Has the Bang been proven

[BlackHole]

Johnny, i agree with the idea that the sun is charged. But what about the earth and the moon?

 

Regards

[Johnny5]

It does? Do you have a citation for this?

 

Citation?

 

I was very recently looking at a picture of an enormous solar flare, and the caption read something about an intense magnetic field. I don't remember where I read it though.

 

I'll google it right now.

 

Here is a link: Magnetic pole reversal of sun

 

Here is another link: The magnetic sun

 

We now know that sunspots are darker than their surroundings because they are moderately cooler, since their intense magnetic fields somehow slow down the local flow of heat from the Sun's interior. The process which causes this is still unclear.

 

And one more link: The sun is a big magnet.

[Johnny5]

Johnny' date=' i agree with the idea that the sun is charged. But what about the earth and the moon?

 

Regards[/quote']

 

When you say charged, exactly what do you mean?

 

Bulk matter is electrically neutral, or close to it.

 

The number of protons is equal to the number of electrons in a neutral atom.

 

However, each atom does have a tiny dipole moment, and so since we are spinning relative to the sun, that might account for the field.

 

I don't have any numbers yet, for the strength of the sun's magnetic field local to the earth.

 

However... i was planning to explain gravitational force, as magnetic force, with the direction being, umm given by F=q(vXB)

 

So treating the magnetic field of the sun as toroidal in shape, and perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, and knowing that the tangential velocity of earth is along it's elliptical orbit, the direction of the force would point along the line from the suns center of inertia, to the earth's center of inertia.

 

 

i.e. the force would be centripetal, and the magnitude of the acceleration would be given by v^2/R, where V is the earth's tangential velocity.

 

If we treat the orbit of the earth as circular, then we have:

 

T= period = 365 days

 

D= distance around sun one in one period = [math] 2 \pi R [/math]

 

So for an approximate tangential speed we have:

 

[math] v = \frac{2 \pi R}{T} [/math]

 

Converting the period into seconds, we have:

 

T=365*24*60*60=365*24*3600=31536000 seconds

 

And the mean distance to the sun, from memory, is: 150 million kilometers, or 150 billion meters.

 

So the tangential speed of the earth around the sun is roughly:

 

[math] v = \frac{2 \pi R}{T} = 2 \pi \frac{150 \times 10^{9}}{31536000}=29,870 \frac{\text{meters}}{\text{second}}[/math]

 

Now, the speed of light in the rest frame of the sun is:

 

299792458 meters per second, so in terms of c we have the speed of earth around the sun, being equal to roughly one ten thousand the speed of light that is:

 

[math] V_e = \frac{c}{10,000} [/math]

 

Where the above quantity is the orbital speed of earth in the rest frame of the sun.

 

I have oversimplified things, so the above value is approximate.

 

So, the centripetal force is the mass of earth, times the centripetal accleration.

 

The centripetal acceleration is given by v^2/R, where R is the distance from the earth to the sun, which is 150 billion meters, and v is one ten thousandth the speed of light. So the magnitude of the centripetal acceleration is:

 

[math] |a| = \frac{v^2}{R} = \frac{(29870)^2}{150 \times 10^{9}}= .0059 \frac{\text{meters}}{\text{second}^2}[/math]

 

Now, multiply this by the mass of earth, to obtain the centripetal force.

 

The mass of earth is roughly 6 times 10^24 kilograms.

 

So the magnitude of the centripetal force is:

 

[math] |F| = \frac{6 \times 10^{24}}{.0059} = 3.54 \times 10^{22} Newtons [/math]

 

So equating everything with Newton's gravitational force formula we have:

 

 

[math] |\vec F| = G\frac{M_sM_e}{R^2} = \frac{M_e v^2}{R} = QVB=(29870)QB = 3.54 \times 10^{22}[/math]

 

Where M_s is the mass of the sun, and Me is the mass of the earth, which we took to equal 6 times 10^24 kilograms.

 

 

Now:

 

 

[math]\frac{M_sM_e}{R^2} = \frac{2 \times 10^{30} \cdot 6 \times 10^{24}}{(150 \times 10^{9})^2} = \frac{12}{22500} \frac{10^{54}}{10^{18}} = \frac{12}{22500} 10^{36}= (.005) X 10^{36}

 

[/math]

 

Which implies that G is given by:

 

[math] G = \frac{3.54 \times 10^{22}}{5 \times 10^{33}} =7.07 \times 10^{-12} [/math]

 

Which is only off by .1

 

So given that the magnitude of the sun's magnetic field is B, and the "charge" of earth is given by Q, we have:

 

 

[math] QVB=(29870)QB = 3.54 \times 10^{22}[/math]

 

So that:

 

[math] QB = \frac{3.54 \times 10^{22}}{29870} = 1.2 \times 10^{18}[/math]

[swansont]

Citation?

