Jump to content


Photo

Star Formation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
72 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 August 2011 - 06:30 AM

Calypsis:



Currently, my favourite causal theory is that of multiple "branes" or multi-dimensional universes which hang next to each other like sheets on a line and, after the heat-death of adjacent universes the latent gravitation pulls them together, the contact between them then infusing new energy into each in a "Big Bang" type event. And, if you're going to claim that existence is an effect, and that NO aspect of existence can be a cause, then it seriously undermines any notion of free will - If all existence is merely an effect how can any of our choices be undetermined by the causer?

Well, your second quote is from a health-and-fitness website and, like I said, the lack of a cause-effect relationship exists purely at a quantum scale so when you're talking about gaining or losing weight obviously there is going to be a relationship. Newton was also strictly limited to describing events at the macro-scale where his mathematics were generally spot-on.

As for the example of an occurrence that has no cause: Radiation. Radiation occurs when an atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles. Atoms do this without interacting with outside forces or particles. The process is spontaneous and random, in that there is absolutely no way to predict when an atom will decay, or what it will decay into. Do some research into radiation and see if you can find a 'cause' for it that doesn't violate your 'law of cause and effect'.


"my favourite causal theory'. In other words, your mere opinion. But I didn't give you an opinion, I gave you facts and your response to the Law of Cause and effect is nothing but living in denial.

Shall I give you more evidence of the existence of this all important Law?

http://www.commonsen...3_causality.pdf

http://www.drlwilson...CLES/CAUSES.htm

You said, "multiple 'branes' or multi-dimensional universes which hang next to each other like sheets on a line and, after the heat-death of adjacent universes the latent gravitation pulls them together, the contact between them then infusing new energy into each in a 'Big Bang' type event."

Give evidence to this or I will just mentally trash it as something without scientific merit.

You said, "As for the example of an occurrence that has no cause: Radiation. Radiation occurs when an atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles. Atoms do this without interacting with outside forces or particles"

Really? So you tell us radiation has no 'cause' ......and then you expain that cause! "Radiation occurs when an atom LOSES ENERGY by EMITTING IONIZING PARTICLES. Hmm, sounds like a cause to me. :D The cause is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just as it applies to everything else in our universe.

You, friend, are trying to escape reality but I'm not going to let you. Whatever radiation does...now...it had an origin. Remember that its giving off energy that can never be used again (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). That means it had a beginning and is wearing down to an inert state, just like the rest of the universe. All things that run down had an origin. Now what was the cause of that origin?

You may pretend but you will never escape cause and effect. That's the way the world is.

#42 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:28 AM

Man, there is an example of why I don't like most of the modern translations: "Elohim made two great luminaries..."

THAT is supposed to be clearer to new Christians or children than "God made two great lights..."?

Nonetheless, MamaElephant, stay in there for the Lord.

You can breathe easier for me brother, that isn't the translation that I use. Not anymore.

#43 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:35 AM

You can breathe easier for me brother, that isn't the translation that I use. Not anymore.


O.K.

Best wishes.

#44 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 15 August 2011 - 09:39 AM

You said, "As for the example of an occurrence that has no cause: Radiation. Radiation occurs when an atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles. Atoms do this without interacting with outside forces or particles"

Really? So you tell us radiation has no 'cause' ......and then you expain that cause! "Radiation occurs when an atom LOSES ENERGY by EMITTING IONIZING PARTICLES. Hmm, sounds like a cause to me. :D The cause is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just as it applies to everything else in our universe.


Actually, Thermodynamics can't be applied to sub-atomic systems, it only works when there are large numbers of particles. There is work being done on a Theory of Quantum Thermodynamics, but at this point we can't speak of the Second Law of Thermodynamics causing radioactivity because we don't know if the second law still holds at Planck-length distances.

Also, I wasn't speaking of the phenomenon of radioactivity, although if you'd done some research you'd have come across the hypothesis that virtual particles are involved in Radioactivity - virtual particles being particles that 'pop' in and out of existence without cause - and I was really looking forward to you discovering that, but I was talking about the specific case of an individual atom emitting ionizing particles. Although the probability that an individual atom of a known radioactive substance will emit radiation can be known - and with great accuracy - the exact instant of this event can't ever be predicted as it has no direct cause. Given a certain amount of that substance we can determine it's 'half life' or the period of time over which half of its atoms will decay, based on our probability calculations, but we can't know the moment for any given atom within that substance.

Therefore, you live in a Universe where the "Law" of Cause and Effect does not hold in all cases.

#45 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:07 PM

'Chanzui'
Actually, Thermodynamics can't be applied to sub-atomic systems, it only works when there are large numbers of particles. There is work being done on a Theory of Quantum Thermodynamics, but at this point we can't speak of the Second Law of Thermodynamics causing radioactivity because we don't know if the second law still holds at Planck-length distances.


Where did you get that idea? Who taught you such things? You explain to the readership here where any part of God's created universe is not subject to the physical laws He created? Furthermore...

http://spaceradiatio...7DegenRisks.pdf

Tell the readers what radiation does...first to its source: does it energize and provide more power to its source or does the source eventually suffer depletion? Do cancer patients who are treated for disease GAIN healthy tissue or LOSE tissue that is killed in the process? Do cancer patients GAIN hair or lose body hair?

The point: If there is a 'loss' of anything that means it had an origin; a beginning. 'Beginning' demands a cause.

Also, I wasn't speaking of the phenomenon of radioactivity, although if you'd done some research you'd have come across the hypothesis that virtual particles are involved in Radioactivity - virtual particles being particles that 'pop' in and out of existence without cause - and I was really looking forward to you discovering that, but I was talking about the specific case of an individual atom emitting ionizing particles. Although the probability that an individual atom of a known radioactive substance will emit radiation can be known - and with great accuracy - the exact instant of this event can't ever be predicted as it has no direct cause. Given a certain amount of that substance we can determine it's 'half life' or the period of time over which half of its atoms will decay, based on our probability calculations, but we can't know the moment for any given atom within that substance.


'Pop in and out of existence' only means that they are measureable and/or detectable at some times and not at others; sort of like 'new stars' which are really only detectable by a telescope when they appear from behind interstellar gas clouds.

Therefore, you live in a Universe where the "Law" of Cause and Effect does not hold in all cases.


But you still have not given us a single true example of things that happen without a cause. And using radiation as an example isn't going to be accepted by anyone who knows anything about the subject except those who are blindly prejudiced about the subject as you are. As I pointed out it amounts to conditions existing in the source since the creation which give rise to the movement of radiation. But no matter what source you consider, they all run down and the energy source is not renewed. One cannot burn the same energy over again any more than one can recycle the gasoline burned by his car engine a second time. The fuel must be replaced by unused fuel.

You keep denigrating well known facts like your opinion rules rather than the known fact of Cause-and-Effect which has been fully recognized even from ancient times. How many sources of documentation does one have to give a skeptic before he realizes his error in the matter?

http://socyberty.com...es-four-causes/

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:12 PM

The issue is that the Scientific Method simply cannot be applied to non-materialistic phenomenon. For example: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Presumably, a great many Christians believe that angels are a part of our reality, but they are beyond the ability of science to make any kind of statement about.

It's not so much that the Prosecution has a bias against you, but that your case has been brought before completely the wrong Court. And when the great majority of the people who practice in this court have seen no evidence there is anything which isn't materialistic they will be resistant to your cries that an alternate court should be established.


That's why ID will fit better in the court you are talking about. ID is not necessarily a Biblical model. In ID, there are principles involved that one can infer design, namely interpendent, mechanistic, and most of all cascading systems, whereby one or more things have to be there first for the other things to work, and so on--a cascade effect. If you remove one the first parts of the cascade, the entire system stops. Though this does not "prove" a designer, one can infer design in this system. If enough of these systems are in nature, then it lends support to the idea of a designer. There are also system changes, metamorphasis is on the macro, and many molecular systems change, and the change is part of the required process for survival.

Creationism, on the other hand, is inferring the predictions that a literal Biblical model would produce. The starting assumptions are that creation and the flood are history, and that these two do not need natural explanation, BUT there will be empirical evidence by which one can infer support for the model. If data is found that matches those predictions, no one has the right, no matter what "court" they are in, to deny that said data matches said prediction. It works the same way for the evolutionary and geotime models.

