[geocentrism] Re: Thanks for reading

Hi Gary,

Well I just googled ' conservation angular momentum "big bang" ', the 
first hit was "Imagine the Universe! Dictionary" at nasa.  The next two 
pages were either creationist claims that the big bang contradicts CAM 
or refutations to this claim.  This never was a problem for conventional 
physics.  They all agree that CAM is true btw.

Without reading the refutations my thoughts were that the big bang does 
not contradict CAM at all.

  - CAM says that the *total* angular momentum in the universe cannot 
change, not that everything has to be spinning in the same direction.

  - The big bang need not have been spinning at t=0.  It is quite 
plausible that the total angular momentum of everything in the universe 
is zero.

What you're saying amounts to saying that if I stand at the equator with 
the earth spinning anti-clockwise (looking down from the northen 
celestial pole) then I can't throw something in the air (or launch 
something into space) with a clockwise rotation.  So you would conclude 
that a tennis player at the equator facing east can't hit a top spin lob 
without violating CAM.

Reading the refutations I can add
- the big bang was not an explosion in space as such but an inflationary 
expansion of space itself.  I don't know much cosmology so you'll have 
to do your own googling from there.
- the material in the big bang (i.e. the universe) could not have been 
spinning, what would it be spinning relative to?

I've tried to develop the second point above with a person on BA to 
actually prove Geocentricity wrong (or very improbable).  He was the one 
who found the errors in Dr Neville Jone's eclipse paper (and he doesn't 
agree with me by the way).  My argument depended on inertia being due to 
the gravitional pull of the mass of the entire universe (which I'm not 
sure about the status of, demonstable/theorectically 
necessary/conjecture).  I don't understand GR well enough yet to 
convince myself that my argument fails in GR (although I'm reliably 
informed that it does) so I'm holding off until I've worked my through GR.

Regards,
Mike.

Gary L. Shelton wrote:
> Mike, hello.  If you don't understand then perhaps I have misunderstood the
> problem.  Still, what I have always thought the problem was,  was that in
> the Big Bang the original point of matter (which now I understand has been
> reduced so much it is nothing, a vacuum) was swirling and then the explosion
> caused all of the matter to swirl in the same direction as the original Big
> Bang point of matter had been.  That everything was expelled out and away
> from this "center" meant nothing as far as the direction of spin (and rate
> of spin, too?) of the matter expelled.  Everything should have retained the
> same angular direction of spin is what I always understood.  The fact that
> some planets in our own system do not spin in the same direction implies
> that there is something amiss with the theory of CAM.
> 
> This is the problem as I recall hearing it.  Is that clearer?   Am I in
> error?   Or is this still a problem?  If it is, then I repeat my original
> question, does this mean that the acentrists and geocentrists are yet on
> equal ground as far as the origins of the universe?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gary Shelton
> 
> 

Other related posts: