If objects are large enough, gravity will pull them together & shape itself into a sphere - even if they've been "blown up". That's how gravity works. And this process lasts millions of years with objects the size of earth, so of course we don't see it here on earth or in the atmosphere.
Gravitational forces pull matter together to create stars and planets and they do so in a spherical fashion. Newton taught us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the Big Bang may have expanded matter but much has subsequently contracted into solar and planetary masses again. Nothing is ever really destroyed, but matter and energy change form and position through time. If your truck explodes then it has been destroyed, in human terms. But in physics, an explosion isn't synonymous with destruction but is rather a mechanism where some matter is redistributed and some is converted to energy.
physics question: F = (G(m1 * m2)) / s^2 is it fair to assume that a "big bang" of sorts, given some type of original concentration of matter, would have exploded said matter into equally sized pieces? if all of said pieces are equally sized, the sum of the forces between all of the pieces is a net zero, which would basically yield a universe in complete stasis with a bunch of rocks not doing much of anything. gravitational forces only mean something if you have a predefined huge mass attracting a smaller one.
Fair warning: I'm not a physics guy. But first of all, I see no reason to assume all pieces would be the same size. Secondly, the pieces would be scattered randomly, not evenly spaced from each other. Thirdly, we don't completely understand why the universe still today is expanding. Gravity would seem to make the universe being shrinking, but it isn't. This is the same problem with the big bang. "Dark matter" may explain it.
I don't care if they teach Jesus or intelligent design in school. You're wrong. This is about evolution and the lack of evidence for it.....in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. I don't care what we teach after.....I don't lobby for creationism or ID. Just drop the fallacy that evolution is a fact. Let's go with the eye.....the horse, man, whatever you want. There are many scientists, even evolution biologists who can't explain the lack of transistory fossils in the record. So with lack of evidence, they say, "it must be" this, or "it must be" that. Fact is, there are no indicators in the record to prove the theory. Red brought up Einstein's theory of relativity earlier on. How Darwinism and Einstein's theories differ though, is Einstein had actual tests that could be done, were done and could continue to be done to prove the theory. Darwin's cannot.....but to be honest, it has been shown time and time again to not be fact and quite absurd. Darwin blamed his theory's shortcomings on the lack of a fossil record. It's been 170 years and we are still lacking the fossil record to prove it....in fact, fossils from the Cambrian period disprove the evolutionary theory all together.
Why would you assume this? And if you do, considering the incredibly vast amount of energy unleashed, why would the equal-sized objects not immediately begin to collide and agglomerate producing inequalities of mass and therefore gravitational forces?
well, we can only assume all pieces would not be the same size if the supposed explosion happened at some point other than the center of whatever predefined mass existed. it would be hard to suggest such a thing in the absence of preexisting gravitational forces. even so, randomly scattered pieces would be pulled in all directions by the other pieces such that the net force on a particular piece would be fairly negligible.
interesting point, but if they were all released with the same amount of kinetic energy, and in the absence of preexisting gravity, they would just continue moving endlessly. again, newtonian physics may not hold up in this here hypothetical environment so such a discussion is most likely useless. :grin:
This is my whole point here! There is evidence things in bible existed, not trying to claim facts. Just proof that Chrisitianity does exist, forget the faith part. My whole point is that there is just as much evidence of christian society and certain stories in the bible but yet people dismiss that theory as hocus pocus. They would rather believe any theory on any map, they would rather believe a fairy tale, no matter the proof they have for or against it.
The things you are talking about are historical facts, not science. Intelligent design is a lame attempt to make the Jewish story of creation science. The only problem is there is nothing to back it up. Jews living in Egypt, the tomb, the place of the skull, all prove the historicity of the Bible, but have nothing to do with intelligent design. I think maybe if you read the volumes that have been written on the Big Bang you may understand better. Not liking something isn't usually indicative of its existence. I don't like hippies, and they are everywhere.