#47 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:37 AM

Star formation is a huge problem for the secular model. According to the Big Bang model there should not be an abundance of lithium in metal poor stars, and that is exactly what we see in stars. I would think that in a universe created to be self sufficient, that we shouldn't be concerned on whether or not stars can form. Star formation itself is highly theoretical anyways because it supposedly takes too long to be observed by humans within a specified amount of time.

#48 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 August 2011 - 07:09 AM

Star formation is a huge problem for the secular model. According to the Big Bang model there should not be an abundance of lithium in metal poor stars, and that is exactly what we see in stars. I would think that in a universe created to be self sufficient, that we shouldn't be concerned on whether or not stars can form. Star formation itself is highly theoretical anyways because it supposedly takes too long to be observed by humans within a specified amount of time.


Thanks.

But the fact remains that our counterparts in science have yet to observe the formation of a single star, still less that of a single planet. All their hypotheses about such formations are just that; hypotheses.

#49 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 22 August 2011 - 07:40 AM

Star formation is a huge problem for the secular model. According to the Big Bang model there should not be an abundance of lithium in metal poor stars, and that is exactly what we see in stars. I would think that in a universe created to be self sufficient, that we shouldn't be concerned on whether or not stars can form. Star formation itself is highly theoretical anyways because it supposedly takes too long to be observed by humans within a specified amount of time.


What do you mean by "there should be NO abundance of lithium according to the BB model?" and "thats what we see?". We see normally less lithium than we would expect and we know the process why this is the case. There are some stars which have a little too much lithium (and this is not yet solved) but this is still lower than the amount of lithium in the non-stellar matter.

What would you all expect to see or to be shown to you according stellar formation?
We know all the processes (still some questions open, but overall it´s solved) we have examples for all stages of stellar development.
What else do you need?

#50 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:00 AM

What do you mean by "there should be NO abundance of lithium according to the BB model?" and "thats what we see?". We see normally less lithium than we would expect and we know the process why this is the case. There are some stars which have a little too much lithium (and this is not yet solved) but this is still lower than the amount of lithium in the non-stellar matter.

You either intentionally misread my statement or you just misunderstood it. There should be no abundance of lithium in metal poor stars. This is a challenge to the Big Bang Model. You can attempt to use argument ad futurum(Logical fallacy.) but that does not resolve the issue with the secular cosmology model for nucleosynthesis in stars.

What would you all expect to see or to be shown to you according stellar formation?
We know all the processes (still some questions open, but overall it´s solved) we have examples for all stages of stellar development.
What else do you need?

There is no specific requirement for the Creation model when it comes to stars.(This doesn't make Creationism impossible to test however.) All The Bible tells us is that God made the stars himself. I am sure though, since he made the universe to be self sufficient that it would be possible for stars to form by natural means.

#51 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

What do you mean by "there should be NO abundance of lithium according to the BB model?" and "thats what we see?". We see normally less lithium than we would expect and we know the process why this is the case. There are some stars which have a little too much lithium (and this is not yet solved) but this is still lower than the amount of lithium in the non-stellar matter.

What would you all expect to see or to be shown to you according stellar formation?
We know all the processes (still some questions open, but overall it´s solved) we have examples for all stages of stellar development.
What else do you need?


"we have examples for all stages of stellar development."

Where? Where do we find recorded the birth of a new star? Name it and provide the source.

#52 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:49 PM

"we have examples for all stages of stellar development."

Where? Where do we find recorded the birth of a new star? Name it and provide the source.

circle to the first post i started in the the thread, that is the only observation that can be possibly tested.

#53 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 August 2011 - 02:07 AM

You either intentionally misread my statement or you just misunderstood it. There should be no abundance of lithium in metal poor stars. This is a challenge to the Big Bang Model. You can attempt to use argument ad futurum(Logical fallacy.) but that does not resolve the issue with the secular cosmology model for nucleosynthesis in stars.

Maybe I did misunderstand you, but certainly not intentionally. Forgive me since english is not my native language.
As far as I understood you, you say, that there should be less lithium in metal poor stars according to the big bang model than we see there. Is that right?
But it´s the other way round. Li-7 was formed at the big bang in small amounts and we see it still in the interstellar medium (so in that part we are fine). In most stars there is less lithium than we would expect according to the big bang model. That was a problem for some time until it was solved with the proton-proton-reaction 2 that is a side reaction of normal stellar fusion. There are still some discussions why this reaction is very active in some stars but not in others. But even with those stars that have the highest amount of Li-7 there is less than in the interstellar medium. So i don´t really understand your argument.


Where? Where do we find recorded the birth of a new star? Name it and provide the source.

I said we see all the stages of stellar development and I can give you sources for them, but what do you mean by "recorded birth of a new star"? What do you want to see?

It all starts with a molecular H-I cloud. We could see them at their characteristical 21 cm line. There are a lot of those clouds out there and they behave according to the virial-theorem. They are in thermal and gravitational equilibrium but radiate away slowly some of their thermal energy by IR-light (which we could detect).
Here is something about molecular clouds: http://www.daviddarl...ular_cloud.html

The next step, the cloud collapse, could happen by two different processes: by radiating away their thermal energy (kinetic energy of the molecules which hit each other and loose those kinetic energy by inelastic collisions) until the cloud reaches the Jeans-instability,
or by collisions of clouds for example in collisions of galaxies or nearby supernovas:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/starbursts.htm

When the cloud collapses it is heating up itself and radiates away those energy, which can be detected, until it reaches the stage of a protostar
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/star_life/starlife_proto.html

sorry don´t have time to continue now, but i will if you want.

#54 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 August 2011 - 07:00 AM

Maybe I did misunderstand you, but certainly not intentionally. Forgive me since english is not my native language.
As far as I understood you, you say, that there should be less lithium in metal poor stars according to the big bang model than we see there. Is that right?
But it´s the other way round. Li-7 was formed at the big bang in small amounts and we see it still in the interstellar medium (so in that part we are fine). In most stars there is less lithium than we would expect according to the big bang model. That was a problem for some time until it was solved with the proton-proton-reaction 2 that is a side reaction of normal stellar fusion. There are still some discussions why this reaction is very active in some stars but not in others. But even with those stars that have the highest amount of Li-7 there is less than in the interstellar medium. So i don´t really understand your argument.



I said we see all the stages of stellar development and I can give you sources for them, but what do you mean by "recorded birth of a new star"? What do you want to see?

It all starts with a molecular H-I cloud. We could see them at their characteristical 21 cm line. There are a lot of those clouds out there and they behave according to the virial-theorem. They are in thermal and gravitational equilibrium but radiate away slowly some of their thermal energy by IR-light (which we could detect).
Here is something about molecular clouds: http://www.daviddarl...ular_cloud.html

The next step, the cloud collapse, could happen by two different processes: by radiating away their thermal energy (kinetic energy of the molecules which hit each other and loose those kinetic energy by inelastic collisions) until the cloud reaches the Jeans-instability,
or by collisions of clouds for example in collisions of galaxies or nearby supernovas:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/starbursts.htm

When the cloud collapses it is heating up itself and radiates away those energy, which can be detected, until it reaches the stage of a protostar
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/star_life/starlife_proto.html

sorry don´t have time to continue now, but i will if you want.


And you have observed all those stages of development, right? And if not you, then who?

Friend, we have about 5,000 yrs of written historical records with astronomers like Ptolemy, Callippus, and Aristarchus reporting on the movement and timing of the stars. Which of them observed a single birth of a star?

Wikipedia says this: "A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.[1] The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, those stars having at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expand to become a red giant, in some cases fusing heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. The star then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment, where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

Like you they hypothesize on the so-called 'birth' and development of stars as if it is a true scientific fact...without an observation.

Read for yourself and see if you can find one:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

They are so brainwashed with evolution theory that they affirm that as stars 'degenerate' that they are 'evolving' into that condition! Holy cow! So things that are 'degenerating' (the opposite of evolution) are 'evolving'. Yet in the entire article, though the scientists speak of the theory of developing stars then NEVER MENTION ONE!

I've got news for them. I've got news for you: ALL the stars are degenerating. They are all dissipating and will all eventually become nova's in time. The whole universe is degenerating. And they have all be degenerating since the fall of man unto this very day and will continue to do so until God makes all things new at the end of the world.

#55 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 23 August 2011 - 09:06 AM

Maybe I did misunderstand you, but certainly not intentionally. Forgive me since english is not my native language.
As far as I understood you, you say, that there should be less lithium in metal poor stars according to the big bang model than we see there. Is that right?
But it´s the other way round. Li-7 was formed at the big bang in small amounts and we see it still in the interstellar medium (so in that part we are fine). In most stars there is less lithium than we would expect according to the big bang model. That was a problem for some time until it was solved with the proton-proton-reaction 2 that is a side reaction of normal stellar fusion. There are still some discussions why this reaction is very active in some stars but not in others. But even with those stars that have the highest amount of Li-7 there is less than in the interstellar medium. So i don´t really understand your argument.

It's no problem.

I'd like to see where you got your information from. I can only find one paper on this subject and nothing about proton-proton-reaction 2 is in it. The problem itself though is actually more significant than you are making it out to be. The Li7 abundance of these metal poor stars are a factor of three higher than what is predicted by the secular big bang nucleosynthesis model.


http://www.eso.org/s...no122-32-35.pdf


The solution they present is a theory that supersymmetric can affect the synthesis of light elements in the big bang.(This defies physics.)

As for the argument, your model is off in this regard, it is a very legitimate crticism of your current model. I, on the other hand can give you predictions made by Creationists that were accurate, such as the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. It seems though that in the secular realm it is okay to keep a theory even if the numbers don't match up, unless you are a Creationist or ID proponent.

So before we continue, I'd really like to know where you got your source from.

#56 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 23 August 2011 - 09:57 AM

It's no problem.

I'd like to see where you got your information from. I can only find one paper on this subject and nothing about proton-proton-reaction 2 is in it. The problem itself though is actually more significant than you are making it out to be. The Li7 abundance of these metal poor stars are a factor of three higher than what is predicted by the secular big bang nucleosynthesis model.


http://www.eso.org/s...no122-32-35.pdf


The solution they present is a theory that supersymmetric can affect the synthesis of light elements in the big bang.(This defies physics.)

As for the argument, your model is off in this regard, it is a very legitimate crticism of your current model. I, on the other hand can give you predictions made by Creationists that were accurate, such as the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. It seems though that in the secular realm it is okay to keep a theory even if the numbers don't match up, unless you are a Creationist or ID proponent.

So before we continue, I'd really like to know where you got your source from.


The article you linked confirms that you have the issue backward like skeptic said.

You are saying that "The Li7 abundance of these metal poor stars are a factor of three higher than what is predicted by the secular big bang nucleosynthesis model"
The paper you linked says the exact opposite.
"The 7Li abundance is, on the other hand,a factor of three lower than predicted by standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory"

There's also a much simpler explanation for most of the Li7 issue than the one mentioned in that article.
www.universetoday.com/476/why-old-stars-seem-to-lack-lithium/

As for the predictions of magnetic fields, if you are talking about humphreys, if you read his paper his model consists of more or less arbitrarily picking a random value between 0 and the mass of the planet. His model would have fit any values no matter what they ended up being.

#57 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 24 August 2011 - 10:11 AM

The article you linked confirms that you have the issue backward like skeptic said.

My mistake. I haven't talked about this in a long time. It does not alleviate the problem however.

There's also a much simpler explanation for most of the Li7 issue than the one mentioned in that article.
www.universetoday.com/476/why-old-stars-seem-to-lack-lithium/

The theory proposed is far from concrete. I don't see any part where it says it resolves the problem, but it only states that it is a probable solution. Also note that they don't know why lithium is being mixed into stars.

As for the predictions of magnetic fields, if you are talking about humphreys, if you read his paper his model consists of more or less arbitrarily picking a random value between 0 and the mass of the planet. His model would have fit any values no matter what they ended up being.

Absolutely ludicrous. He predicted that the strength of the magnetic field would match his prediction if K equals less than one, which is what his entire theory of how God created the universe hinged on. Turns out his predictions were correct while secular cosmologist were wrong. Care to explain why secular cosmologist are wrong and why you still do not have a working model for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune?

#58 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 August 2011 - 10:03 AM

My mistake. I haven't talked about this in a long time. It does not alleviate the problem however.

The theory proposed is far from concrete. I don't see any part where it says it resolves the problem, but it only states that it is a probable solution. Also note that they don't know why lithium is being mixed into stars.

Absolutely ludicrous. He predicted that the strength of the magnetic field would match his prediction if K equals less than one, which is what his entire theory of how God created the universe hinged on. Turns out his predictions were correct while secular cosmologist were wrong. Care to explain why secular cosmologist are wrong and why you still do not have a working model for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune?

His 'k' is a percent, i.e. 0 = 0%, .5=50%, 1=100%. The limit in his equation is k=1 because it's impossible to have more than 100% of something. In order for uranus to have a magnetic moment larger than his k=1 limit, its field strength would have needed to be greater than jupiters. Since jupiters field is strong enough to produce effects that are detectable with telescopes and uranus's field isn't, there was basically no possibility that his limit would be exceeded. It's like if I predict that your height is between 0% and 100% of 10 feet (i'll guess 60%, +/- 10%). Since there is no chance that you are more than 10 feet tall, and any other value can be accounted for by altering the percentage like humphreys does in his paper, there is no chance I could be wrong.

To refresh your memory if you don't want to read his paper, his calculations consist of picking a "arbitrary factor" (his exact words) of k and multiplying that arbitrary value by the mass of the planet to get a maximum value. Since k is completely arbitrary, the result can be whatever anyone wants between 0 and the mass of the planet. In his paper he flips between different k values in order to force the correct answer for planets whose magnetic moments were known. That's a major warning sign that an idea isn't scientifically valid. There's no physics equation that I know of that uses a completly random scalar value that can change at whim based on what a person wants the answer to be.

As for why the secular expected value was lower than what it turned out to be for uranus, secular scientists don't get to use equations that can give any answer they want. They have to use what is known to draw conclusions about what isn't. If there are factors that aren't known at the time those conclusions are made then those conclusions can turn out to be wrong. There's quite a lot we don't know about the other planets.

#59 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 27 August 2011 - 11:31 PM

Sorry I haven't been on in a while. I have been quite busy. Let's continue our discussion.

His 'k' is a percent, i.e. 0 = 0%, .5=50%, 1=100%. The limit in his equation is k=1 because it's impossible to have more than 100% of something. In order for uranus to have a magnetic moment larger than his k=1 limit, its field strength would have needed to be greater than jupiters. Since jupiters field is strong enough to produce effects that are detectable with telescopes and uranus's field isn't, there was basically no possibility that his limit would be exceeded. It's like if I predict that your height is between 0% and 100% of 10 feet (i'll guess 60%, +/- 10%). Since there is no chance that you are more than 10 feet tall, and any other value can be accounted for by altering the percentage like humphreys does in his paper, there is no chance I could be wrong.

You are shifting the focus to an arbitrary value which is quite common in physics. What sources are you using to draw your arguments against his paper? His predictions of the magnetic fields were accurate but you are trying to downplay or avoid it by grasping straws.


To refresh your memory if you don't want to read his paper,

To be clear, are you trying to imply that I never read his papers?



his calculations consist of picking a "arbitrary factor" (his exact words) of k and multiplying that arbitrary value by the mass of the planet to get a maximum value. Since k is completely arbitrary, the result can be whatever anyone wants between 0 and the mass of the planet. In his paper he flips between different k values in order to force the correct answer for planets whose magnetic moments were known. That's a major warning sign that an idea isn't scientifically valid. There's no physics equation that I know of that uses a completely random scalar value that can change at whim based on what a person wants the answer to be.

There are physics papers that use arbitrary values. It doesn't mean that he is trying to "force the correct answer."(This is a false statement by the way.) What Dr. Humphreys is doing is very similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle used in physics but I guess Creationists aren't allowed to concede that a value is arbitrary and come up with a few theories for predictions like other papers on quantum physics. This is a trait of hypocrisy that has not only been in atheist circles but secular science circles as well.



As for why the secular expected value was lower than what it turned out to be for uranus, secular scientists don't get to use equations that can give any answer they want. They have to use what is known to draw conclusions about what isn't. If there are factors that aren't known at the time those conclusions are made then those conclusions can turn out to be wrong. There's quite a lot we don't know about the other planets.

If your answer is we still don't know then unfortunately you don't really have a ground to stand on in this debate.

