5 replies to this topic

[Fred Williams]

Blue Stars Burn Out So Quickly: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss two articles in Ken Ham's current Answers magazine, one on the problem for evolutionists on the "replacement" of short-lived blue stars, and the other on the seeming permanence of "living fossils," all the many creatures that are identical to fossils that formed supposedly many millions of years ago. Listen or download here.

You can also play it here:



[NOTE: If you are using Google Chrome the above plug-in may automatically start and also not provide play/pause and volume control.]

[adsummum]

Basically, I'm just going to be talking about the first half of the discussion (blue stars).

1.) O-type main-sequence stars (colloquially 'blue stars') are actually the rarest type of star, constituting roughly 0.00003% of all main sequence stars - not as was erroneously stated by Fred Williams and Bob Enyart "the most common stars in the galaxy". The most common are m-type main sequence (red stars), which constitute some 70% of all known stars. There are only believed to be some 20,000 in a galaxy of half a trillion

2.) Yes Fred Williams and Bob Enyart were right in saying that the density of interstellar gas clouds is a quadrillion times more dense than atmospheric air, though they were entirely incorrect in saying that "the air we breathe contains a quadrillion times more particles than interstellar gas clouds" (that is a direct quote). Density is entirely different to quantity. These gas clouds are hundreds of light years in diameter and contain several hundred million solar masses.

3.) The formation of stars is not, as was stated, entirely dependent on the collapse of another star. Typically, these clouds exist in hydrostatic equilibrium, with the internal gas pressure of the cloud in in balance with the internal gravitational force (as is expressed in the virial theorem). When the cloud reaches its Jeans mass - the mass of the cloud (specific to temperature and pressure) at which gas pressure is no longer able to resist gravitational collapse - the cloud will collapse into a single star (for small clouds) or a series of stars (as is believed to be the case for globular clusters). This process does not necessarily require a trigger such as a supernova. Collapse can occur naturally as a consequence of the accumulation of further gaseous material through internal motion within a galaxy. Triggered star formation can occur as a consequence of the shockwaves of a supernova (as was discussed), or through galactic collisions (when gravitational tidal forces may induce a Jeans instability). It is even theorized that radio emissions from supermassive black holes may contribute to stellar formation.

4.) Fred Williams and Bob Enyart raise issues with the formation of original stars, likening it to the chicken and the egg problem. However, the original formation of stars is likely the consequence of minor deviations in density in the moments immediately after the big bang, which are themselves likely the product of quantum fluctuations. At these higher density points, more mass could accumulate, which likely lead to the formation of galactic clusters; further density variation would have led to galaxies, and stars and so on.

[Mike Summers]

Basically, I'm just going to be talking about the first half of the discussion (blue stars).

1.) O-type main-sequence stars (colloquially 'blue stars') are actually the rarest type of star, constituting roughly 0.00003% of all main sequence stars - not as was erroneously stated by Fred Williams and Bob Enyart "the most common stars in the galaxy". The most common are m-type main sequence (red stars), which constitute some 70% of all known stars. There are only believed to be some 20,000 in a galaxy of half a trillion

2.) Yes Fred Williams and Bob Enyart  were right in saying that the density of interstellar gas clouds is a quadrillion times more dense than atmospheric air, though they were entirely incorrect in saying that "the air we breathe contains a quadrillion times more particles than interstellar gas clouds" (that is a direct quote). Density is entirely different to quantity. These gas clouds are hundreds of light years in diameter and contain several hundred million solar masses.

3.) The formation of stars is not, as was stated, entirely dependent on the collapse of another star. Typically, these clouds exist in hydrostatic equilibrium, with the internal gas pressure of the cloud in in balance with the internal gravitational force (as is expressed in the virial theorem). When the cloud reaches its Jeans mass - the mass of the cloud (specific to temperature and pressure) at which gas pressure is no longer able to resist gravitational collapse - the cloud will collapse into a single star (for small clouds) or a series of stars (as is believed to be the case for globular clusters). This process does not necessarily require a trigger such as a supernova. Collapse can occur naturally as a consequence of the accumulation of further gaseous material through internal motion within a galaxy. Triggered star formation can occur as a consequence of the shockwaves of a supernova (as was discussed), or through galactic collisions (when gravitational tidal forces may induce a Jeans instability). It is even theorized that radio emissions from supermassive black holes may contribute to stellar formation.

4.) Fred Williams and Bob Enyart raise issues with the formation of original stars, likening it to the chicken and the egg problem. However, the original formation of stars is likely the consequence of minor deviations in density in the moments immediately after the big bang, which are themselves likely the product of quantum fluctuations. At these higher density points, more mass could accumulate, which likely lead to the formation of galactic clusters; further density variation would have led to galaxies, and stars and so on.

Think of the meaning your mind has associated to the words in the response to the radio program:

not, entirely dependent, believed to be the case, not necessarily, can occur, or, may, theorized, likely, and could. These words are used by humans when the logic of their statements is questioned by their internal reasoning ability.

As a therapist, I am sensitized to be aware of how strongly people believe what they are saying is true. The presents of these words indicate that this is a rational sane individual who has doubts whether what he is saying is really a fact. I have told clients on many occasions that the human mind is not designed to prevaricate to others or itself. The presence of these words tends to prove my theory. These words constitute what their user might want to be aware of as the presence in their mind of an opinion not a fact.

[adsummum]

It is interesting that your first recourse in this discussion is neither a constructive rebuttal nor a well-reasoned argument but a textbook ad hominem attack.

[Fred Williams]

First, thanks for taking the time to listen to the show. I don't recall Bob or I claiming blue stars are the most common in the sky, if so we misspoke. But there are tons of them, so you calling them rare is like calling wheat-back pennies rare.

Our claim that ""the air we breathe contains a quadrillion times more particles than interstellar gas clouds" is pretty much as Dr. Danny Faulkner stated it (10^18 particles per cubic cm). So I'm more inclined to take the word of a scientist who I've met on many an occasion and know to be very meticulous, than someone from the Outback.

Finally, Mike's comments were not ad homenim. You indeed used many speculative words when presenting your guess to explain how all these stars have to periodically come into existence since they have very short lives, relatively speaking.

Fred

[MarkForbes]

not,  entirely dependent,  believed to be the case,  not necessarily,  can occur, or, may,    theorized, likely, and could.  These words are used by humans when the logic of their statements is questioned by their internal reasoning ability.

Yes, what he mentions maybe speculative and he also may be unsecure about the certainty of what is proposed, but one needs to address the core issue here. And that would be Jean's Mass and Jean's Instability.