Quote:
Originally Posted by r00t
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Remember that 12 year old supergenius kid who disproved Newton's elliptical calculus orbits just a couple years ago? He's also working to disprove the big bang theory now. But looks like Rainbow Universe beat him. |
This is the savior you want to put forward for disproving the big bang theory? A kid that has some pretty bad facts when it comes to cosmology? Let me show you some of the ridiculous stuff that is guiding him.
Quote:
|
“So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.
|
Ok, good so far.
Quote:
|
“So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it’s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don’t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of carbon?”
|
Ignore the poor phrasing, as it's a 12 year old Asperger's kid. But don't ignore the fact that he thinks carbon must somehow be created in the big bang. What leads him to think there must be "some kind of carbon" created? We know pretty well how all the elements above helium are first created and then spread out during supernova events.
Quote:
|
“Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here.
|
Right, the carbon is coming out of the stars during supernova. We have known this for decades.
Also, the Earth is not made mostly of carbon. Not even close. Carbon is <1% of the Earth's crust, and probably much less in the core.
Quote:
|
So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen.”
|
Huh? Why is he calculating the time it would take to create 2% of the carbon in the universe? And why would it taking somewhere between "a couple nanoseconds" and "several micro-seconds" mean "that isn't gonna happen"? There is no logical path to follow in this paragraph.
Quote:
|
“Because of that,” he continued, “that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.”
|
So we went from need a few microseconds to create 2% of the carbon to 21 billion years to create all the carbon?
Maybe he is making multiple steps of logic between each sentence and really is a super-genius that just can't explain it all because of age/mental condition, but given his woeful understanding of many cosmological facts, I'd wait a bit on holding him up as your messiah.
12-10-2013, 12:48 PM
snake nipsskin 60 dru
Hybrid Mode
