Jump to content


Photo

Star Formation


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

#61 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 08 September 2011 - 08:45 PM

On these threads and many others on other websites I have observed how neo-Darwinians deliberately miss the mark in
their attempt to 'prove' or even give evidence for evolution theory.

For instance: on AOL headline page this week there was an article about what was supposed to be the birth of a new star. Well, it wasn't a new star at all it was just an anomaly which they have not observed before and they POSTULATE that it must be the tracks of a new star.

Posted Image

But when I and others refuted the notion those who believe in stellar evolution immediately went on the defensive and told us we were 'stupid', yet not quite admitting that the evidence they had was truly accurately describing the birth of a new star. They clearly were not certain.

So I challened them: "Give me the name of a new star observed at any time in history."

So how do they answer this? Behold...a poster named Larrykat replied:

"Cygnus X1. Overhead right now. (BTW: "Really" is so over with at this point.)"

And I answered him, "Is that a fact? (smiley) Quote: "Cygnus X1- - has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole. If so, the radius of its event horizon is probably about 26 km." Wikipedia.

Then there was a poster named palindrom whom I challenged likewise: "I'll make the same challenge to you: Give the name of one new star & document it."

So palindrom replied: T Tauri.

To which I responded: "Oh? Well, you just lied to me and all the other readers. T Tauri is merely a TYPE of star.

Quote: 'T Tauri stars (TTS) are a class of variable stars named after their prototype – T Tauri.' Wikipedia.

So since you can't find direct evidence for your ridiculous theory (stellar evolution) you twist the truth to make it fit that theory."

Another fact or two about T Tauri stars: "Circumstellar discs are estimated to dissipate on timescales of up to 10 million years...More massive (>8 Solar mass) stars in pre–main sequence stage are not observed, because they evolve very quickly: when they become visible (i.e. disperses surrounding circumstellar gas and dust cloud), the hydrogen in the center is already burning and they are main sequence objects. Wikipedia.

My point here is their tacit admission of the dissipation factor of stars without an admission that they have no empirical evidence of the actual birth of a star. They only observe dissipation yet hypothesise birth and evolution without a single observed example. That's called 'missing the mark'.

Talk about missing the mark? Here are two more I can add to the list of deliberately missing the bullseye on the part of neo-Darwinian evolutionists.

By the way, for the readers to know: the Greek word for SIN is 'hamartia' which literally means - 'missing the mark'. I believe lies concerning stellar evolution qualify, don't you? ;)

#62 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 09 September 2011 - 12:05 AM

On these threads and many others on other websites I have observed how neo-Darwinians deliberately miss the mark in
their attempt to 'prove' or even give evidence for evolution theory.

For instance: on AOL headline page this week there was an article about what was supposed to be the birth of a new star. Well, it wasn't a new star at all it was just an anomaly which they have not observed before and they POSTULATE that it must be the tracks of a new star.

Posted Image

But when I and others refuted the notion those who believe in stellar evolution immediately went on the defensive and told us we were 'stupid', yet not quite admitting that the evidence they had was truly accurately describing the birth of a new star. They clearly were not certain.

So I challened them: "Give me the name of a new star observed at any time in history."

So how do they answer this? Behold...a poster named Larrykat replied:

"Cygnus X1. Overhead right now. (BTW: "Really" is so over with at this point.)"

And I answered him, "Is that a fact? (smiley) Quote: "Cygnus X1- - has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole. If so, the radius of its event horizon is probably about 26 km." Wikipedia.

Then there was a poster named palindrom whom I challenged likewise: "I'll make the same challenge to you: Give the name of one new star & document it."

So palindrom replied: T Tauri.

To which I responded: "Oh? Well, you just lied to me and all the other readers. T Tauri is merely a TYPE of star.

Quote: 'T Tauri stars (TTS) are a class of variable stars named after their prototype – T Tauri.' Wikipedia.

So since you can't find direct evidence for your ridiculous theory (stellar evolution) you twist the truth to make it fit that theory."

Another fact or two about T Tauri stars: "Circumstellar discs are estimated to dissipate on timescales of up to 10 million years...More massive (>8 Solar mass) stars in pre–main sequence stage are not observed, because they evolve very quickly: when they become visible (i.e. disperses surrounding circumstellar gas and dust cloud), the hydrogen in the center is already burning and they are main sequence objects. Wikipedia.

My point here is their tacit admission of the dissipation factor of stars without an admission that they have no empirical evidence of the actual birth of a star. They only observe dissipation yet hypothesise birth and evolution without a single observed example. That's called 'missing the mark'.

Talk about missing the mark? Here are two more I can add to the list of deliberately missing the bullseye on the part of neo-Darwinian evolutionists.

By the way, for the readers to know: the Greek word for SIN is 'hamartia' which literally means - 'missing the mark'. I believe lies concerning stellar evolution qualify, don't you? ;)


When you Googled 'T Tauri' you seem not to have read past the first hit. The second hit also links to Wiki and describes T Tauri as "a variable star in the constellation Taurus, the prototype of the T Tauri stars. It was discovered in October 1852 by John Russell Hind. T Tauri appears from Earth amongst the Hyades cluster, not far from ε Tauri; but it is actually 420 light years behind it and was not formed with the rest of them."

#63 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 09 September 2011 - 06:47 AM

When you Googled 'T Tauri' you seem not to have read past the first hit. The second hit also links to Wiki and describes T Tauri as "a variable star in the constellation Taurus, the prototype of the T Tauri stars. It was discovered in October 1852 by John Russell Hind. T Tauri appears from Earth amongst the Hyades cluster, not far from ε Tauri; but it is actually 420 light years behind it and was not formed with the rest of them."


And?

The fact that it was 'discovered' makes it a NEW star? Nope. Who was there to observe it's birth? Give his name.


Again, like your Darwinian companions in error you miss the mark, friend.

P.S. you ignored what the article said about dissipation...the only thing they have ever observed concerning T Tauri.

#64 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:10 AM

And?

You said, 'To which I responded: "Oh? Well, you just lied to me and all the other readers. T Tauri is merely a TYPE of star.'
That is wrong, and you would have known that if you'd read past the first hit returned by Google

P.S. you ignored what the article said about dissipation...the only thing they have ever observed concerning T Tauri.

I didn't ignore it, I just chose to pass comment on a different part of your post. You failed to read past the first Google hit on T Tauri, thus rendering your response factually incorrect. If this is demonstrative of the depth of your research, then it raises questions about the validity of any of your assertions. Just saying...

#65 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 09 September 2011 - 11:23 AM

You said, 'To which I responded: "Oh? Well, you just lied to me and all the other readers. T Tauri is merely a TYPE of star.'
That is wrong, and you would have known that if you'd read past the first hit returned by Google


And if I grant that you are technically correct on that particular point will this save your position concerning an observed birth of a new star? Nope.

I didn't ignore it, I just chose to pass comment on a different part of your post. You failed to read past the first Google hit on T Tauri, thus rendering your response factually incorrect. If this is demonstrative of the depth of your research, then it raises questions about the validity of any of your assertions. Just saying...


But the question here is empirical proof of the birth of a new star. You haven't named one yet. It is not my credibility which is in question: it's virtually the entire astonomical community which believes that stars are birthed in our universe by the theories they lay down.

I'm still waiting for the name of the first one.

P.S. Historically we've seen many nova's and supernova's. When and where did anyone observe the birth of a star? Furthermore how could they occur in the first place since the universe is in dissipation and eventually will die a heat death?

#66 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 09 September 2011 - 01:34 PM

Let me show the readers here the depth of the dilemma that modern stellar evolutionists have in proving their case: the observation of the birth of a new star;

Posted Image

From an article in http://geology.com/n...el-galaxy.shtml

Quote: "The astronomers speculate that the young stars seen far out in M83 could have formed under conditions resembling those of the early universe, a time when space was not yet enriched with dust and heavier elements.

'Even with today's most powerful telescopes, it is extremely difficult to study the first generation of star formation. These new observations provide a unique opportunity to study how early generation stars might have formed,' said co-investigator Mark Seibert of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Pasadena."

