Jump to content


Photo

Retrograde And Direct Motion


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#41 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 08 December 2008 - 02:39 AM

Since everything is moving away, presumably because of the Big Bang, who was behind the wheel of one of those galaxies to turn it towards a collisions course with another one?

View Post

Gravity.

Hans

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 02:50 AM

Gravity.

Hans

View Post


I know you want it to sound that simple but you're overlooking many of the things brought up in this thread already, that makes the naturalistic big bang myth less then unlikely but all together impossible.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 02:56 AM

Um. . .no.  Gravity can "create" energy by converting an object's potential energy to kinetic energy.   This is pretty similar to what A. Sphere is describing, because dust clouds aren't going to be perfectly even some parts will be denser than others and because gravity is a function of mass those denser areas will exert more and more "pull" on the surrounding particles as they become denser and denser and thus exert more gravity which converts the potential energy of surrounding particles to kinetic energy inducing them to fall towards the area of highest density.

To further illustrate my point, I built a gravity to energy converter is 4th grade. . .it was called a go-kart.  A wood car with wheels at the top of a big hill with a dubious steering and brake system.  How did the potential energy of my go kart get converted into enough kinetic energy to send me hurtling downward into the path of a very stubborn tree?  Answer = gravity.  If we view the bottom of the hill as the source of gravity and me & my go kart as dust particles we can pretty easily see how gravity can convert potential energy to kinetic energy.  Perhaps you are correct in a kind of pedantic semantics kind of way, but the general idea is sound.

View Post


You are totally ignoring entropy in your illustration. Why?

It takes more energy to push a go-kart to the top of a hill then it does to ride it back down.

I don't think it matters, but are we talking about dust here or gas? Boyle's Gas Law is worth ignoring for the gas clumping myth?

#44 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:01 AM

You are totally ignoring entropy in your illustration. Why?

It takes more energy to push a go-kart to the top of a hill then it does to ride it back down.

I don't think it matters, but are we talking about dust here or gas? Boyle's Gas Law is worth ignoring for the gas clumping myth?

View Post




When you push a go kart to the top of a hill you are converting the energy in your muscles into potential energy in the cart (actually the potential energy is given to the cart by the grav field of Earth). When the cart rolls back down the hill the potential energy stored in the cart is converted to kinetic energy. Energy is conserved. PE in the cart emparted by your muscles against the grav field = kinetic energy of cart at maximum velocity at bottom of the hill.

Why do we keep throwing around Boyle's Law anyway. It isn't even the proper law to use in the case of nebulae because nebulae are not ideal gasses at fixed temperatures. Most nebulae have proto-stars or stars inside them producing strong electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Even if we didn't take these fields into account we are not ignoring Boyle's law. We should be using the ideal gas law (with corrections to be pedantic). Nevertheless we are not ignoring gas pressure. We are simply noting that a volume of gas without boundaries can collapse under its own gravity and if enough of the mass is clumped in a small enough volume then gravitational pressure (which is very strong given enough mass) can easily overcome gas pressure. In fact it can overcome radiation pressure, pauli pressure, and baryonic pressure. Gas pressure is the weakling compared to the other pressures waiting to fight against gravitational collapse. And nebulae do clump, and they are not in equilibrium - look at the eagle's nest nebula:

Posted Image

Just looking at it one suspects that it isn't uniform in density, or ideal, or neutral. In fact spectroscopy shows that it has non-uniform density. What the heck are we even arguing about? What we can see?

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:25 AM

We should be using the ideal gas law (with corrections to be pedantic).  Nevertheless we are not ignoring gas pressure.  We are simply noting that a volume of gas without boundaries can collapse under its own gravity and if enough of the mass is clumped in a small enough volume then gravitational pressure (which is very strong given enough mass) can easily overcome gas pressure.

View Post


So you think a hypothetical is more relevant to the discussion then something that can be tested and demonstrated? Why?

Rule #1 - There is nothing supernatural

Rule #2 - If something points to the Supernatural refer to rule #1

Do you see a math problem when star deaths outnumber star births (which BTW haven’t been witnessed)?

Stars keep blowing up and we're glaring at gas clouds... wait a second...

There...

Oh...no...wait a second, wait a second...

