Jump to content


Photo

Star Formations


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

#21 Quaker Reason

Quaker Reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Religion, Science, History, Military, Computers, Roman History, Astronomy, Books, The Truth
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Indiana

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:28 PM

no star has been observed only speculations on how they did form. that is what i have been told. im not a bbt believer as the bbt denies the age of the earth as the bible says it is.

I don't believe in the BBT either, but I do believe in the Solar Nebula theory. I'm not the one to ask for evidence about this, generally when things do not conflict with God I take them for truth.

#22 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:29 PM

I specialize in astronomy so I could probably give a good answer to this.


The beginning of solar systems and such start out in what is called a solar nebula which is basically a bunch of gas and other materials together that eventually make planets and stars. Think of a nebula as a bunch of gas and other debris in a very compact area or in an area that isn't very compact. There's a stable amount of gravity to where nothing goes on, but gravity is sometimes unpredictable and for whatever reasons I don't know the gravity eventually goes crazy and the gases start forming together. The most dense elements like Hydrogen form at the center which makes stars, and the other rock and debris start to collide together forming "planetesimals" which are baby planets. Eventually this all stops and this is how we get these things.

I haven't studied solar nebula's for a while now, so if I get something wrong then correct me.

I do not specialize in astronomy but some of that strikes me as very wrong indeed. For example Hydrogen isn't a dense element, it's the lightest element ! I looked this up not too long ago actually, apparently while the star is forming the elements don't separate much by density (for the same reason two objects fall with the same acceleration regardless of mass, cf Galileo), the star is mostly Hydrogen because the proto-planetary nebula is mostly Hydrogen. Once the star does "light up" however it generates solar wind, which blows all the lighter elements to the outskirts of the system, past the freezing point where they condensate and become less volatile. So the inner planets aren't denser because the denser materials came to the center, they're denser because they were deprived of light elements like hydrogen and helium. The gas giants are beyond the limit where those elements could condensate so they're full of the stuff.

I also don't think it's accurate to say "gravity becomes unpredictable". Things condensating is always an unpredictable process (hence phenomena such as supercooling), so the condensation of gases and particles in a proto-planetary nebula would be unpredictable too, but gravity itself doesn't change halfway through the process.

no star has been observed only speculations on how they did form. that is what i have been told. im not a bbt believer as the bbt denies the age of the earth as the bible says it is.

Obviously we can't observe a single star forming from beginning to end because that takes a long time, but we have tons of observations of stars and star systems in various stages of formation which are consistent with the theory. And when they aren't (which isn't that rare given we don't know that much yet), the theories are adjusted to account for the new observations.

#23 Quaker Reason

Quaker Reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Religion, Science, History, Military, Computers, Roman History, Astronomy, Books, The Truth
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Indiana

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:43 PM

I do not specialize in astronomy but some of that strikes me as very wrong indeed. For example Hydrogen isn't a dense element, it's the lightest element ! I looked this up not too long ago actually, apparently while the star is forming the elements don't separate much by density (for the same reason two objects fall with the same acceleration regardless of mass, cf Galileo), the star is mostly Hydrogen because the proto-planetary nebula is mostly Hydrogen. Once the star does "light up" however it generates solar wind, which blows all the lighter elements to the outskirts of the system, past the freezing point where they condensate and become less volatile. So the inner planets aren't denser because the denser materials came to the center, they're denser because they were deprived of light elements like hydrogen and helium. The gas giants are beyond the limit where those elements could condensate so they're full of the stuff.

I also don't think it's accurate to say "gravity becomes unpredictable". Things condensating is always an unpredictable process (hence phenomena such as supercooling), so the condensation of gases and particles in a proto-planetary nebula would be unpredictable too, but gravity itself doesn't change halfway through the process.

I'll admit the Hydrogen being dense is wrong of me to say, I did not do well when I took Chemistry in school.

#24 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:52 PM

Obviously we can't observe a single star forming from beginning to end because that takes a long time, but we have tons of observations of stars and star systems in various stages of formation which are consistent with the theory. And when they aren't (which isn't that rare given we don't know that much yet), the theories are adjusted to account for the new observations.


Do they actually observe the star go from one stage to the next? Could they just be changing and not forming?

#25 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:06 PM

Do they actually observe the star go from one stage to the next? Could they just be changing and not forming?

As far as I know (which isn't that far, as I said I don't specialize in astronomy) the only stage transitions that are sudden enough to be observed on our timescales are the transition from star to supernova and then from supernova to supernova remnant. I don't know what you mean by "changing and not forming".

#26 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:25 PM

As far as I know (which isn't that far, as I said I don't specialize in astronomy) the only stage transitions that are sudden enough to be observed on our timescales are the transition from star to supernova and then from supernova to supernova remnant. I don't know what you mean by "changing and not forming".


Why then (apart from star > supernova > SNR) do they believe that the star is changing into a different stage? I understand If you don't know because you don't specialize in astronomy. What I mean by "changing and not forming" is, if the star is really changing into a different stage, is it at least possible that that's all it's doing and not slowly coming into existence?

#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:42 PM

Why then (apart from star > supernova > SNR) do they believe that the star is changing into a different stage? I understand If you don't know because you don't specialize in astronomy. What I mean by "changing and not forming" is, if the star is really changing into a different stage, is it at least possible that that's all it's doing and not slowly coming into existence?

I was confused by that because at the point where the star is "slowly coming into existence" it isn't a star yet, it's a nebula...
As to why astrophysicists think stars form from nebulas in a particular way even though it happens too slowly to see it happen to a particular star/nebula, what they have are models of how gas clouds can form into stars, based on basic physics like fluid dynamics and general relativity, and those models show what a proto-stellar nebula would look like at various points in time (and depending on its overall mass etc), and what kind of star it would result in, and when astrophysicists look at gas clouds and stars through their telescopes they see things that look just like the model says a proto-planetary nebula should look like at X stage. And they don't see things that are wildly inconsistent with the model (for stars at least. I think the models for planetary formation aren't as reliable). So those observations validate the model.

(EDIT : I had a look at Wikipedia, it would seem I should have said "for stars of 1 solar mass or lower at least". Seems we know less about the formation of massive stars.)

#28 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:57 PM

I was confused by that because at the point where the star is "slowly coming into existence" it isn't a star yet, it's a nebula...
As to why astrophysicists think stars form from nebulas in a particular way even though it happens too slowly to see it happen to a particular star/nebula, what they have are models of how gas clouds can form into stars, based on basic physics like fluid dynamics and general relativity, and those models show what a proto-stellar nebula would look like at various points in time (and depending on its overall mass etc), and what kind of star it would result in, and when astrophysicists look at gas clouds and stars through their telescopes they see things that look just like the model says a proto-planetary nebula should look like at X stage. And they don't see things that are wildly inconsistent with the model (for stars at least. I think the models for planetary formation aren't as reliable). So those observations validate the model.


Okay, thanks for teaching me something. It would be interesting to know whether the models were created before observing the various types of stars that fit with their models or if the different stages of star formation in the models were derived from observing the various types of stars.

#29 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:44 AM

Okay, thanks for teaching me something. It would be interesting to know whether the models were created before observing the various types of stars that fit with their models or if the different stages of star formation in the models were derived from observing the various types of stars.

Likely both; one of those "make observations, emit a hypothesis, test the hypothesis on new evidence, revise the hypothesis to account for new evidence if needed, test new hypothesis on new new evidence" etc things... I'm sorry I don't know enough on the subject to give specific examples of observations that confirmed the models, or instances where surprising observations led them to change the models.

#30 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:03 AM

Likely both; one of those "make observations, emit a hypothesis, test the hypothesis on new evidence, revise the hypothesis to account for new evidence if needed, test new hypothesis on new new evidence" etc things... I'm sorry I don't know enough on the subject to give specific examples of observations that confirmed the models, or instances where surprising observations led them to change the models.


I understand. Do you know if it's true that there is a chicken and an egg problem involving star formation? That you need the elements to make the stars and the stars to make the elements?

#31 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:11 AM

I understand. Do you know if it's true that there is a chicken and an egg problem involving star formation? That you need the elements to make the stars and the stars to make the elements?

Not that I know of. You need one element to make stars, and that's hydrogen. And stars don't make hydrogen, they make the heavier elements from it. You can ask where the hydrogen came from, which is the same thing as asking where matter came from (hydrogen ions are basically the simplest form matter can take : a single proton), but that's not a question about star formation really.

#32 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:20 AM

Not that I know of. You need one element to make stars, and that's hydrogen. And stars don't make hydrogen, they make the heavier elements from it. You can ask where the hydrogen came from, which is the same thing as asking where matter came from (hydrogen ions are basically the simplest form matter can take : a single proton), but that's not a question about star formation really.

