I like spacey kinda things.
What I don’t like is people saying is that their physical model of the cosmos is correct. All physical models can have rational questions thrown at them which reveal the model really to be a load of rubbish. This is surely inevitable as man cannot posess anything other than limited knowledge so it is very unlikely he can know everything about anything, but rather can learn something and somethings.
I recently came across an article with gave ‘The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang”
After reading point 3, it got me thinking a little closer to home – the solar system to be precise, and then later, about the earth itself…
–
The pic above is kind of how I’ve been told to imagine the formation of the solar system.
Here’s another ‘classical’ diagram..
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/astro1/slideshows/class43/003-solar_system_forming.gif
I’m guessing you too were told of such a model. But if you think about it, does it actually make any sense? (before you answer that, try saying ‘wibble’ rapidly for 30 seconds)
point 1:We are told the ‘dust’ is the most massive part out of the “hydrogen/helium/dust mixture”. As anyone who takes a lot of sugar in coffee will tell you, when stirring (rotating the matter), it is the ‘solids’ i.e. the dust, which accumulates in the centre. The more mobile (less intertia bound) gas, should have accumulated around the dust. Not only that, but gravitationally, the more dense dust would attract to a greater degree than the poorly dense gas. The Sun should therefore have a dust laden core i.e. a non H/He core. Spectral analysis is reported to show mostly hydrogen and helium.
Even if point 1 is wrong, then why is Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus made of gas? You may reply, it accumulated the residual gas after the sun switched on, but why then Do some of these planets have solid moons? Again, the gas should have coalesced wth the anisotropic density of the dust clouds (to form the solid sphere with a gas cloud or ring)
–
point 2: Where did this dust come from in the first place? Looking at the elemental composition of the Earth, it is rich in Fe, Al, Si and O, even radioactive elements such as uranium for example. Where did this come from? Some similar (but not identical and certainly not in the relative abundance as present on earth) elements are said to be in the sun, but absolutely not in the quantities found on the earth. So we are forced to suggest a past star synthesised it.
WMAP says the Age of the Universe is 13.7 +/- 3% bn years old. Our solar system is put at 4.5 bn years old. {Update 26-sept-08… “Earth’s most ancient rocks, with an age of 4.28 billion years, have been found on the shore of Hudson Bay, Canada. ” source(BBC)} So that means the star which made these elements in the solar system must have
a) managed to have its constituent elements overcome the tremendous explosive velocity of the big bang to allow matter to attract and coalesce.
b) formed (and what did it form from? How long did it take to form?)
c) synthesised
d) died
e) scattered to leave virtually no trace
all within (13.7 – 4.5) billion years = 9.2 bn years. Repeat 9.2 bn years. I mean come on! Not only that but our sun is predicted to be around for 10 bln years (it is 1/2 way through its life right now) yet somehow so we are to believe the massive star which synthesised uranium bunched together, formed, synthesised, died and scattered in just 9.2 years? The numbers are highly iffy!
UPDATE: According to this, Life was previously thought to have begun on earth 2.4 billion years ago, but now scientists in Paris put that figure at 0.6 billion years. Interestingly the article states: 0.6 billion years is one tenth of the worlds age. Putting the age of the earth at 6 bln years, or more than 43% the age of the universe, and laughingly, older than the solar system.!!! Another artricle says “researchers…discovered a new species of organism that lived 540 million years (0.540 bln years) ago. Nothing had yet evolved with teeth or even bones. Multicellular animal life is believed to have arisen around 600 million years ago.” For reference, the burst of terrestrail atmospheric oxygen reported in the same article to have occured 2.4 billion years ago
–
point 3:The clustering of elements and compounds on the earth. What possible force could there be which gives rise to pockets of individual elements and their compounds on the earth. CaF2 deposits, uranium deposits, seems of gold, tungsten, platinum, lead ores, Iron oxides and so on. It seems to me totally bizzare that an entropic collection of dust could lead to an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. (Laws which are not laws at certain energy levels). Bar a few weakly interacting compounds (e.g. gases and liquids), it seems to me that the earth should be a near consistent sludge.
What’s your take on all this? Should we even be bothering to think about it given the atrocious and utterly unfair way we treat each other on this small wet and rocky ball?
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
Lead-208 is the most stable element and isotope
–
–
–
–
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments