And why is there retrograde motion in the universe, including throughout our solar system, in light of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the evoutionist story about how our solar system “evolved”?
39 comments
"And why is there retrograde motion in the universe, including throughout our solar system,"
Well, the most obvious reason is things fucking collide occasionally.
"in light of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum"
Anyone posting on Free Republic or Rapture Ready should immediately cease and desist attempting to use the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum or the Second Law of Thermodynamics in any of their arguments.
"and the evoutionist story about how our solar system “evolved”?"
Wrong application of "evolved." You're aware that words can have more than one meaning and subtle variations of their meaning, no?
Here's a lab for you. Take a heavy object attached to a string and go to the merry-go-round at your local playground. Stand in the exact center of the merry-go-round and start to spin the heavy object around your head in a circle. If the merry-go-round is well-lubricated, you'll find that you start to spin in the opposite direction with about the same amount of angular momentum as thing that you're spinning. That's what angular momentum is all about.
Stellar evolution is completely consistent with the laws of physics as we know it. In any case, it's not the same as biological type.
>>"And why is there retrograde motion in the universe, including throughout our solar system"
Huh? You mean, like Uranus and Venus? Well, the going hypothesis is that they were each hit by something massive.
>>"in light of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the evolutionist story about how our solar system “evolved”?"
Hey, all the planets orbit in the same direction, if that's what you're getting at. I'm not quite sure why you're trying to invoke the Law of Angular Momentum, though. As for the Solar System "evolving", well, the word simply denotes that it has changed over time. Anything can change over time; it doesn't have to be alive to do so.
Sigh...
First of all:please refrain form sing terms you don't understand.
Second: Every piece of matter in the universe has an effect on all the others. When clumps of matter interact? They start spinning. Some go one way and some go the other.
Third: You're an indiot.
There's this thing I was thaught in school: If you want to discuss something, learn what it is first, or you'll just make an ass out of yourself.
Fundies all seem to have missed this part...
Retrograde motion in the universe is meaningless, since there is no 'right' way for things to move. Movement is relative.
Conservation of Angular Momentum isn't what you seem to think it is. Stop listening to what charlatans like Hovind tell you.
Evolution has nothing to do with astronomy, why is that so hard to understand!
Maybe instead of reading chick tracts and listening to Kent Hovind, you should read scientific books and listen to real scientists ;)
Had you done so beforehand, you would know that (in contrast to the things that Hovind stated and the things that can be found in Chick Tracts) no real scientist would include cosmology/astrophysics into the ToE.
Evolution (as meant by the ToE) begins after the "creation" of life, not before (meaning that not even abiogenesis is part of the ToE ;) )
The only type of "retrograde motion" I could think of was the apparent reversal of Mars and other planets in Earth's sky ... which Kepler explained centuries ago.
Apparently, though, there are real cases: Venus's spin, the orbits of some moons of the outer planets, and the extreme axial tilt of Uranus. Some moons might have been captured asteroids; other moons, and retrograde spins, might be due to collisions with other bodies.
Note that I spent a few seconds in Google to pull up this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_direct_motion
I can't see any of this violates Conservation of Angular Momentum. And, while astronomers talk of "stellar evolution" and "planetary evolution", it's a completely different set of theories from biological evolution.
Then again, subtle reasoning isn't the Cdesign Proponentsists' forte.
All laws of conservation are laws that apply to closed systems that are isolated from any exterior energy input (or drain). Only in closed systems does the law apply.
Once an extra energy source enters the picture, the system is no longer closed. Conservation no longer applies to the system because the overall energy of the system has changed.
I bet you like to cite the second law of thermodynamics too. Biological evolution does not occur in non-biological objects.
Besides that, most of the definitions of "retrograde motion" available are the same as the one I learned in basic astronomy, which is the appearance of a planet moving backwards because earth has overtaken it. It's an observational phenomenon and has nothing to do with angular momentum.
Check out some junior-high-school science textbooks and find out.
Either that, or it's all the fault of gay marriage. Isn't that your stock answer for everything?
Dear Westbrook,
Please stop pretending you know anything about cosmology and astronomy.
Sincerely,
Dr. Novakaine
Seriously, using arguments you don't understand will only make you look foolish. Don't do it.
Conservation of Angular Momentum deals with the TOTAL momentum of all interacting components in a system.
Sort-of like how the Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the TOTAL entropy of all ...
Oh, wait.
You guys always ignore that aspect of the 2nd Law of Thermodymanics.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you ignored it in the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, too.
Because "conserved" does not mean "all the same".
Also, I note, if the universe really did expand from nothing, then its angular momentum would necessarily be the same now as it was prior to the big bang, i.e. zero. So, in fact, we would expect to find as much "retrograde" motion throughout the universe as "prograde" motion.
If everything only rotated in the same direction and in the same plane, that would probably be proof of design.
You'd be right if the actual universe was as static as a religion. Unfortunately, it isn't. LOTS OF THINGS HAPPEN in billions of years.
PS: It's not evolution, retard. Sun's not a mucus blob.
Never played pool, have ya? Why would everything spin one way and continue forever that way? Science never stated that even within the context of 'Angular Momentum'
Not their worst strawman but a regular attempt by their pretend scientists
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.