#60 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 31 August 2011 - 08:49 PM

I apologize for the delay in responding, I had problems with my internet connection.

Sorry I haven't been on in a while. I have been quite busy. Let's continue our discussion.

You are shifting the focus to an arbitrary value which is quite common in physics. What sources are you using to draw your arguments against his paper? His predictions of the magnetic fields were accurate but you are trying to downplay or avoid it by grasping straws.

I'm focusing on the aribtrary value because it makes his prediction aribitrary, there's no reason to use k=.25 in a prediction vs using k=.9 or k=.000025. Could you give examples of these arbitrary physics values and how they are used in a similar manner as humphreys uses his k value.

The arguments I'm using are my own although it's certainly possible someone else has made similar statements. I'm using wikipedia and a few reference sites for the magnetic field and planet sizes. The statement about jupiter being detectable by radio telescopes and uranus not being detectable comes from here. http://ircamera.as.a...res/jupiter.htm
Protons and electrons trapped by this magnetic field produce synchrotron radiation at radio wavelengths making Jupiter the only planet detectable easily by radio telescopes

His prediction has a couple obvious problems, first it was the result of a completely arbitrary calculation which means it was equivalent to picking a number out of a hat. The second being that it was so broad it covered the majority of possible values.

Here's his description of what he predicted. Note the range of values that he was prepared to call a match.
http://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation/
Because of the uncertainty about the interiors of those planets, I widened my prediction to "on the order of'" 1024 A m2, by which I meant that the magnetic moments would be between 1 x 1023 and 1 x 1025 A m2

His main equation is M = Mc exp(-t/T)

If we use his assumptions about the age and interiors of uranus then the 'exp(-t/T)' term ends up being about 1/10. That means that his predicted value M is simply Mc/10 where Mc is roughly planetary mass multiplied by k.

At k=1, M would be 8.68x10^24. At k=0, M would be 0. At k=.013, M would be 1.06x10^23. Look at the range he gave as a prediction. Notice that his prediction range encompasses any value produced by a k between .013 and 1, or roughly 98.7% of the values his model allows.

If we look at how his value compares to a more secular viewpoint we need to settle on a range of possible values. I've already argued that anything above Jupiter's surface field strength of about 4.2 gauss is unrealistic so I'll use that as a cap and 0 gauss as a minimum. Magnetic moment is defined as surface field strength multiplied by radius cubed so this gives a range of 0 to 4.2 x 1600000000^3 = 1.72 x 10^28 Gauss cm^3 or to use humprheys units, 1.72x10^25 A*m^2.

range of humphreys prediction = 1x10^25 - 1x10^23 = 9.9x10^24
range of possible values = 1.72x10^25 - 0 = 1.72x10^25
percent of possible values covered by humphreys prediction = 9.9x10^24/1.72x10^25 = 57%.

If we just want to look directly at the other planets for comparison:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3750/ClassNotes/Class13/Class13.html
Here's a chart of the surface magnetic fields of the planets (the purple column). Humphreys prediction would match anything between .024 and 2.4 gauss which is a wide enough range to every large planet with a convecting liquid core except jupiter (too big). Just by random chance alone he would have had a good probability of being right. Even if the field was too low he could always just change k to make it fit anyway.

There are physics papers that use arbitrary values. It doesn't mean that he is trying to "force the correct answer."(This is a false statement by the way.) What Dr. Humphreys is doing is very similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle used in physics but I guess Creationists aren't allowed to concede that a value is arbitrary and come up with a few theories for predictions like other papers on quantum physics. This is a trait of hypocrisy that has not only been in atheist circles but secular science circles as well.

You'll have to give examples of these other arbitrary values and how they are used before I can tell how they compare to how humphreys uses his k value.
As for my statement being false, humphreys used k=.25 as a default value and got values he liked for the inner planets. Then he tried .25 on Jupiter and it gave an invalid result so he changed k to a high enough value to give a valid answer, then he went back to using .25 for other planets. How is that not "flip[ping] between different k values in order to force the correct answer for planets whose magnetic moments were known"?

If your answer is we still don't know then unfortunately you don't really have a ground to stand on in this debate.

I'm not sure what ground I need in order to point out that humphreys prediction was arbitrary and therefore not an indicator that his model works.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users