Jump to content


Photo

Retrograde And Direct Motion


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#61 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 02:06 AM

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

View Post

Remember, this is not a dust-cloud in air. Every little particle is following it's own orbit around some gravity centre. They only interact through gravity and collisions.

Hans

#62 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 05:21 AM

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

View Post

It's not hard to see why people misunderstand things, when there's so much disinformation flying around.

For example

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

View Post

Shoot! You don't even remember what you're trying to say. First you make out like pressure is heat, but then a few sentences later you claim there is both pressure and heat.

Pressure isn't heat. That's the main reason we have two separate terms for these things. Something can be hot, and not be under much pressure. Or something can be very cold and be under tons of pressure.

Not hard to see. How "hot" is Jupiter? Plenty of pressure there, but it's mighty cold. Cold is the opposite of hot. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus - all cold places with a good deal of pressure. (And all are fine examples that gases don't compress themselves indefinitely, as if our own atmosphere isn't enough.to demonstrate the fact.)

Heat is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. In order for something cold to become hot, energy must come from somewhere.

I just got off your "gravity creates energy" merry-go-round. I'm none to eager to buy tickets for the "pressure = heat" ride. I don't find either one to be very amusing.

#63 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 05:45 AM

Remember, this is not a dust-cloud in air. Every little particle is following it's own orbit around some gravity centre. They only interact through gravity and collisions.

Hans

View Post

Orbit? Each particle has its own trajectory, but to assume its orbiting anything seems a stretch. Unless you mean it's in an escape orbit. (And I don't think you mean that.)

We're told such clouds are the result of supernovae exploding. This requires that escape velocity be attained by the atoms.

It's really just the whole oscillating big bang problem all over again on another scale. If the material that results from the explosion were traveling slowly enough to collapse back in on itself, it never could've exploded in the first place.

#64 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 05:49 AM

Not hard to see. How "hot" is Jupiter? Plenty of pressure there, but it's mighty cold. Cold is the opposite of hot. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus - all cold places with a good deal of pressure.

View Post


Heat is a result of pressure, and temperature increases on Jupiter the deeper you go into the planet (ie as the pressure increases). While the cloud tops are around -145C, the centre of the planet is thought to be around 36000K. Similar is true of the other gas giants.

#65 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 06:21 AM

Orbit? Each particle has its own trajectory, but to assume its orbiting anything seems a stretch. Unless you mean it's in an escape orbit. (And I don't think you mean that.)


We need not split words, but strictly speaking, 'trajectory' means an open orbit. Anything in space basically orbits something.

We're told such clouds are the result of supernovae exploding. This requires that escape velocity be attained by the atoms.


Some such clouds. However, escape velocity does not mean that an object contines away (has an open orbit). A sattelite orbiting Earth has also reached escape velocity. Escape velocity just implies that the object will not fall back and impact on the body it left.

So, particles expelled from a supernova to form a dust cloud will interact gravitationally and tend to cluster. This clustering is self-sustaining: The more massive the cluster becomes, the more dust is attracted to it.

It's really just the whole oscillating big bang problem all over again on another scale. If the material that results from the explosion were traveling slowly enough to collapse back in on itself, it never could've exploded in the first place.


What? How can you conclude that? That would mean that if you place a stick of dynamite into the ground the stuff thrown into the air cannot fall back??


Actually, I don't understand what this discussion is all about: So some people believe that God created the universe as it is, a relatively short while ago. Well, fine! Believe that if you will, but that does not change the observable fact that NOW, the universe acts as described.

Hans

#66 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 06:31 AM

About pressure and heat:

Pressure does not equal heat, but if a gas is compressed, it gets hotter. The temperature of an atmosphere is not guided by pressure alone, however; the very top layers of atmospheres, while under very low pressure, are actually quite hot.

The reason collapsing dust clouds (in space) get hotter is not so much pressure, but energy: As the particles fall towards the gravitational centre, they gain kinetic energy, and this is turned to heat when they impact the central cluster.

Hans

#67 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:35 PM

It's not hard to see why people misunderstand things, when there's so much disinformation flying around.

For example

Shoot! You don't even remember what you're trying to say. First you make out like pressure is heat, but then a few sentences later you claim there is both pressure and heat.

Pressure isn't heat. That's the main reason we have two separate terms for these things. Something can be hot, and not be under much pressure. Or something can be very cold and be under tons of pressure.

Not hard to see. How "hot" is Jupiter? Plenty of pressure there, but it's mighty cold. Cold is the opposite of hot. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus - all cold places with a good deal of pressure. (And all are fine examples that gases don't compress themselves indefinitely, as if our own atmosphere isn't enough.to demonstrate the fact.)

Heat is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. In order for something cold to become hot, energy must come from somewhere.

I just got off your "gravity creates energy" merry-go-round. I'm none to eager to buy tickets for the "pressure = heat" ride. I don't find either one to be very amusing.

View Post


Pressure does not equal heat. I didn't say that. In the context of a collapsing volume of gas pressure compacts that volume into a smaller volume converting PE into KE emparting it to the random atomic (or subatomic) motions of the molecules in the gas. Thermodynamics tells us that heat is related to the KE of the motions of molecules via:

Q = delta(U) + W

Where W is work, and U is internal energy (KE from motion of molecules), and Q is heat. So it is quite obvious that increasing delta(U) increases Q. In a collapsing volume of gas delta(U) is increased by the gravitational pressure as PE is converted to KE in the motions of the molecules in the gas.

#68 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 01:54 AM

Heat is a result of pressure, and temperature increases on Jupiter the deeper you go into the planet (ie as the pressure increases). While the cloud tops are around -145C, the centre of the planet is thought to be around 36000K. Similar is true of the other gas giants.

View Post

...and MRC Hans paints the opposite picture. (I'm adding a touch of bold)

About pressure and heat:

Pressure does not equal heat, but if a gas is compressed, it gets hotter. The temperature of an atmosphere is not guided by pressure alone, however; the very top layers of atmospheres, while under very low pressure, are actually quite hot.

The reason collapsing dust clouds (in space) get hotter is not so much pressure, but energy: As the particles fall towards the gravitational centre, they gain kinetic energy, and this is turned to heat when they impact the central cluster.

Hans

View Post

Don't get me wrong. I understand the desire to dispute anything I say. "It's the thought that counts", right?

As for Jupiter, after "x billion years", it still hasn't obtained equilibrium, and it radiates more heat than it receives. This implies a heat source. According to JPL,

While its clouds are Jupiter's most striking feature to the eye, they are thought only to exist at the very top of Jupiter's atmosphere, in a layer about 50 kilometers (30 miles) thick. In this region, the pressure in the atmosphere is comparable to that on Earth. Much in the way your ears feel pressure when you dive to the depths of a pool due to the weight of the water above you, the pressure inside Jupiter grows with depth in the atmosphere. Below the clouds, there is a 21,000-kilometer (13,000-mile) thick layer of hydrogen and helium. This layer gradually changes from gas to liquid as the pressure increases.

A Sea of Liquid Hydrogen

Beneath the liquid hydrogen layer is a 40,000-kilometer (25,000-mile) deep sea of liquid metallic hydrogen. Unknown on Earth, liquid metallic hydrogen forms under the extreme pressures that exist on Jupiter. At this depth, the pressure is more than three million times what it is at the surface of the Earth. Hydrogen molecules are so tightly packed that they break up and become electrically conductive. Scientists believe it is this electrically conductive liquid that causes Jupiter's intense magnetic field.

Liquid Hyrdogen is mighty cold stuff. So in order to account for the radiation of heat from the planet, one has no choice but to imagine some sort of super-hot core down there somewhere.

