Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
- From: Craig T <craig.tevis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:15:19 -0800
On Nov 12, 7:02 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Reclaiming Science From Darwinism" by Kenneth Poppe
Chapter 12
CELESTIAL LUCK
A place in space for everything, and
everything in space in its place
One interesting application of the second law of thermodynamics that has
most certainly occurred in a closed system is the settling of the cosmos.
According to theory, the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it
all from a pinpoint explosion of unimaginable force, which first blew atoms
into existence, and then blew clusters of matter out into the void of space.
This started the expansion of celestial objects one from another that
continues to this day. (To get a quick sense of this expansion, get a
balloon and with a pen draw a few galaxies and solar systems on the skin.
Then blow the balloon up, and as you do, you will see the "universe"
expanding.)
Following that immense explosion, particle clouds with sufficient mass began
drawing together by increasing gravity and ignited to become stars.
Meanwhile, smaller clusters with insufficient mass began losing their heat,
cooled, and became planets. (The molten inner core of our Earth is often
cited as evidence that our planet was a once hot and violent place that has
now been in the cooling process for billions of years.) Besides stars and
planets, other big bang curiosities have randomly appeared over time, such
as quasars, black holes, comets, moons, and asteroids-all in their
respective and expanding locations.
It follows that if the big bang is a totally random process, then the
resulting layout of the universe has to be completely accidental as well. If
intelligence has nothing to do with physics, how could cosmology be anything
but unplanned and therefore unintelligent? Of course this randomness has to
apply to our own little corner of the galaxy as well. And yet anything less
than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as
it is, and that I am here to write this, or
you to read it.
An Explosion of Good Fortune
Many astronomers and physicists who have studied the big bang event, people
of faith or not, have marveled that it happened at all. Hugh Ross is among
those who have seriously studied the origin and settling of the universe. In
his books, such as Big Bang, Refined by Fire, Ross gives many factors of
physics so finely tuned that it shows the tenuously balanced structure of
our universe. On one such list, Ross includes over two dozen "either/or"
factors (either it worked or it didn't), such that if any single one were
out of balance, the "bang" would have been a nonevent.
Without getting too technical, here is a sampling of the "luck" to which we
owe our existence:
If the electromagnetic forces present at the big bang were either a bit
stronger or a bit weaker, any elements with more atomic mass than boron
(periodic table element #5) could not have been formed. This means 96
percent of the elements, starting with the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in
our bodies, would not exist.
If the ratio of the mass of the electron to the proton or neutron were out
of balance, either too high or too low, no atoms of any kind would have ever
assembled, and obviously no molecular bonding or chemical reactions would
have taken, place either.
If the ratio of the number of available protons to electrons was off, either
too many of one or too few, electromagnetism
would have nullified gravity, and no objects in space would ever have
formed.
And once you add to the list the perfect speed of light, the exact subatomic
decay rates, the correct distance between stars, and even the proper total
mass requirements of the entire universe itself. .. well, you get the idea.
Here is an analogy that seems to help bring home the idea of the fantastic
nature of the big bang. Who can argue that the flying of the Space Shuttle
is a delicate undertaking? Any little prelaunch factor out of place scraps
the countdown, and once in flight, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, known worldwide as NASA, keeps track of a myriad of
transmissions, any one of which could indicate impending disaster. It's
true-the shuttle is a flying bomb with seven souls aboard riding on a
razor-thin edge of safety. Physicists know that the big bang is similarly
fine-tuned, miraculously having managed to avoid either fizzling to a stop
or incinerating itself.
"Lucky" Breaks
However, the above list pales in comparison to factors that were necessary
to form our own little solar system with our own little planet and its
multitude of life-forms. This time Ross has identified 68 separate
"either/or" factors, many of which are more easily understood than those
governing the universe as a whole. Here are a few phenomena that could lead
to either the prevention or extermination of all planetary life. These
factors, some simple and some technical, are some of the blessings we take
for granted every day.
It's a good thing that through random thermodynamic settling, the Milky Way
galaxy attained the right size, shape, and distance from other galaxies.
Otherwise, stars like our sun would never have been formed, or would have
been incorporated into a different cosmic mass.
It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. Approximately
70 percent of all stars are binary, trinary, or complex systems that revolve
around each other. This causes intense gravitational forces that
make stable planetary bodies of any kind nearly impossible. Fortunately, our
sun is one of the remaining 30 percent of "lucky" stars that exists as a
single body. It is also the right size, age, location, and strength for our
solar system-or else planetary orbits would be unstable, heavier elements
drawn to Earth from space could have easily been over- or undersupplied, or
luminosity could have been too bright or too weak to power photosynthesis.
Even the gravitational forces of the other planets are necessary for Earth's
stability. For example, the mass and location of Jupiter is especially
fine-tuned to balance the orbits of the four inner with the four outer
planets.
It's a good thing our planet revolves about the sun in a relatively circular
orbit instead of an exaggerated egg-shaped one like most of the other
planets. If Earth's path were too elliptical, the temperature extremes at
perihelion (closest point to the sun) and aphelion (farthest point from the
sun) would make it difficult, if not impossible, for life to have the
necessary flexibility to survive.
The variation in orbital extremes of Earth is only about 1.7 percent from
the mean, making its path around the sun a near-perfect circle. Compare that
to Mars, everyone's favorite planet for extraterrestrial life, with a 9
percent variation (which is close to the average of all nine planets at 8
percent). Because of Mars' orbital elongation variation over five times as
great as Earth's, NASA will have to be very careful as they develop the
landing date for a manned Mars mission.
Think about it. Because of the alternating extreme closeness and remoteness
to the sun in the orbital path of Mars, an astronaut in a space suit or
space station would only have windows of nominal temperatures between hot
and cold cycles. It should be obvious most types of Earth life would not
survive if our planet were unlucky enough to have such an elongated orbit.
And these extremes on Mars are exacerbated because of its slow revolution
rate, making the annual trip around the sun in 687 Earth days instead of
365. By comparison, our Earth is "lucky" enough to have a near circular
orbit and an optimum rate of revolution that avoid such extremes.
It's a good thing the Earth is tilted at precisely 23.45 degrees on its
axis, which gives us the perfect balance of true seasons from the Equator to
the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, and on to the Arctic and Antarctic
Circles. Imagine if Earth had no appreciable tilt at all, like Mercury at
.01 degrees. We would not just lose the refreshing rotation of seasons, but
hosts of species would not exist whose life cycles follow the changing
climates as you go toward either pole.
What if the Earth were tilted, like Pluto, at 32 degrees past perpendicular,
pointing its northern and southern poles almost directly at the sun in their
respective summer and winter seasons? If Earth were laid this far over on
its side, the annual melting and refreezing of both polar ice caps would
play unbelievable havoc with habitats by the wildly fluctuating temperature
ranges. And then imagine what would happen to levels of water in the oceans,
precipitation rates, and plant and animal life cycles. The violence of
seasonal extremes might even negate the possibility of complex terrestrial
food webs.
Then there is one other possibility that Earth was "lucky" enough to avoid.
It is the "barrel roll" of Uranus spinning on an axis parallel to its
orbital plane, rather than perpendicular like the rest of the planets. What
difficulties this would present to life here at home can hardly be imagined.
Finally, it's a good thing our Earth is the right size and shape, rotates at
the right speed, and is the right distance from the sun. If any of these
were out of proportion, a whole host of problems loom. Our atmosphere could
be too suffocating or too thin, our day-to-night temperatures could be too
hot or too cold, our gravity too intense or too insufficient, our wind
velocities too severe or too inadequate, or our air components too heavy on
some gases or too light on others.
Also, consider that Mercury completes less than one revolution around the
sun for every two rotations on its axis, making one of its "days" equal to
less than half of its "year." There is no reason Earth couldn't be like
Mercury (though it would be disastrous to life), but instead we properly
make 1/365 of our annual journey in close to 24 hours. Overall, you could
say we were very "lucky" ...
read more »
I wonder why he quoted Ace Ventura, but left out Dr. Panglosses
discussion on the nose?
.
- References:
- Refuting the Big Bang Theory
- From: Aaron Kim
- Refuting the Big Bang Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Neanderthals never went extinct!!!
- Next by Date: Re: Dinesh D'Souza: Was Hitler a Christian?
- Previous by thread: Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory - NOT!
- Next by thread: Re: Refuting the Big Bang Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