Understand that the discovery of a new star (all stars named were once discovered by someone) is not the same thing as actually observing a star in its birth. To make such a claim is no more valid than neo-Darwinians who have the gall to tell me that the Law of Biogenesis has only existed since Pasteur discovered it.

#67 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 09 September 2011 - 05:18 PM

But the question here is empirical proof of the birth of a new star. You haven't named one yet. It is not my credibility which is in question: it's virtually the entire astonomical community which believes that stars are birthed in our universe by the theories they lay down.

I'm still waiting for the name of the first one.

T Tauri. You've already been told. Empiracally demonstrate why the wiki refrence you cite is wrong. Empiracally demonstrate why virtually the entire astonomical community is wrong. You, who had never heard of T Tauri until you googled it and then didn't read past the first result it returned

#68 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 09 September 2011 - 06:49 PM

T Tauri. You've already been told. Empiracally demonstrate why the wiki refrence you cite is wrong. Empiracally demonstrate why virtually the entire astonomical community is wrong. You, who had never heard of T Tauri until you googled it and then didn't read past the first result it returned


I am going to tell you one more time, my dishonest counterpart: The discovery of T Tauri was NOT an observation of a star at birth.

The truth is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're faking it. You don't even know how to spell empirically still less do you understand what it means.

From the American Association of Variable Star Observers.

Quote: "The variable star T Tauri was discovered on an October night in 1852 by John Russell Hind. Hind, a noted asteroid hunter, is credited with having discovered 11 minor planets, as well as Nova Ophiuchi 1848 and R Leporis (also known as Hind's Crimson Star). On this particular night, however, while scanning the sky with his telescope through the Pleiades and in the direction of the Hyades, Hind spotted a tenth magnitude star that was missing from the charts that he was using. The missing star, as it turns out, was the variable now known as T Tauri - the third variable to be discovered in the constellation of Taurus."

Search the entire article for yourself and see if you can even find the mention of the birth of T Tauri or any other star. You are referring to mere discovery as an observed birth. You are not telling the truth.

This kind of dishonesty is exactly the kind of reasoning that led me to reject evolution theory in the first place.

#69 Ophiolite

Ophiolite

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Peripatetic

Posted 21 November 2011 - 05:20 AM

Calypsis4, perhaps you have misunderstood some of the details of starbirth. I don’t know if you are a parent, but you are doubtless aware that childbirth can be a lengthy process taking many hours to complete. The convention, I believe, is to declare the time of birth to be the moment at which the child emerges fully from their mother’s birth canal. It is convenient, but I trust you would agree with me that birth itself is a process: it is not an instantaneous thing, but extends over time.

The birth of a star is no different, except that the time period of the birth extends not over hours, but over millions of years. Therefore it is meaningless to seek to identify a specific time when, before it, there was no star and after it, there was a star. Instead, having developed some understanding of the process, we can identify stages in that birth process.

T-Tauri stars are at one stage of that process. If I were in the delivery room when a child was being born, but had not yet fully emerged from his mother’s womb would you claim that no child had been born simply because it had not yet fully emerged? Would you deny that a birth was in process? I doubt that, yet this is the position you are adopting for stars.

You are, of course, entitled to have that opinion. I do not expect to be able to dissuade you from it. The loss is yours. Your incredulity is of no consequence in comparison with the mountains of data and the man years of work that have led to our current understanding of stellar evolution. You could, of course, approach that work with an open mind and learn something more of the deep wonders of the universe. Or, you can remain entrenched in your faith based beliefs. I see the latter approach as a distortion of faith; you see it, I guess, as an affirmation.

At any rate, within the definitions of science (and T-Tauri has no meaning outside of science) any T-Tauri star in general, and the original T-Tauri star specifically, is a star in the process of being born.

These star births have another important characteristic: they are impossible to see if you have your eyes closed.

#70 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 10 December 2011 - 03:45 PM

As Chanzui said, vacuums DO NOT pull things apart. If you take a jar full of air into space and open it, the air will move out of jar because of the difference in pressure between the interior of the jar and space. In interstellar space the few particles there are are not pulled apart at all because there is no net difference in pressure between one arbitrary point in space and the next.


I would like to explore this point a bit if everyone doesn't mind. My understanding as a mechanical engineer is exactly described in the above quote. What I would like to delve further into is what is meant by the pressure difference. Lets say we have a million atoms of hydrogen that are spread far enough apart that there is zero pressure acting on the group, how big of an area in cubic dimension would that represent?
At what point in distance between molecules would it require the application of a pressurising force to bring the atoms into a closer proximity?
I believe once we understand these points better we can then apply the known understanding of gravitational effects between matter to see just how much of a pressurising effect gravity can apply at the center of a spherical cloud of hydrogen gas.
I also think that the the way scientists are trying to apply the gravitational forces across a cloud to cause pressure at the center of the cloud are in error. When pressure is applied evenly to the outside of a sphere the pressure applied inwards is not simply applied to the atoms between the outside and the center in a straight line. Spherical shapes such as atoms stack in such a manner that they touch at multiple points to the other spheres / atoms surrounding them so any pressure pulling them closer is distributed in 3 directions on the side facing the center of pull.
An example of this can be performed at home using empty but capped soda bottles. first group about 50 of the exact same type in a round shape so that all the bottles from the center of the circle outward are touching then put a strap around the circle and apply a specific amount of pressure while measuring the pressure being applied to the center bottle. You will find that it will require quite a bit of pressure to the outside before you ever see any change to the pressure in the center bottle. I believe from my own experiments that the outside layer of bottles would actually get crushed before the bottles near the center would be affected to the extent that scientist think would be needed in a gas cloud to begin fusion. If I'm right there must be a consideration for lateral compression between the atoms and this would affect atomic pressures from the outer edges of a cloud to its central area.

#71 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 10 December 2011 - 04:00 PM

Calypsis4, perhaps you have misunderstood some of the details of starbirth. I don't know if you are a parent, but you are doubtless aware that childbirth can be a lengthy process taking many hours to complete. The convention, I believe, is to declare the time of birth to be the moment at which the child emerges fully from their mother's birth canal. It is convenient, but I trust you would agree with me that birth itself is a process: it is not an instantaneous thing, but extends over time.
The birth of a star is no different, except that the time period of the birth extends not over hours, but over millions of years. Therefore it is meaningless to seek to identify a specific time when, before it, there was no star and after it, there was a star. Instead, having developed some understanding of the process, we can identify stages in that birth process.


I would say the problem with this analogy is the fact that with a child birth we can empirically observe the entire process and thus properly define the various stages according to the various changes occurring during the process. With star birth the entire process is hypothetical and beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. the stages so far attributed to the star formation process are in fact hypothetical stages that are being applied to a hypothetical concept. This brings us to the hypothetical consideration that if pigs could fly then hypothetically I would need to be careful what I stood under if I wanted to avoid pig poo.
The geocentric view was repleat with the stacking of hypotheticals to explain the observable evidence. Considering that we can now look back on how such error occurred should help us to avoid those same problems.
As an agnostic I don't buy into hypotheticals. For me hypotheticals are at best just so stories that "require" empirical evidence before they become belief worthy.

#72 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 December 2011 - 02:12 AM

....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

And how is that thermal energy "radiated" away? It still needs to move within that cloud.

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.a.../starbursts.htm

I read up about Jeans instability. At first it sounds pretty convincing. But for one you mention the necessity of a trigger. And further it also requires the removal of energy as well as some initial concentration of the mass. Things I do not think are givens.

#73 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 05:52 PM

I would like to also point out one slightly overlooked point about starbirth relative to evolutionary concept.

If a star were to begin to exist it wouldn't appear to us as a bright shiny new star. It must first clear all the dust and gases around it first and according to the scenario it would take a long time for this to occur. So initially it might be viewable in infrared range and gradually over a long period of time eventually become a dim light our eyes could discern. If the evolutionary hypothesis were true we would never have a chance at seeing a brand new brilliant white star.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users