If all the celestial bodies spun out of one mass and bang, wouldn’t they all have the same direction of spin?
“If all the celestial bodies spun out of one mass and bang, wouldn’t they all have the same direction of spin?”
Um, no. Not even the debris of a firecracker exhibits that property...
What you just described has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Here's a boatload of information that may help:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#theory
A small excerpt:
Giving an accurate description of BBT in common terms is extremely difficult. Like many modern scientific topics, every such attempt will be necessarily vague and unsatisfying as certain details are emphasized and others swept under the rug. To really understand any such theory, one needs to look at the equations that fully describe the theory, and this can be quite challenging. That said, the quotes by Peebles and Kippenhahn should give one an idea of what the theory actually says. In the following few paragraphs, we will elaborate on their basic description.
The simplest description of the theory would be something like: "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." The word "expanded" should not be taken to mean that matter flies apart -- rather, it refers to the idea that space itself is becoming larger. Common analogies used to describe this phenomenon are the surface of a balloon (with galaxies represented by dots or coins attached to the surface) or baking bread (with galaxies represented by raisins in the expanding dough). Like all analogies, the similarity between the theory and the example is imperfect. In both cases, the model implies that the universe is expanding into some larger, pre-existing volume. In fact, the theory says nothing like that. Instead, the expansion of the universe is completely self-contained. This goes against our common notions of volume and geometry, but it follows from the equations. Further discussion of this question is found in the What is the Universe expanding into? section of Ned Wright's FAQ.
Current thinking is that quantum goofiness created irreguralirtities in what we observe. I don’t know about that. Last I heard was that Schrödinger’s cat is still dead. Or maybe not.
Well, not necessarily I wouldn't think. If there was a big bang, we don't know how matter was hurled or exactly what happened, if it was simultaneous or in bursts, but it would depend on the initial torque placed on the various masses of discrete matter by the explosion. I'm trying to think for an analogy a number of tops spinning but can't. A human can only set two spinning at once but one clockwise and one counterclockwise, doesn't work anyway, no invisible force.
It seems logical to me that there would be planets or other astrophysical matter that hasn't yet been captured into orbit by any star or any other object's gravitational field. I don't know if it's been proven but it was postulated that the moon was captured by the earth's gravitational field.
Now I have a question. Logic tells me that a big bang or universal wear and tear would make the objects spherical. Is that true? Would they have to be or could they be other shapes?
Can spin be reversed or stopped?
My logic is faulty and I tend to think in terms of a three-dimensional universe with an added fourth which would be time.
The big bang was probably the opposite of what might become the late great black hole suckup. I know I'm showing my ignorance lol. Maybe the big bang is ongoing.
I find it helps if you just imagine the stars and planets as atoms.
One wonders how did a planet form, or a star, or a solar system, or a galaxy, yet no one wonders how an atom formed. And it is made of many, many pieces.
Those pieces have different spin.
In the biblical vent, As above, so below.