Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 09-03-2002, 04:48 PM

ok, now that I got your attention...

Quote:

"according to scientists in the big bang theory the ball of matter was spinning. If it was spinning in a clockwise direction than due to the conservation of angular momentum all the plants and such would be spinning in a clockwise direction too. If the big bang theory is true than how come's some of our planets our spinning in the opposite direction. That's just one more fact to make evolution wrong."
<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000009.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000009.html</a>

Aside from the obvious point that the movement of the planets have nothing to do with evolution (at least, it SHOULD be obvious sigh), what is the explanation for someplanets rotateing in a different direction? I think I've seen this answered before but I can't remember where.

P.S. I already added this to the "christians say the darnest things" thread in humor. If this doesn't deserve a place in the stupid quote hall of fame, what does?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

wade-w · 09-03-2002, 05:08 PM

For some reason that I've never been able to fathom, creationists seem to think that cosmology and abiogenesis are somehow a part of the theory of evolution.

Anyway, you can find a brief explanation of the two main theories regarding Venus' retrograde spin <a href="http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/6/6" target="_blank">here.</a>

Quote:

Astronomers have long thought that Venus acquired its unusual 'retrograde' spin when internal friction and turbulence in its atmosphere flipped the planet's rotation axis in the distant past. Now French astronomers argue that chaotic effects could have reversed the planet's spin while its rotation axis stayed put. Alexandre Correia and Jacques Laskar of the CNRS Institute of Celestial Mechanics simulated the rotation of Venus over thousands of millions of years and conclude that it must have followed one of two paths to reach its current state (A Correia and J Laskar 2001 Nature 411 767).

The rotation of rocky planets with dense atmospheres - such as the Earth and Venus - is determined by atmospheric tides, gravitational forces, friction between the mantle and the crust, and the 'obliquity' angle between the planet's equator and the plane of its orbit around the Sun. Accounting for these effects, Correia and Laskar calculated the motion of such planets for a wide range of initial conditions. "We found that, due to the presence of the dense atmosphere, the rotation can only end in four possible spin states", Laskar told PhysicsWeb. Such planets can have either retrograde or 'prograde' rotation - that is, the west-to-east rotation commonplace in the solar system - and their rotation axis may or may not have flipped during its evolution. We know that Venus has retrograde rotation, but has its rotation axis switched?

<a href="http://www.bdl.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2001/venus1.2001.pdf" target="_blank">This is the relevant paper. </a>

[ Edited to fix the link to the paper ]

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

hinduwoman · 09-03-2002, 05:34 PM

If evolution is supposed to produce superior breeds who are best at survival, then George Bush II, is a powerful argument against it.

Wyz_sub10 · 09-03-2002, 05:39 PM

My first question would be, what does the Big Bang have to do with angular momentum?

I know most YECs have failed to grasp biology and geology, not it seems they want to change the laws of physics,as well.

tgamble · 09-03-2002, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:
My first question would be, what does the Big Bang have to do with angular momentum?

Mine to.

Quote:

I know most YECs have failed to grasp biology and geology, not it seems they want to change the laws of physics,as well.

You didn't know that?

scigirl · 09-03-2002, 06:06 PM

wadew,

That "relevant paper" link still doesn't work - at least for me.

scigirl

wade-w · 09-03-2002, 07:07 PM

Scigirl;

Hmmmm... Its not working for me either, now. I found this by doing a search at google for "venus spin" (minus the quotes). There is also an html version, but my computer doesn't seem to like it at all. Its generated by google from the pdf document, and the formatting in the equations is incredibly bad.

I'm not sure what is happening here, but I just tried to put in the url to the generated html. When I then tried to use the link from here, it brought my browser to its knees(and I'm using Linux, not winblows). It may be easiest for you to recreate my search. My apologies for the inconvenience.

And now that I take a closer look at the search results... the paper is in two parts.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Starboy · 09-03-2002, 08:12 PM

Wow!