This is correct. But as you pointed out, this doesn't really address issues with star formation. Matter came about through the inflation phase of The Big Bang, if you accept that model. There are, of course, a host of issues with stars being made from an unguided process. The problem really does begin with the origin of our universe.

#33 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:56 AM

Not that I know of. You need one element to make stars, and that's hydrogen. And stars don't make hydrogen, they make the heavier elements from it. You can ask where the hydrogen came from, which is the same thing as asking where matter came from (hydrogen ions are basically the simplest form matter can take : a single proton), but that's not a question about star formation really.


Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

#34 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:46 AM

This is correct. But as you pointed out, this doesn't really address issues with star formation. Matter came about through the inflation phase of The Big Bang, if you accept that model.

... i.e. it came about long before there were stars. And you can get the exact same result if you propose God created matter and then caused it to form stars. You can see the origin of matter as a problem, but it isn't a chicken and egg problem about star formation. I mean, it would be the exact same problem if stars didn't exist.

#35 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:10 PM

... i.e. it came about long before there were stars. And you can get the exact same result if you propose God created matter and then caused it to form stars. You can see the origin of matter as a problem, but it isn't a chicken and egg problem about star formation. I mean, it would be the exact same problem if stars didn't exist.

Of course if you proposed that God created matter and formed stars you would have the same result, but that doesn't help your stance at all because at that point, if the "results would be the same" then it would make both conclusions equally valid until the merit of those conclusions are pitted against each other. So now, the question is, what explanation is the best explanation? I hold that God is the best explanation for the universe coming into existance and the formation of stars.

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:27 AM

Here are some interesting points :D

http://www.pathlight...ci_vs_ev_2b.htm


Part of it discusses that the sun (and stars) are condensing to create light.

#37 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:48 AM

Here are some interesting points :D

http://www.pathlight...ci_vs_ev_2b.htm


Part of it discusses that the sun (and stars) are condensing to create light.


"But, if the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding universe?"

Lol. I guess interesting would be the correct word.

#38 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:39 PM

Of course if you proposed that God created matter and formed stars you would have the same result, but that doesn't help your stance at all because at that point, if the "results would be the same" then it would make both conclusions equally valid until the merit of those conclusions are pitted against each other. So now, the question is, what explanation is the best explanation? I hold that God is the best explanation for the universe coming into existance and the formation of stars.

Which stance do you mean ? I have plenty of stances; most of them are irrelevant to this conversation. Chris asked me whether there was a chicken-and-egg problem with star formation and the elements. I answered that there wasn't and explained why. The fact that how matter got created is irrelevant to that question means simply that : it is irrelevant to Chris's question.

I'm not particularly interested right now in a discussion on whether God's the best explanation for the universe coming into existence, so if that's what you want to discuss I'm afraid I'm not the best person to respond to. Sorry. :)

#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

"But, if the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding universe?"

Lol. I guess interesting would be the correct word.


That one may be silly, but here are some that are interesting



4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.


6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.


14 - The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang should have produced a "homogeneous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no "inhomogeneities," or "lumps" such as stars and island universes.



13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major unsolved problem.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.


#40 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:16 PM

4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.



That one and a number of others all rely on the misconception that the Big Bang is about matter flying away in a fixed space. What the Big Bang actually describe is space itself expanding, with matter merely around for the ride. The general analogy is to a rubber band or rubber balloon : take a rubber band, draw a bunch of dots on it, then stretch the rubber band. Every dot is moving away from every other dot, whether they're at the center or not. And there is no expanding center containing no dots while the dots are hurled to the edge. In fact, unless you put dots right on the ends of the rubber band (if your rubber band has ends of course), the dots will be moving further away from the edge too ! Because it's the rubber band itself that's becoming bigger, and every bit of it is becoming bigger at the same rate.

13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major unsolved problem.


I don't know, I'd heard inflation theory is fairly well-accepted now and dealt with that ? Or I might be confusing it with something else. In any case, major unsolved problems are par for the course in science. I wonder what the author makes of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

A quote... from 1981 ? On the subject of the Big Bang ? Now that's credible right there.
Just on the strength of that quote I checked Wikipedia and yep, inflation does deal with the problem of lumpiness. That hypothesis was first proposed in 1980 so I can forgive Ben Patrusky at least for never having heard of it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users