There...it...is...There it is...Oh, no not yet...

"Hey, Fred another star just blew up!"

Leave me alone, I know I'm going to witness a star being born any moment now...

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 04:42 AM

Just looking at it one suspects that it isn't uniform in density, or ideal, or neutral.  In fact spectroscopy shows that it has non-uniform density.  What the heck are we even arguing about?  What we can see?

View Post


When I look at that cloud of dust it looks like it's billowing out not collapsing in. Anybody, else conquer?

#47 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:00 AM

When I look at that cloud of dust it looks like it's billowing out not collapsing in. Anybody, else conquer?

View Post


:) You do realize what the length of one of those arms are don't you? 6 light years or around 360,000 AU. Of course some of the gas is thinned out along the boundaries but spectroscopy tells us that the dark spots are denser than the gas closer to the "boundary". Spectroscopy also tells us that those dark spots are emitting ultra violet radiation which means that gravity has created clumps so dense that nuclear fission has occured. This means that gravitational pressure has collapsed part of the nebula well beyond the conventional gas pressure boundaries.

#48 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 05:07 AM

Do you see a math problem when star deaths outnumber star births (which BTW haven’t been witnessed)?


Star births haven't been witnessed? Excuse me? Star birth was witnessed by Hubble in 1999 in the Papillon Nebula. We were lucky because typically stellar nurseries are obscured by the nebula that they are hidden in (which is one reason we see so many supernovae compared to star births) but this time we were able to see it with the help of hubble because the radiation pressure from its violent birth blew away the boundary gas layers (happened because star was so massive).

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 06:03 AM

Star births haven't been witnessed?  Excuse me?  Star birth was witnessed by Hubble in 1999 in the Papillon Nebula.  We were lucky because typically stellar nurseries are obscured by the nebula that they are hidden in (which is one reason we see so many supernovae compared to star births) but this time we were able to see it with the help of hubble because the radiation pressure from its violent birth blew away the boundary gas layers (happened because star was so massive).

View Post


I wonder how much of what you just said is speculation?

Dust clears

Bright spot seen

Star is born!

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 06:05 AM

:)  You do realize what the length of one of those arms are don't you?  6 light years or around 360,000 AU.  Of course some of the gas is thinned out along the boundaries but spectroscopy tells us that the dark spots are denser than the gas closer to the "boundary".  Spectroscopy also tells us that those dark spots are emitting ultra violet radiation which means that gravity has created clumps so dense that nuclear fission has occured.  This means that gravitational pressure has collapsed part of the nebula well beyond the conventional gas pressure boundaries.

View Post


Wow, 6 light years! How does that address what I'm saying? What do you think made it shaped like that?

Every time I see that nebulae it's always that picture. What does the other side of it look like? You know, what's on the opposite side of the bottom of that picture?

Oh wait... Here we go...

Posted Image

Man that thing's a mess. That doesn't look like something coming together. It looks like something blew up. I wonder what it was?

A long time ago there was nothing and ...BAM... Here we are. I know that to you, that sounds pedantic, but when you boil away the fanciful story, that’s what you’re asking us to believe explains away a creator.

#51 Guest_ItinerantLurker_*

Guest_ItinerantLurker_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2008 - 10:12 AM

I wonder how much of what you just said is speculation?

Dust clears

Bright spot seen

Star is born!

View Post


Am I the only one to see a problem with this? Are you seriously speculating about how much speculation is involved in another claim? If speculation = bad what does that say about your present mode of argument?

#52 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 01:11 PM

Wow, 6 light years! How does that address what I'm saying? What do you think made it shaped like that?

Every time I see that nebulae it's always that picture. What does the other side of it look like? You know, what's on the opposite side of the bottom of that picture?

Oh wait... Here we go...

Posted Image

Man that thing's a mess. That doesn't look like something coming together. It looks like something blew up. I wonder what it was?

A long time ago there was nothing and ...BAM... Here we are. I know that to you, that sounds pedantic, but when you boil away the fanciful story, that’s what you’re asking us to believe explains away a creator.

View Post



Who knows? But are you arguing with cold hard science like spectroscopy? Are you arguing against non-uniform density even though it is verified? Are you arguing against the fact that the denser regions emit UV radiation? I mean this pic coupled with spectroscopy is as close to taking you there and showing you as it gets - what more do you need?