But what sort of core could remain superhot for so long? What could be fueling it? I don't find answers to these questions. Everywhere I see mention of the core, I see talk of it being "rocky" or "solid". 55,000 degrees Fahrenheit is mighty hot "rock". I'm not convinced the kinks can be worked out of these ancient models.

Anyhow, the imagined superhot core of Jupiter does not change the situation. There is both extreme pressure and extreme cold. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that heat travel from hotter materials to colder; so a heat source in the middle makes more sense than heat source elsewhere; but that does not explain how things under extreme pressure can be extremely cold. Unless heat & pressure are distinctly different things... which observation tells us they are.

As for gravity being so all-fired omnipotent, I suggest the faithful might consider the alleged phenomenon of
Atmospheric Escape. If, as we're told, hydrogen and helium can escape the Earth's gravity, how much gravity would be required to hold such lightweight atoms captive? I believe "any amount, no matter how infinitesimal" is an incorrect answer. I also believe those who would support oscillating big bangs and supernovae stories must believe that escape velocity is an impossible concept. They think that gravity will always be able to pull two objects back together no matter what. I disagree, and science disagrees.

For such as believe that escape velocity can never be attained, and that gravity can overcome all other laws of physics, there isn't much point discussing anything else. In their minds, no other considerations matter. None.

#69 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 03:30 AM

Don't get me wrong. I understand the desire to dispute anything I say. "It's the thought that counts", right?

Not at all, I just wanted to pick up on something that was factually incorrect. You claimed that Jupiter is 'mighty cold'. It isn't.

But what sort of core could remain superhot for so long? What could be fueling it? I don't find answers to these questions.

I don't understand all the maths, but here's how

Everywhere I see mention of the core, I see talk of it being "rocky" or "solid"

That is what is predicted. But the detail of Jupiter's core is something that's still being researched and a mission in 2011 is intended to provide more answers

#70 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 04:44 AM

Pressure does not equal heat.  I didn't say that.  In the context of a collapsing volume of gas pressure compacts that volume into a smaller volume converting PE into KE emparting it to the random atomic (or subatomic) motions of the molecules in the gas.

What you propose is oxymoronic. Where there is pressure, there is no collapse. No such thing has ever been observed. Pressure doesn't just up & stop on the whims of Earthlings.

Now you can sort of model it, but you run into problems. You have to ignore gas pressure and inertia on the one end, in order to get the ball rolling. But then you have to reintroduce them later on as your "heat source".

Thermodynamics tells us that heat is related to the KE of the motions of molecules via:

Q = delta(U) + W

View Post

I'm not finding this exact formula.

http://www.science.u...0/conserve.html

says

Internal energy, represented by E (or U a matter of preference), is essentially the thermal energy contained in a system (or particles making up the system). Unless change takes place, we usually have no way of evaluating it. A change in internal energy dE is due to the transfer of energy into or out of a system, but the volume stays constant. For example, energy transferred into the system, usually heat (q) and work (w), represents an increase of internal energy, dE, of the system. Thus,
dE = q + w.

Now changing dE to dU,
This results in dU = q + w

Which is not the same as your formula. And they weren't alone.

http://dbhs.wvusd.k1...m/Enthalpy.html
says

So, here we go:

We define U = the total internal energy of a system.

Some books use E in place of U.

At some point in time, the total internal energy equals U1 and at some different point in time, it equals U2. So that then means, the change (over this time interval) in the total internal energy of the system, ΔU, is:

ΔU = U2 - U1

Time to do some definitions, then return to the above equation.

    a) energy - the ability to do work or produce heat.
    :blink: work - a force acting over distance
    c) heat - a transfer of energy due to temperature differences.
    d) temperature - a property directly proportional to the random motions of particles in a substance

Please note we are using the absolute temperature scale only. Also, what in the world is "the system?"

