if you dont believe in GOD what do you make about this? about the BIG BANG?

Question

The hypothesis that the solar system formed from the collapse of a revolving nebula is contradicted by the fact that three planets and several moons revolve backwards.

dreamstuff---i ask questions in the science section too go look

Answer 1

My understanding is that these planets that revolve backward were later additions, rogue entities drifting through space that became caught in the sun's or their individual planets' orbits.

Regardless, how this is supposed to prove there is a God is a tremendous leap in logic. Just because there is a flaw in the best theory available doesn't mean the competing theory is automatically right. Don't let your devotion blind you to logical thinking.

Answer 2

i think in God and in technology. God made the sector no remember the type you seem at it. If it turn into created in 7 days (an afternoon meaning a quantity of time even with the indisputable fact that nowhere does it say an afternoon is 24 hrs., an afternoon could have been hundreds of years) God created it. He could have used evolution or the great bang concept or something he wanted. sometime technology could come across how he did it. technology is in elementary terms a device we use to take a seem at to be sure how the sector was once created. God is the writer of technology and God made all concerns such because of the fact the technology and theories people attempt to apply to inform others that He does now not exist. God is a lot extra efficient than technology or some thing we are in a position to think of. technology is just one among God's many creations. If there turn into as quickly as a huge bang then God prompted the extensive bang. If we stepped forward then God took 2 beings (very in all danger outcast monkeys) and infused souls into them so as to stay perpetually. They have been huge-unfold as Adam and Eve. this is the reason guy has an enduring soul and animals are lifeless many times.

Answer 3

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy. And this technique is used almost exclusively by christians.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:



1. The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.

The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.

Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.

2. Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all of their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

Answer 4

All planets orbit the Sun counterclockwise. A few planets have a retrograde rotation.

How a planet rotates is related to how it was formed from the accretion of planetesimals. If more impacts occur on one side than the other, then it will tend to rotate accordingly. Tidal effects can also change the rotation.

In regards to those planets with a retrograde rotation (Venus and Uranus for example), all have a tilt greater than 90 degrees (the North Pole of a planet is the pole that is on the north side of Earth's orbit), also defined as a -negative tilt. This results in a retrograde rotation.

Scientist believe this was most likely caused by impacts.

Answer 5

I think you need to study physics. The Law of Conservation of Momentum explains the phenomena you're talking about. The planets that are spinning backwards are doing so due to the gravitational pull on them from external sources.

The fact that they're spinning in the "wrong" direction doesn't contradict the Nebular Hypothesis. It is entirely possible for the external gravitational forces to have spun them the wrong way, just so long as the angular momentum of the entire nebula remained the same.

Answer 6

Technically speaking, this is not even about the Big Bang. Our solar system is "new growth"--it's not part of the original cosmological composition that immediately followed the Big Bang.

And I still find the Big Bang theory much more in keeping with the evidence than the literal Biblical account. Where are the huge bodies of water in the sky or outer space, by the way, explicitly described in Genesis 1:6? Find those for me, and I'll give a fair hearing to your argument about statistical variation in celestial motion.

It saddens me that such a partisan of the Christian religion has such an impoverished understanding not only of science, but also of your own faith tradition. The Christian Bible is substantially less spiritually relevant as a literalized myth, and has such radical depth and meaning in metaphorical terms. Your shallowness in your own religion is depressing.

Answer 7

Science is not always right, things change and we discover new evidence. I am an Atheist but I have big doubts about the Big Bang theory! Evolution on the other hand is a solid theory that I do agree with.

Answer 8

And what's the net spin of all of the planets? Sorry, but the conservation of angular momentum does allow counter revolution as long as the sum of all the spins times the weight of each equals the original spin of the solar system. BTW, you wouldn't happen to have that original solar system spin and mass info, do you? If you did, we could add them up and check to see if the physics works out.

Hmm, but I sense that I have lost you, because you really don't have a deep understanding of physics.

Answer 9

The frustration felt when someone who clearly has only the most tenuous grip on a concept repeatedly tries to critique it, is profound.

Answer 10

your question is about the big bang, but then goes on to talk about the precipitation of the galaxies.

as if you said: 'how come if there were cavemen, eddy cochran was able to live on the fortieth floor of his apartment?'

you give christians a bad name.