 

I was very recently looking at a picture of an enormous solar flare' date=' and the caption read something about an intense magnetic field. I don't remember where I read it though.

 

I'll google it right now.

 

Here is a link: Magnetic pole reversal of sun

 

Here is another link: The magnetic sun

 

 

 

And one more link: The sun is a big magnet.

 

From your first link, and repeated in your third:

 

The Sun's dipolar field is about as strong as a refrigerator magnet, or 50 gauss (a unit of magnetic intensity). Earth's magnetic field is 100 times weaker.

 

How does this qualify as an "enormous magnetic field" ?

[olmpiad]

Yes, It HAS been confirmed. there are a type of meteorites that are called Chondrites, and they are made up of chondrules. They tell us that there is proof of the big bang (you need to read about them to know why)... I recommend the book "Rocks From Space" by O. Richard Norton. We can also track back to the time of the extinction of dinosaurs by looking at Iridium in KT boundry clay.

[Johnny5]

Yes' date=' It HAS been confirmed. there are a type of meteorites that are called Chondrites, and they are made up of chondrules. They tell us that there is proof of the big bang

 

[/quote']

 

 

What do chondrites have to do with the big bang?

[jutntog1]

even moreso what does the extinction of the boundries... but i dont only mean to critizise im gona go download that ebook right away...(legaly of course so dont yell at me...)

[J.C.MacSwell]

When you say charged' date=' exactly what do you mean?

 

Bulk matter is electrically neutral, or close to it.

 

The number of protons is equal to the number of electrons in a neutral atom.

 

However, each atom does have a tiny dipole moment, and so since we are spinning relative to the sun, that might account for the field.

 

I don't have any numbers yet, for the strength of the sun's magnetic field local to the earth.

 

However... i was planning to explain gravitational force, as magnetic force, with the direction being, umm given by F=q(vXB)

 

So treating the magnetic field of the sun as toroidal in shape, and perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, and knowing that the tangential velocity of earth is along it's elliptical orbit, the direction of the force would point along the line from the suns center of inertia, to the earth's center of inertia.

 

 

i.e. the force would be centripetal, and the magnitude of the acceleration would be given by v^2/R, where V is the earth's tangential velocity.

 

If we treat the orbit of the earth as circular, then we have:

 

T= period = 365 days

 

D= distance around sun one in one period = [math'] 2 \pi R [/math]

 

So for an approximate tangential speed we have:

 

[math] v = \frac{2 \pi R}{T} [/math]

 

Converting the period into seconds, we have:

 

T=365*24*60*60=365*24*3600=31536000 seconds

 

And the mean distance to the sun, from memory, is: 150 million kilometers, or 150 billion meters.

 

So the tangential speed of the earth around the sun is roughly:

 

[math] v = \frac{2 \pi R}{T} = 2 \pi \frac{150 \times 10^{9}}{31536000}=29,870 \frac{\text{meters}}{\text{second}}[/math]

 

Now, the speed of light in the rest frame of the sun is:

 

299792458 meters per second, so in terms of c we have the speed of earth around the sun, being equal to roughly one ten thousand the speed of light that is:

 

[math] V_e = \frac{c}{10,000} [/math]

 

Where the above quantity is the orbital speed of earth in the rest frame of the sun.

 

I have oversimplified things, so the above value is approximate.

 

So, the centripetal force is the mass of earth, times the centripetal accleration.

 

The centripetal acceleration is given by v^2/R, where R is the distance from the earth to the sun, which is 150 billion meters, and v is one ten thousandth the speed of light. So the magnitude of the centripetal acceleration is:

 

[math] |a| = \frac{v^2}{R} = \frac{(29870)^2}{150 \times 10^{9}}= .0059 \frac{\text{meters}}{\text{second}^2}[/math]

 

Now, multiply this by the mass of earth, to obtain the centripetal force.

 

The mass of earth is roughly 6 times 10^24 kilograms.

 

So the magnitude of the centripetal force is:

 

[math] |F| = \frac{6 \times 10^{24}}{.0059} = 3.54 \times 10^{22} Newtons [/math]

 

So equating everything with Newton's gravitational force formula we have:

 

 

[math] |\vec F| = G\frac{M_sM_e}{R^2} = \frac{M_e v^2}{R} = QVB=(29870)QB = 3.54 \times 10^{22}[/math]

 

Where M_s is the mass of the sun, and Me is the mass of the earth, which we took to equal 6 times 10^24 kilograms.

