Sir Ocum would probably have to go with the dramatic understatement in Genesis "He made the stars also"
Fortunately he who made the stars, even the ones too far away for Star Trek to fly to took on an additional humna nature. Sagan was wrong. Not only does someone know we're here but the maker of stars took on an additional human nature and was born and placed in an animal feeding trough to be wondered at by shepherds as the God of wonders beyond the galaxies took on flesh to glorify God by meeting the deepest human needs providing life and mercies no one in their wildest imaginsations would have thought.

Another big bang, well there is a big bang coming That is when the creator of stars judges the world and there will be a new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells

Answer 8

Planets, stars and galaxies did not come into being one second after the Big Bang. It took a few billion years for things to sort themselves out.

Answer 9

When the Universe cooled sufficiently for matter to form gravity collected clumps of matter by a process of accretion forming Stars and Galaxies etc. over a period of about a billion years.

Answer 10

In order to have a creation there has to be a Creator, in order for there to be a design there has to be a designer.

If you were to throw all the pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw in the air, how likely would it be if just 3 pieces fitted together? How much more rediculous would it be to expect all those pieces to fit together?

In the beginning.....God...
It takes far less faith to believe the Bible than to believe in the big bang or evolution.