This is an example of the stupidest argument in the world: "You are wrong therefore I am right." Only a person steeped in the dualism of Christianity could consider this a valid argument. I sometimes wonder if there is any point at all to arguing with a Christian. Their thinking is stuck in a mythology that is two thousand years old. Arguments based on science and reason just don�t register. In electronics this would be called impedance mismatch. When this happens most of the signal is reflected back to the source and very little gets through.

Starboy

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

beausoleil · 09-03-2002, 08:14 PM

Lets cut them some slack, and assume they have the big bang and the presolar nebula confused, and that they aren't really asking why plants don't spin clockwise.

In this context, it isn't necessary that all planets spin the same way, only that total angular momentum be conserved. The last stages of accretion appear to have been a series of giant impacts, the details of the final spin of the remnants depend a lot on the nature of the last impact, which has an element of randomness to it. So observation of the occasional planet with retrograde spin isn't that drastic a problem anyway.

Here's a slightly relevant link.

<a href="http://www.crcss.csiro.au/spin/spin77/SPIN7705.htm" target="_blank">http://www.crcss.csiro.au/spin/spin77/SPIN7705.htm</a>

Note the weird orientation of Uranus's axis to the ecliptic

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]

Peez · 09-04-2002, 07:26 AM

Quote:

wadew:
For some reason that I've never been able to fathom, creationists seem to think that cosmology and abiogenesis are somehow a part of the theory of evolution.

I believe that their problem is that they object to science in general (where it contradicts their narrow views), but it sounds better to say that one objects to "evolutionism" than to science.

Peez

09-03-2002, 07:07 PM	#7
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Scigirl; Hmmmm... Its not working for me either, now. I found this by doing a search at google for "venus spin" (minus the quotes). There is also an html version, but my computer doesn't seem to like it at all. Its generated by google from the pdf document, and the formatting in the equations is incredibly bad. I'm not sure what is happening here, but I just tried to put in the url to the generated html. When I then tried to use the link from here, it brought my browser to its knees(and I'm using Linux, not winblows). It may be easiest for you to recreate my search. My apologies for the inconvenience. And now that I take a closer look at the search results... the paper is in two parts. [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

09-03-2002, 08:12 PM	#8
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Wow! This is an example of the stupidest argument in the world: "You are wrong therefore I am right." Only a person steeped in the dualism of Christianity could consider this a valid argument. I sometimes wonder if there is any point at all to arguing with a Christian. Their thinking is stuck in a mythology that is two thousand years old. Arguments based on science and reason just don�t register. In electronics this would be called impedance mismatch. When this happens most of the signal is reflected back to the source and very little gets through. Starboy [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

09-03-2002, 08:14 PM	#9
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	Lets cut them some slack, and assume they have the big bang and the presolar nebula confused, and that they aren't really asking why plants don't spin clockwise. In this context, it isn't necessary that all planets spin the same way, only that total angular momentum be conserved. The last stages of accretion appear to have been a series of giant impacts, the details of the final spin of the remnants depend a lot on the nature of the last impact, which has an element of randomness to it. So observation of the occasional planet with retrograde spin isn't that drastic a problem anyway. Here's a slightly relevant link. <a href="http://www.crcss.csiro.au/spin/spin77/SPIN7705.htm" target="_blank">http://www.crcss.csiro.au/spin/spin77/SPIN7705.htm</a> Note the weird orientation of Uranus's axis to the ecliptic [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2002, 05:34 PM	#3
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	If evolution is supposed to produce superior breeds who are best at survival, then George Bush II, is a powerful argument against it.

09-03-2002, 05:39 PM	#4
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	My first question would be, what does the Big Bang have to do with angular momentum? I know most YECs have failed to grasp biology and geology, not it seems they want to change the laws of physics,as well.

09-03-2002, 06:06 PM	#6
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	wadew, That "relevant paper" link still doesn't work - at least for me. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.