 

 

Now:

 

 

[math]\frac{M_sM_e}{R^2} = \frac{2 \times 10^{30} \cdot 6 \times 10^{24}}{(150 \times 10^{9})^2} = \frac{12}{22500} \frac{10^{54}}{10^{18}} = \frac{12}{22500} 10^{36}= (.005) X 10^{36}

 

[/math]

 

Which implies that G is given by:

 

[math] G = \frac{3.54 \times 10^{22}}{5 \times 10^{33}} =7.07 \times 10^{-12} [/math]

 

Which is only off by .1

 

So given that the magnitude of the sun's magnetic field is B, and the "charge" of earth is given by Q, we have:

 

 

[math] QVB=(29870)QB = 3.54 \times 10^{22}[/math]

 

So that:

 

[math] QB = \frac{3.54 \times 10^{22}}{29870} = 1.2 \times 10^{18}[/math]

 

I know that gravitation and electrostatics follow the inverse square rule. But does a toroidal shaped magnetic field follow this rule?

 

I picture it falling off faster (and that is my "perceived" experience, so I'm just asking) mostly due to a cancelling out effect, not because of a lack of inherent "inverse square rule" phenomenon.

[jutntog1]

wow what did my simple question lead to...

[buzsaw]

Pardon for getting logical here, but shouldn't it take a lot of plain old faith to think that somehow everything that exists, what is observable of the universe plus all else out there beyond our most powerful scopes -- ALL of this incomprehensible mass and energy could have once been compacted into a singularity area billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom, as Rich Gore of National Geographic once put it? Are creationists really the only people of faith, as to ideology about origins?

 

After having read the posts of this thread so far, I see more questions than answers as to how this incredible BB theory has advanced to the status it has reached, dominating mainstream science.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Pardon for getting logical here' date=' but shouldn't it take a lot of plain old [i']faith[/i] to think that somehow everything that exists, what is observable of the universe plus all else out there beyond our most powerful scopes -- ALL of this incomprehensible mass and energy could have once been compacted into a singularity area billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom, as Rich Gore of National Geographic once put it? Are creationists really the only people of faith, as to ideology about origins?

 

After having read the posts of this thread so far, I see more questions than answers as to how this incredible BB theory has advanced to the status it has reached, dominating mainstream science.

 

I agree. Howevever it explains a number of observations which seem best explained by the model. So it's a best bet, for now, but a lot of prominent physicists would say it's much more than that. But I agree with you. (except the "creationists only" part, you have to include all religions plus the Athiests, leaving only the Agnostics and any ones I can't think of )

[swansont]

Pardon for getting logical here' date=' but shouldn't it take a lot of plain old [i']faith[/i] to think that somehow everything that exists, what is observable of the universe plus all else out there beyond our most powerful scopes -- ALL of this incomprehensible mass and energy could have once been compacted into a singularity area billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom, as Rich Gore of National Geographic once put it? Are creationists really the only people of faith, as to ideology about origins?

 

After having read the posts of this thread so far, I see more questions than answers as to how this incredible BB theory has advanced to the status it has reached, dominating mainstream science.

 

You go where the evidence points. The behavior of nature is not subject to our ability to understand it, so argument from incredulity doesn't really carry any weight. BB theory has advanced because it explains certain observations and makes predictions that have been confirmed to be correct.

[J.C.MacSwell]

You go where the evidence points. The behavior of nature is not subject to our ability to understand it, so argument from incredulity doesn't really carry any weight. BB theory[/b'] has advanced because it explains certain observations and makes predictions that have been confirmed to be correct.

 

But it would still be better framed as the Big Bang Model/s than the Big Bang Theory (even though it is the best available at this time with nothing else close)?

[Johnny5]

I know that gravitation and electrostatics follow the inverse square rule. But does a toroidal shaped magnetic field follow this rule?

 

I picture it falling off faster (and that is my "perceived" experience' date=' so I'm just asking) mostly due to a cancelling out effect, not because of a lack of inherent "inverse square rule" phenomenon.[/quote']

 

I am not sure exactly how fast it falls off, and I understand what you are driving at.

 

Like I said, I'm working on it.

 

Here is a good article:

 

Magnetic field outside a sphere

[swansont]

I am not sure exactly how fast it falls off' date=' and I understand what you are driving at.

 

Like I said, I'm working on it.

 

Here is a good article:

 

Magnetic field outside a sphere

 

Sorry, I'm having a hard time reconciling "good article" with "creationresearch.org"

 

I am unable to load the page at the moment, though.

[Johnny5]

Sorry' date=' I'm having a hard time reconciling "good article" with "creationresearch.org"

 

I am unable to load the page at the moment, though.[/quote']

 

I cannot load it either, but regardless of the article the picture was correct.

 

I will find another.

 

here is an interesting site, though it doesn't have what I want.

World Magnetic chart

 

Also the contour lines look like EIRP lines in a Satellite downlink map.

 

I will keep looking.

 

 

This is the picture I was talking about:

 

Magnetic field of sphere

[geistkiesel]

Well' date=' it's hard to prove something that no one was around to witness. Afterall, the Big Bang theory makes assumptions about the past, but doesn't really predict anything...making it hard to test.