Let's consider ΔU for a moment. It is some amount of energy that happens to be the difference between two other energy amounts. According to the definition above, energy has only two components: heat and work. This allows us to write:

ΔU = q + w

Now from your wording " increasing delta(U) increases Q" one might not get the important point that ΔU is not the same thing as U. Delta is customarily used to indicate a change. In this case, ΔU = U2 - U1. (The numbers 1 and 2 indicate the passage of time. 1 is first measurement; 2 is second.)

The words aren't all that long, so there's no real need to use symbols.

(Total internal energy1) - (Total internal energy2) = Heat + Work

Now in order to increase heat, internal energy must increase over time, and the increase must not be "spent" doing work.

When written this way, it's not too hard to see that energy is required in order to increase heat.

I shouldn't continue too far until we actually agree on a formula.
Your (Total internal energy1) - (Total internal energy2) = Heat - Work
could be a mistake, or there could be some real disagreement. Actually, it might not make a big difference whether one assigns a positive or negative sign to the work, but then again it might. I'm too lazy to firm up a conclusion just now. I hesitate to tamper with it, because getting things wrong would allow one to gain energy by doing work (on paper only!).

#71 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 05:24 AM

Not at all, I just wanted to pick up on something that was factually incorrect. You claimed that Jupiter is 'mighty cold'. It isn't.

View Post

The known part is. And the majority of the unknown part is also.

But what sort of core could remain superhot for so long? What could be fueling it? I don't find answers to these questions.

I don't understand all the maths, but here's how

Thanks for trying, but I don't think that gets it. According to your link 18.2 Million years is the lifespan they calculate for the sun, and the sun's a whole lot bigger than Jupiter.

Without a good excuse to do so, I'm not going to wade through all the math myself. The source cited by wiki claims that for some models of Jupiter it works, but Saturn and Uranus don't quite fit. I find it strange that anything doesn't fit. They use Kelvin-Helmholtz as both a heating and a cooling mechanism, so it looks like one could shoehorn in almost any data. I should certainly like to see more than paper fantasies before accepting any phenomenon that can do both heating and cooling.

#72 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 05:49 AM

The known part is. And the majority of the unknown part is also.

I don't understand. Are you saying that Jupiter doesn't get hotter the closer you get to the core?

According to your link 18.2 Million years is the lifespan they calculate for the sun, and the sun's a whole lot bigger than Jupiter.

I think you missed this part:
"However, it was soon was recognized by Sir Arthur Eddington and others that the total amount of energy available via this mechanism only allowed for the sun to shine for millions of years rather than the billions of years that the geological and biological evidence suggested for the age of the earth. The true source of the Sun's energy remained uncertain until the 1930's in which it was shown to be nuclear fusion by Hans Bethe."

#73 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 11 December 2008 - 02:56 PM

What you propose is oxymoronic. Where there is pressure, there is no collapse. No such thing has ever been observed. Pressure doesn't just up & stop on the whims of Earthlings.


No you do not understand. The pressure I am speaking of is inward gravitational pressure.

Now you can sort of model it, but you run into problems. You have to ignore gas pressure and inertia on the one end, in order to get the ball rolling. But then you have to reintroduce them later on as your "heat source".


We don't ignore it. Go look up what gas pressure is in terms of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.

I'm not finding this exact formula.

http://www.science.u...0/conserve.html

says
Now changing dE to dU,
This results in dU = q + w

Which is not the same as your formula. And they weren't alone.


If you know what they are talking about you would realize that they are the same formula. Rearanging mine is:

dU = Q - W

W changes sign depending on whether or not there is internal or external work. So we could write

dU = Q +/- W

and always consider W to be positive and pick the sign depending on whether or not work is being added to the system or taken away. It just depends on how you define W in your formula.


Now from your wording " increasing delta(U) increases Q" one might not get the important point that ΔU is not the same thing as U. Delta is customarily used to indicate a change. In this case, ΔU = U2 - U1. (The numbers 1 and 2 indicate the passage of time. 1 is first measurement; 2 is second.)


This doesn't change anything.

The words aren't all that long, so there's no real need to use symbols.

(Total internal energy1) - (Total internal energy2) = Heat + Work


Edit: (Total internal energy2) - (Total internal energy1) = Heat + Work

Now in order to increase heat, internal energy must increase over time, and the increase must not be "spent" doing work.  When written this way, it's not too hard to see that energy is required in order to increase heat..


Because it is gravitational pressure that is doing work we are doing work on the system. In terms of pressure we can write that W = -P*delta(V) where P is due to gravitational pressure that is inward and thus negative. For a collapsing volume of gas delta(V) will always be negavite because V_2 < V_1. So the value for work becomes a positive value and adds to the heat. Of course energy is required and gravitational PE provides it.

#74 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 13 December 2008 - 09:13 PM

Kelvin-Helmholtz_mechanism, oscillating big bang, and forever exploding and re-collapsing stars are all results of the quest to imagine an eternal energy source. It is difficult to explain the second law of thermodynamics to those who are predisposed to reject it, especially since it is important to state things in the simplest possible terms that all who read may understand.

The simplest experiment that comes to mind is to inflate a balloon, and place it in a refrigerator. As the air and rubber cool, they'll shrink. Now if the heat generated by shrinkage is sufficient to cause the balloon to expand back to its original size, we may say that all these imagined devices make sense. I don't expect it to happen On paper it shouldn't be difficult to create confusion about the issue. Work is being performed; atoms are moving from place to place; friction is involved. There are several real and pretend ways to argue that heat will result.

I suggest anyone believing the balloon will generate enough heat to regain its original size (or even expand) try the experiment.

#75 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 13 December 2008 - 11:45 PM

Kelvin-Helmholtz_mechanism, oscillating big bang, and forever exploding and re-collapsing stars are all results of the quest to imagine an eternal energy source.


Can you be specific?

It is difficult to explain the second law of thermodynamics to those who are predisposed to reject it, especially since it is important to state things in the simplest possible terms that all who read may understand.


How am I rejecting it?


The simplest experiment that comes to mind is to inflate a balloon, and place it in a refrigerator. As the air and rubber cool, they'll shrink. Now if the heat generated by shrinkage is sufficient to cause the balloon to expand back to its original size, we may say that all these imagined devices make sense.


This is a bad analogy on various levels. Initially the gas inside the balloon and the gas outside the balloon are at an equilibrium temp. Once you place it inside a cold sink the kinetic energy of the gas inside the balloon is lost via heat flow to the cold sink and the pressure inside the balloon decreases. The elastic PE from the balloon is then transferred to the gas inside the balloon increasing the gass's KE which is lost to the cold sink again. Once heat flow stops (meaning once the gas inside the balloon is the same temp as the cold sink) the inward elastic pressure from the balloon will be countered by the outward gas pressure from the gas in the balloon because no more KE will be flowing via heat from the gas in the balloon to the cold sink (2nd law of thermo). If you take it out of the cold sink back into a room temp environment the reverse happens and the balloon returns to its initial state.


Another reason it fails is that Gravity and Elasticity are different beasts anyway. Gravity is an inverse square law while elasticity follows hooke's law and is directly proportional to the distance away from equilibrium. This is why the elastic pressure increases with an expanding volume and gravitational pressure does not. To see this more clearly get a rubber band and pull it - as your hands get further away from one another the elastic force gets stronger. Two massive objects would feel a decrease in gravitational force as the distance between them increases. The two are often confused because gravity can be thought of as the elasticity of space time. The more massive an object is the more space time is warped and its "elasticity" increases which represents itself as an increase in gravitation.