#53 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 01:18 PM

I wonder how much of what you just said is speculation?

Dust clears

Bright spot seen

Star is born!

View Post



More like dense UV emitting region in nebula verified by spectroscopy. Intensity of light increases 10 fold outer gaseous layer blown away leaving a fresh barely stable young star that wasn't there before in the earliest stages of its life which matches prediction by steller theory. Not trivial and a very high point in astronomy. I mean what do you want? Must we make a star to please you? Are you asking for the impossible to be convinced? You had your Ann Coulter moment when you said:

Do you see a math problem when star deaths outnumber star births (which BTW haven’t been witnessed)?

Stars keep blowing up and we're glaring at gas clouds... wait a second...

There...

Oh...no...wait a second, wait a second...

There...it...is...There it is...Oh, no not yet...

"Hey, Fred another star just blew up!"

Leave me alone, I know I'm going to witness a star being born any moment now...


And I gave you the first and earliest example of witnessing the birth of a star and you won't accept it but not via any scientific means. Since 1999 there have been numerous other star birth events witnessed by astronomers that have provided us with clearer views of the event.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2008 - 02:25 PM

You had your Ann Coulter moment when you said:

View Post


How did you know I wouldn't like being compared to Ann Coulter. :lol:

Spectroscopy

I'm sure spectroscopy has a lot to offer to understanding astronomy so I'm not belittling the use of spectroscopy. The inference that the remnant of a super nova (Isn't that what a nebula is?) is the nursery for stars. Let's just say that that is a star getting brighter in the center. First couldn't it be a leftover from the original star and second are we so sure about what's going on out there, anyway?

I just think it's funny how little we know about our own solar system but when we look out beyond our solar system to light years away suddenly we have certain people give this clear picture of what's going on. Doesn't that make you question the varsity of confidently claiming to understand things that far out of our reach, scientifically?

My problem isn't that there are stars and galaxies out there doing stuff; my problem is that the Big Bang is taught as a naturalistic explanation as though it's been proven or that it's even naturalistic in the first place. I like the part where scientists talk about the early moments of the Big Bang when "logic breaks down."

What's that mean? :huh:

You’re still not answering the original question. How does the early universe story, as told through the Big Bang, pass the threshold of anecdote?

Even Wikipedia has enough sense to say stars “may form” and not “do form”...

Nebula

Many nebulae form from the gravitational collapse of gas in the interstellar medium or ISM. As the material collapses under its own weight, massive stars may form in the center, and their ultraviolet radiation ionises the surrounding gas, making it visible at optical wavelengths.


...but they do use the unscientific collapsing gas mantra. People trade known science for a hypothetical because supernatural origins are strongly forbidden. <_<

#55 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 07:15 PM

How did you know I wouldn't like being compared to Ann Coulter.  <_<


Who would? :huh:


The inference that the remnant of a super nova (Isn't that what a nebula is?) is the nursery for stars.


There are different sources for nebulae and different names for each kind accordingly. Some are left over remnants from supernovae.

I just think it's funny how little we know about our own solar system but when we look out beyond our solar system to light years away suddenly we have certain people give this clear picture of what's going on.


I am actually amazed about how much we do know about our solar system. Sure there are unknowns but we have made incredible strides.

Doesn't that make you question the varsity of confidently claiming to understand things that far out of our reach, scientifically


I am a scientist and thus I have confidence in scientifically consistent models. However, I also believe that scientists must be forever skeptical but within confides of known science.

My problem isn't that there are stars and galaxies out there doing stuff; my problem is that the Big Bang is taught as a naturalistic explanation as though it's been proven or that it's even naturalistic in the first place.


That is a completely different argument. I am simply arguing for the moment that stars are born when parts of nebula collapse in on themselves from their own gravitational pressure.

I like the part where scientists talk about the early moments of the Big Bang when "logic breaks down."


Logic doesn't break down. Known physics break down. Because we do not understand how quantum mechanics jives with general relativity we cannot describe things that are really massive and yet very small - these are the initial conditions of the big bang that we must describe.

You’re still not answering the original question. How does the early universe story, as told through the Big Bang, pass the threshold of anecdote?