 

Fortunately we can assume that the laws of physics governming today's world were the same at the begining. That simplifies things. Also, the conservation of matter should help too, somewhere along the way.[/quote']

One of your assumptions seems tenuous, at best. The laws of physics in todays world most certainly aren't the same as in the past, at least as to the BB theory. BB theories all seem to have the consistent attribute of "inflationary expansion" periods, where the universe doubled in size many trillions of times over; massively energetic vacus,comes to mind also. The first required that gravity actually "push" for a very short period of time on the order of 10^ -30 seconds or so during the rapid expasion..

 

Do you see any consistency in the physics governing the BB and the physics we see today? Do you see any analogues that provide densities of matter coming close to the density of the early pre1 second expansion, or even after 20000 years of expansions? Or which were as dense as the original observersd universe must have been at the beginning in the firsat million years of being? Consider that all the mass in the universe you are aware of, or even just your automobile alone, can you rationally consider all that mass compressed into a volume much smaller than the head of a pin? I cannot do this with my limited thinking and still consider the process a rational thought process.

 

Geistkiesel

[swansont]

I cannot load it either' date=' but regardless of the article the picture was correct.

[/quote']

 

The picture isn't that important. Dipoles drop off with r³ and higher moments drop off even faster.

 

The thrust of the article you previously linked to was a young-earth argument, based on some really crappy analysis originally done by Barnes. From what I could tell they've updated it to address one or two criticisms, but still extrapolate based on their idealogy rather than based on any scientific priciples. (I only glanced at it, but they appear to be unaware that the sun's field reverses itself every 11 years. I'm sure if they took the corresponding 3 weeks of solar data, they'd conclude the sun's field is young, too, and about to disappear.)

 

One of your other article you had linked to gives (IIRC) the total solar component of the magnetic field as 60 microgauss at the radius of the earth's orbit. The solar wind has some effect above and beyond the sun's field.

[Johnny5]

The picture isn't that important. Dipoles drop off with r^3[/sup']

 

^{I'm going to have to prove this now.}

 

^Regards

[buzsaw]

I agree. Howevever it explains a number of observations which seem best explained by the model. So it's a best bet, for now, but a lot of prominent physicists would say it's much more than that. But I agree with you. (except the "creationists only" part, you have to include all religions plus the Athiests, leaving only the Agnostics and any ones I can't think of )

 

I have a unique boundless apace and eternal universe Biblical creation hypothesis, but as I understand the guidelines, that would be for pseudoscience so I'll not get into it here, except to say that imo, it better fits the thermodynamic 1 law than BB, since no energy is ever introduced into the universe -- only changed, and the universe would have no singularity/beginning.

[Severian]

One of your assumptions seems tenuous' date=' at best. The laws of physics in todays world most certainly aren't the same as in the past, at least as to the BB theory. BB theories all seem to have the consistent attribute of "inflationary expansion" periods, where the universe doubled in size many trillions of times over; massively energetic vacus,comes to mind also. The first required that gravity actually "push" for a very short period of time on the order of 10^ -30 seconds or so during the rapid expasion..

[/quote']

 

I disagree. They are the same laws - they just have different effects in different situations. If we were able to collide particles together with arbitrarily high energy we would be able to get arbitrarily close to simulating the Big Bang. We don't have to put all of the universe's matter very close together - all we have to do is create very high energy densities, but they need not be over a large spacial extent. We should be able to probe inflationary physics by finding some sort of scalar field in nature.

 

The laws haven't changed - they are simply manifest in different ways now than they were during the big bang.

[BlackHole]

I'm not a cosmologist but according to what i read, inflationary cosmology assumes the rapid expansion of space (a non-zero cosmological constant).

 

If our understanding of gravity and vacuum energy (the CMBR) are wrong, then the theory might be wrong.

[Severian]

Incidentaly, the CMBR is not vacuum energy - it is just the photons which were expelled from the perfect blackbody at the surface of last scattering when the universe became opaque. They have been travelling for 14 billion years or so. (If you look at the CMBR's spectrum you will see that it is a perfect blackbody spectrum.)

 

Vacuum energy occurs when a particle's ground state is not at zero energy, so for example the Higgs boson contributes vacuum energy. Also the cosmological constant would provide similar effects to vacuum energy (although technically it is not vacuum energy). Vacuum energy is needed for inflation (which may be why you are getting confused).

[BlackHole]

All of the observable universe is filled with a large numbers of photons, the CMBR, and quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos. The current temperature is about 3 K. There is only a small number of atoms per m³, such as hydrogen (H) or helium (He).

 

I believe the CMBR is the ground state of the quantum vacuum, not the relic for the big bang.

[Severian]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html