There is even another problem with this analogy. The problem is that your initial condition is that the inward elastic pressure is countered by the outward gas pressure. You have created an initial state that is in equilibrium. I know a gas in an isolated system will not collapse on itself if the gas pressure is in equilibrium with the gravitational pressure. However, our cosmic gas clouds are not in equilibrium at all. Usually there are stars and proto-stars in the gas that generate enormous electric and magnetic fields and gravitational fields, radiation and the like. Any of these influences make our stellar nursery a non-equilibrium system. A gas cloud in the ISM is a dynamic environment and thus our initial state in not an equilibrium state and it is not an isolated system at all. This means that energy and matter are being transferred all over the place inside the nebula.

#76 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 December 2008 - 12:33 AM

Hi A.Sphere,

How am I rejecting it?


Consider these facts,then tell me.

DEGENERATING UNIVERSE, The Universe And Dr. Einstein, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way." p.102

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Abraham Loeb, Harvard Center for Astrophysics, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." New Scientist, V.157, 2/7/1998, p.30 Derek Ward-Thompsom, Cardiff Univ. "Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, yet the processes by which they are formed are not understood." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577 Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."

ONE ADEQUATE CAUSE, H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138

 

POINTS TO CREATOR, G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.

Enjoy.

#77 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 14 December 2008 - 01:50 AM

Consider these facts,then tell me.


Okay.

DEGENERATING UNIVERSE, The Universe And Dr. Einstein, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way." p.102


So? You yourself represent a local negative spike in the entropy curve of the universe and you do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Star formation is the same.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Abraham Loeb, Harvard Center for Astrophysics


Loeb's quote from "The Sun and the Stars" by J.C. Brandt is from 1966. The bulk work on stellar evolution came after that because we didn't have the computer power to handle all of the coupled equations. I am not claiming that we have an ultimate model of star formation and evolution but we have a sound one that contains the basics.

"The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." New Scientist, V.157, 2/7/1998, p.30 Derek Ward-Thompsom, Cardiff Univ.


I agree. We understand the majority of the elements involved however. All theories are effective and break down at some point. The goal is to push them as far as we can and still remain consistent.


"Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, yet the processes by which they are formed are not understood." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory,


I would have said "not fully understood".


"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577 Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."


err what? I don't understand this quote.

ONE ADEQUATE CAUSE, H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138


Specifics? This is just some random quote.

 

POINTS TO CREATOR, G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.


Again - this is just some random quote and I don't see how it applies to star formation.

I recommend that you try and understand some of these concept and not just quote mine from creationist web sites.

We have witnessed star birth - it happens.

#78 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:08 AM

When assuming a totally natural result following the supernatural (but unintelligently caused) Big Bang, how do Evolutionists attempt to white wash the evidence of angular momentum violated by some planets spinning in the wrong direction and entire galaxies spinning in the wrong direction?:

http://en.wikipedia....d_direct_motion

Posted Image

http://hubblesite.or...002/03/image/a/

View Post


Scientists are allowed to break their own laws, they just love to force them upon everyone else. You abide by them, we don't have to.

Like our government, that is nothing more than pure corruption. And that is what happens when a group of people are controlled by their own views where peer pressure to do what everyone else does, and believe what everyone else does. Are the two main factors as to why it works, and the main reason as to how you have to think in order to belong.

#79 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 14 December 2008 - 02:14 PM

Scientists are allowed to break their own laws, they just love to force them upon everyone else. You abide by them, we don't have to.

Like our government, that is nothing more than pure corruption. And that is what happens when a group of people are controlled by their own views where peer pressure to do what everyone else does, and believe what everyone else does. Are the two main factors as to why it works, and the main reason as to how you have to think in order to belong.

View Post


That's exactly what I get out of it too. Scientists, not all, but the ones that make a living heralding a Godless origin, are bent on maintaining a priestly class.

#80 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 14 December 2008 - 05:29 PM

That's exactly what I get out of it too. Scientists, not all, but the ones that make a living heralding a Godless origin, are bent on maintaining a priestly class.

View Post



Again - can you be specific? How are scientists violating their own rules?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users