I didn't know that was what we were discussing. I was discussing star birth via nebulae collapse.

#56 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:01 AM

When you push a go kart to the top of a hill you are converting the energy in your muscles into potential energy in the cart (actually the potential energy is given to the cart by the grav field of Earth).  When the cart rolls back down the hill the potential energy stored in the cart is converted to kinetic energy.  Energy is conserved.  PE in the cart emparted by your muscles against the grav field = kinetic energy of cart at maximum velocity at bottom of the hill.

View Post

Thank you, A.Sphere.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed" isn't just an axiom - it's a law of science.

#57 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:11 AM

Thank you, A.Sphere.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed" isn't just an axiom - it's a law of science.

View Post



Though a law of science it is often misapplied and misunderstood by many and has an even deeper interpretation through Lagrangian formalism. Energy can be converted from one form to another. Gravity for example is a force that does work - meaning that energy is converted from gravitational PE to KE to heat or whatever. Nothing about the collapse of a gas cloud violates this conservation law.

#58 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:16 AM

Though a law of science it is often misapplied and misunderstood by many and has an even deeper interpretation through Lagrangian formalism.  Energy can be converted from one form to another.  Gravity for example is a force that does work - meaning that energy is converted from gravitational PE to KE to heat or whatever. As long as there is some mechanism to empart energy from somewhere else we are kosher.  Nothing about the collapse of a gas cloud violates this conservation law.

View Post



#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:51 PM

Though a law of science it is often misapplied and misunderstood by many and has an even deeper interpretation through Lagrangian formalism.  Energy can be converted from one form to another.  Gravity for example is a force that does work - meaning that energy is converted from gravitational PE to KE to heat or whatever.  Nothing about the collapse of a gas cloud violates this conservation law.

View Post

We're not just talking about alledged collapsing gas clouds. There's also the issue of igniting stars. Pressure isn't the same thing as heat.

People frequently confuse pressure with heat because pressure can emulate heat in some respects. For example, pressure can cause the fuel-air mixture in a diesel engine to detonate. Pressure can melt ice. But it's well-known that pressure and heat are two different things, and one is frequently not a substitute for the other.

It may be that pressure alone would suffice to ignite a star, or it may be that heat is required. Mainstream "Science" is reported inconsistently, so I don't know which really is the case. Those who support the birth-of-stars scenario claim pressure will do (and one does encounter even blanket pressure=heat assertions). I don't know if this is just a convenient assumption or not. On the other hand, we're told that extremely intense heat is required to detonate an H-bomb.

I honestly don't know which reports are correct; but I'm not just going to take the word of sources that hold to a philosophy with a history of assuming all sorts of junk ideas in order to obtain the desired result(s).

#60 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:59 AM

We're not just talking about alledged collapsing gas clouds. There's also the issue of igniting stars. Pressure isn't the same thing as heat.

People frequently confuse pressure with heat because pressure can emulate heat in some respects. For example, pressure can cause the fuel-air mixture in a diesel engine to detonate. Pressure can melt ice. But it's well-known that pressure and heat are two different things, and one is frequently not a substitute for the other.

It may be that pressure alone would suffice to ignite a star, or it may be that heat is required. Mainstream "Science" is reported inconsistently, so I don't know which really is the case. Those who support the birth-of-stars scenario claim pressure will do (and one does encounter even blanket pressure=heat assertions). I don't know if this is just a convenient assumption or not. On the other hand, we're told that extremely intense heat is required to detonate an H-bomb.

I honestly don't know which reports are correct; but I'm not just going to take the word of sources that hold to a philosophy with a history of assuming all sorts of junk ideas in order to obtain the desired result(s).

View Post


If you have pressure you have heat - this is basic really. Pressure is a force per unit area. Forces do work. Work is energy. Heat is energy flow. As a volume of gas collapses on itself due to gravity the gravitational pressure overcomes gas pressure and gravitational PE is converted to KE. The core is under tremendous pressure from gravity and heats up. If the gravitational pressure is strong enough (if the mass is large enough) the pressure + heat in the gas cloud core ignite nuclear fusion. At this point you have outward radiation pressure counteracting inward gravitational pressure. If they balance you're well on your way to having a lil' baby star.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users