Jump to content


Photo

Star clusters and binary stars.


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

#1 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 March 2005 - 03:48 PM

Star clusters and binary stars spin around and the stars get farther and farther every year. Too close and too fast to be billions and millions? I'd think so.

#2 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:02 PM

Star clusters and binary stars spin around and the stars get farther and farther every year.  Too close and too fast to be billions and millions?  I'd think so.

View Post


Then I guess these star clusters must not be very old. Stars are born every minute. I don't understand the problem here. Star formation is an ongoing process that hasn't stopped since the big bang.

#3 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:08 PM

Then I guess these star clusters must not be very old.  Stars are born every minute.  I don't understand the problem here.  Star formation is an ongoing process that hasn't stopped since the big bang.

View Post



Stars are not born every minute. No one's proven that. And if the big bang was true we should not have binary stars and star clusters at all.

#4 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:13 PM

Stars are not born every minute.  No one's proven that.


OK, maybe not every minute, but it is still quite common. Given that we can only see a small area of the universe, and in that small area we see star formation, it is pure hubris to think that star formation is not common.

And if the big bang was true we should not have binary stars and star clusters at all.

View Post


How so? It would seem to me that, due to gravity, gasses would tend to congregate which would produce fusion and spin.

#5 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:20 PM

OK, maybe not every minute, but it is still quite common.  Given that we can only see a small area of the universe, and in that small area we see star formation, it is pure hubris to think that star formation is not common.
How so?  It would seem to me that, due to gravity, gasses would tend to congregate which would produce fusion and spin.

View Post



1. Stars are not born at all. Even if a star was born from the death of another star it wouldnever happen at equal value of the previous star. Just because you see a new light it does not mean a new star. Could be stars merging or aligning, a supernova, dust clearing to reveal stars, ect.

2. The big bang theory would have a bunch of matter blasted out all over frictionless space, never giving time to stop. Since everything would be heated and microscopic there would be no gravitational pull seeing as heated gases expand and since there would be no friction no stars, planets or galaies would form. Much less binary stars which can spin either way, contradicting a one-spin universe/big bang. So in essence how would anything form at all? Much less start spining around each othjer for no reason.

#6 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:30 PM

1.  Stars are not born at all.  Even if a star was born from the death of another star it wouldnever happen at equal value of the previous star.  Just because you see a new light it does not mean a new star.  Could be stars merging or aligning, a supernova, dust clearing to reveal stars, ect.


Or it could be the formation of a new star. Why are you throwing out that explanation?

2.  The big bang theory would have a bunch of matter blasted out all over frictionless space, never giving time to stop.  Since everything would be heated and microscopic there would be no gravitational pull seeing as heated gases expand and since there would be no friction no stars, planets or galaies would form.  Much less binary stars which can spin either way, contradicting a one-spin universe/big bang.  So in essence how would anything form at all?  Much less start spining around each othjer for no reason.

View Post


First of all, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it is an expansion of space that is still ongoing.

Secondly, as those gasses cool they do congregate through gravity. Stars, galaxies, and nebulae did not form right after the Big Bang, and as I said earlier, they are still forming. As those gasses and materials congregate a difference of mass creates uneven distribution. This causes angular momentum, otherwise known as spin. Each star that forms does so independently of other stars so there is no requirement for all stars, all galaxies, or even all planets to spin in the same direction. This is a fallacy that h*vind has been spreading for years and it is no truer today than the first day he said it. In fact, you can watch the formation of a spinning gasses by studying meteorology. It happens with clouds all of the time.

#7 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 March 2005 - 04:34 PM

Or it could be the formation of a new star.  Why are you throwing out that explanation?
First of all, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it is an expansion of space that is still ongoing. 

Secondly, as those gasses cool they do congregate through gravity.  Stars, galaxies, and nebulae did not form right after the Big Bang, and as I said earlier, they are still forming.  As those gasses and materials congregate a difference of mass creates uneven distribution.  This causes angular momentum, otherwise known as spin.  Each star that forms does so independently of other stars so there is no requirement for all stars, all galaxies, or even all planets to spin in the same direction.  This is a fallacy that h*vind has been spreading for years and it is no truer today than the first day he said it.  In fact, you can watch the formation of a spinning gasses by studying meteorology.  It happens with clouds all of the time.

View Post


1. We have never observed stars forming. I think they don't and there's some alternatvies to unexplained lights.

2. If it was just an expansion then why did they cool down? I thought it wasn't an explosion.

#8 Space Erased

Space Erased

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 March 2005 - 05:32 PM

Stars are not born every minute. No one's proven that. And if the big bang was true we should not have binary stars and star clusters at all.


What are you talking about? iI fact, almost all you're comments seem to show a distinct lack of undetanding of the subject.

Binary stars would not fling apart. Their gravitaional pull matches the centripedal force at a particular point, like a person swinging a tyre on a rope, with the tyre representing gravity. They rotate around a 'centre of gravity'.

And how does the ebig bang prevent binary stars and star clusters from existing? If this were so why would so many intellectual people know otherwise?

We have never observed stars forming. I think they don't and there's some alternatvies to unexplained lights.


Yes we have. We've observed stars in every stage of their life cycle. From clouds of hydrogen gas, to dense clouds of hydrogen gas, to proto-stars, to young stars, right through to novae and supernovae.

#9 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 March 2005 - 06:10 PM

I have a distinct lack of understanding? Everything you just said is complete, empty rhetoric. We have not observed this at all. And gravity is non-material and does not work as a rope. The moon itself slowly moves away from the earth. Yet not nearly as fast as binary stars circle each other and come apart.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 March 2005 - 07:59 PM

The Debatinator

Star clusters and binary stars spin around and the stars get farther and farther every year. Too close and too fast to be billions and millions? I'd think so.

binary and multiple star systems come in all combinations from almost touching and orbiting each other in a matter of hours to widely spaced an orbiting in thousands of years (our nearest star system (a triple star), Proxima Centauri). Stars are currently being born in stellar nurseries like the Eagle Nebular, there proximity to other stars determines if they become a binary system.

#11 ThinkPlease

ThinkPlease

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • SW Minnesota

Posted 07 March 2005 - 08:24 PM

I have a distinct lack of understanding? Everything you just said is complete, empty rhetoric. We have not observed this at all. And gravity is non-material and does not work as a rope. The moon itself slowly moves away from the earth. Yet not nearly as fast as binary stars circle each other and come apart.


This statement shows that you do have a lack of understanding. Gravity acts like a rope. Another way to think of the effects of gravity is that the two stars are connected by an invisible rope and that they rotate around each other--never changing distance. Gravity never changes it never lets go. It lasts for as long as the object you are attracted to lasts.


We have a distinct understanding of how stars form. We have telescopes pointed at stellar nurseries, observing them and their characteristics every year. There is no one moment where one can say, "A star is born." It's a process that takes millions of years. Think of our understanding of star's life cycles like this:

Take a picture of ten thousand people from all walks of life and all races once a day over the course of a month or two. From those pictures, construct the life cycle of a human. It's exactly the same process, except we're a lot farther away from our subjects.

#12 ManhattanProject

ManhattanProject

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Jose, CA

Posted 08 March 2005 - 09:30 AM

Who are you to say he has a lack of understanding????

They are correct in saying that they have observed stars in every form, but they have not observed one star all the way through, but I dont think that just because theres a new light in the sky, that there is a new star thats light is finally reaching earth. I think its rather rare that stars are born. Just out of curiousity, do you have any recent articles recording a new star "being born?"

#13 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:25 AM

First of all, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it is an expansion of space that is still ongoing. 

Secondly, as those gasses cool they do congregate through gravity.  .....It happens with clouds all of the time.

View Post


The Big-Bang is just a theory with problems we don't need to debate here.

But your second and final statement demonstrate your lack of understanding of some issues as well.

Clouds are not gaseous, they are visible water droplets.
Cloud Formation Experiment

Now that you have added smoke into the bottle, the water has something to condense upon


Thus, clouds cannot form without intrusion of foreign material...
Space Clouds

water forming ices because water vapor condenses on cold dust grains... much as it does on car roofs and windows in the winter


As temperature decreases, gases contract and become more dense. This change in density here on earth causes cloud formations to be able to form closer to earth (Fog). It has more to do with temperature and density.

#14 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:40 AM

This statement shows that you do have a lack of understanding.  Gravity acts like a rope. 

View Post


Gravity is not a rope. Ropes don't lose their ability to "keep" an object in it's clutches as distance increases as a rope does not budge, it only breaks.

Gravity (as we know it) diminishes over distance. With this in mind, your rope concept just won't hold.

Seriously though, some of the equations ceoncerning gravity are laws, but the mechanics of gravity are still not well understood.

#15 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 08 March 2005 - 12:00 PM

But your second and final statement demonstrate your lack of understanding of some issues as well.  Clouds are not gaseous, they are visible water droplets.

View Post


Firstly, I was using clouds to demonstrate that spinning masses of gas can be created outside of the Big Bang.

Secondly, what are those water droplets suspended in? A mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases. When we see a swirling cloud pattern it is the air that is moving those droplets of water. This swirling is caused by differences in density. Those same differences in density can also create spinning within a cloud of interstellar debris. Do you agree?

#16 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 08 March 2005 - 01:37 PM

Firstly, I was using clouds to demonstrate that spinning masses of gas can be created outside of the Big Bang. 

Secondly, what are those water droplets suspended in?  A mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases.  When we see a swirling cloud pattern it is the air that is moving those droplets of water.  This swirling is caused by differences in density.  Those same differences in density can also create spinning within a cloud of interstellar debris.  Do you agree?

View Post


I agree. But clouds have never collapsed in onto themselves causing a giant rain drop.

Instead, it took external forces to drive the smaller drops high into the atmosphere where they then froze. Once frozen they continued to collect more moisture (condensation) and begin to get havier due to an increase in mass. Eventually, the mass of the raindrop overcomes the upward force of wind that drove it into the upper portion of the cloud. This raindrop eventually falls to earth as rain, or in some cases as it's origional form of hail. Ever consider the upward forces required to sustain softball sized hail?

Since space is not a void as we once thought (but instead just a lower density/pressure atmosphere), why would we expect gravitational forces which we don't observe in clouds here to take place in space?

Given the NASA link in one of my posts above, it took dust particles for the wate rmolecules to freeze as ice onto.

My own hypthesis regarding "gravity" is simply fluid dynamics at work. Atoms are seeking their own density level. We observe this daily in our own atmosphere, and even in our own sun. let me explain...

Since a brick is more dense than air, when dropped it will fall onto your foot. It does this because it is seeking it's own density. Conversely, a helium ballon rises in the air (as if to defy gravity), again seeking it's own density level. What we experience as gravity is simply the attractive "force" we feel because of the difference in density of our body compared to the atmosphere around us. Why does NASA use water tanks as training grounds for space walks? Because they simulate the same gravitational effects, but do not simulate the same densities.

#17 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 08 March 2005 - 02:38 PM

Since space is not a void as we once thought (but instead just a lower density/pressure atmosphere), why would we expect gravitational forces which we don't observe in clouds here to take place in space?

View Post


Then what is keeping Jupiter together? Or the Sun? Or Saturn? These are all balls of gas that seem to stay together because of gravity.

#18 ThinkPlease

ThinkPlease

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • SW Minnesota

Posted 08 March 2005 - 05:32 PM

Gravity is not a rope.  Ropes don't lose their ability to "keep" an object in it's clutches as distance increases as a rope does not budge, it only breaks.

Gravity (as we know it) diminishes over distance.  With this in mind, your rope concept just won't hold.

Seriously though, some of the equations ceoncerning gravity are laws, but the mechanics of gravity are still not well understood.

View Post


You misunderstand what I write. I did not say Gravity IS a rope. I said gravity is LIKE a rope. Gravity is a stable field, and is a property of mass. It will last as long as the mass lasts, just LIKE a object tied to a rope and swung about your head will continue to orbit the same distance about your head as long as you keep swing at the same rate and speed.

I guess we should have stickers on physics textbooks saying the Gravity is only a theory and that all alternatives should be taught as well as the theory of gravity, too, eh?

#19 ThinkPlease

ThinkPlease

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • SW Minnesota

Posted 08 March 2005 - 06:17 PM

Who are you to say he has a lack of understanding????

They are correct in saying that they have observed stars in every form, but they have not observed one star all the way through, but I dont think that just because theres a new light in the sky, that there is a new star thats light is finally reaching earth. I think its rather rare that stars are born. Just out of curiousity, do you have any recent articles recording a new star "being born?"

View Post


Someone who has spent a third of his life in study of such things.

It all depends on one's definition of "being born", don't you think? Is the moment of birth when the condensing cloud of gas and dust begins heating up? Is it the moment when the protostar begins burning hydrogen? Is it the moment when we see the star begin to appear from the rapidly evaporating gas nebula that formed it? We see stars in the midst of all of those stages, but when the process that creates a star takes longer than the human race has ever been in existence, and certainly MUCH longer than we've been able closely examine such things, well, we've got a lot of looking ahead of us before we see stars transition between those steps.

I think one place where science education fails in the US is explaining, at the high school level especially, of what astronomy is all about. It's not about pretty pictures. The pretty pictures may get all of the press, and get funding for the Next Generation of telescopes, but the information one gets from the detectors goes FAR beyond simple images. We get information on the temperature of the object, the composition of the object, density of the object, mass, size, all from light, all from light, and the application of common physics that we have learned from lab experiments right here on earth. It's really impressive, the methods used to extract information once you've studied them.

#20 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:03 AM

We get information on the temperature of the object, the composition of the object, density of the object, mass, size, all from light...

View Post


It's interesting that you say that... What temperature emits X-rays?

Making X-rays
Physics of X-ray production

(red shift explanation?)
electrons and photons (Xrays)

Seems Xray are easily produced by electron bombardment, yet you want them to be produced in space via heat?

So, what is an Xray signature from a star? Is it a heat sugnature, or an electon bombardment signature?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users