Jump to content


Photo

Star Formation


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

#1 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 21 June 2011 - 06:38 PM

guys these guys are saying we are observing the birth of a star.

http://www.science20...irs2e_star_born

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 July 2011 - 03:13 PM

guys these guys are saying we are observing the birth of a star.

http://www.science20...irs2e_star_born


It's best to wait on this one.

Three times in the last five years evolutionists I have debated on certain issues had to eat their words when time and circumstances about those things were better understood by research and observation. :)

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 July 2011 - 05:20 AM

guys these guys are saying we are observing the birth of a star.

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/l1448irs2e_star_born

You know, I've wanted to do a thread on stars. Now I'm not a physics student at all. But I'm wondering--they say all these gases are being pulled together, so we're looking at the fuel for the proton proton cycle to start (theoretically the process that causes stars to burn). So how does a star ignite and burn for billions of years? They say it's a type of fusion. Well, why can't they just build a power plant that uses their theory for stars. They could just build it, start it, and just leave it alone (and I already know they'll tell me it only can happen to stars, because of the immense gravity)!! But this gravity thing is still a sort of circular reasoning. You can't go inside the sun to test it, and you can't produce anything like the sun. So it's all hypothesis.

So if they can't test it, I would say their multi-billion year burning theory is nothing but a disacknowledgement of God's eternal and invisible power? If you have gamma rays, heat, neutrinos, etc. leaving the sun (output) you have to have fuel (input).

Of course, scientists can't infer anything about a greater power. That would break their agnostic demarcation! :o I think the immense power of the sun and other stars is one of the greatest testaments to eternal power and wisdom. Man invents his "great swelling" intellectualism to eclipse it all (pun intended-lol), and smugly forgets what is actually happening in the universe! Namely, something he knows little about, and can by no means duplicate!!

#4 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 28 July 2011 - 11:50 PM

guys these guys are saying we are observing the birth of a star.

http://www.science20...irs2e_star_born

I just read the article and it sounds like they didn't actually see the star come into existence. They saw what they thought was a star in some kind of evolutionary phase, but its a star, already there, very far away, and surrounded by dust. The article says: "The team detected the faint light emitted by the dust surrounding the object." They saw a light by some dust very far away and said ah ha, there it is, the birth of a star. I don't think thats proof a storm formed. Also, if they can see these things, why don't they make videos so everyone else can see. Until I see what they see and see what they say is happening, a star coming into existence, I wouldn't believe it.

"Elohim made two great luminaries, the greater luminary for ruling the day and the smaller luminary for ruling the night, and also the stars. ... And evening came to be, and morning came to be: the fourth day." (Genesis 1:16 & 19)

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 July 2011 - 12:40 PM

I just read the article and it sounds like they didn't actually see the star come into existence. They saw what they thought was a star in some kind of evolutionary phase, but its a star, already there, very far away, and surrounded by dust. The article says: "The team detected the faint light emitted by the dust surrounding the object." They saw a light by some dust very far away and said ah ha, there it is, the birth of a star. I don't think thats proof a storm formed. Also, if they can see these things, why don't they make videos so everyone else can see. Until I see what they see and see what they say is happening, a star coming into existence, I wouldn't believe it.

"Elohim made two great luminaries, the greater luminary for ruling the day and the smaller luminary for ruling the night, and also the stars. ... And evening came to be, and morning came to be: the fourth day." (Genesis 1:16 & 19)


I agree. This is most certainly the case. I have never accepted the interstellar gas theory that gravitational forces can somehow create a star or a planet. Dissipation is the rule of physics in such matters, not fusion. Our own sun gives off billions of tons of spent fuel every day & it is eventually going to burn out. But where in our solar system is there a source of energy to replace such spent fuel...and where was the origin of such fuel to begin with? So far, the evolution astronomers haven't observed a single star form by natural processes.

#6 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 July 2011 - 01:05 PM

I agree. This is most certainly the case. I have never accepted the interstellar gas theory that gravitational forces can somehow create a star or a planet. Dissipation is the rule of physics in such matters, not fusion. Our own sun gives off billions of tons of spent fuel every day & it is eventually going to burn out. But where in our solar system is there a source of energy to replace such spent fuel...and where was the origin of such fuel to begin with? So far, the evolution astronomers haven't observed a single star form by natural processes.

Thanks Calypsis. I really don't know how anyone in their right mind could ever look at the sun, and not believe in God.
This totally puzzles me--that we think we could invent a theory about a process that "births" stars, when it is obvious there is nothing visibly maintaining stars. I mean how many joules per second is the sun putting out, and heat??? This is so much energy, and then they say in that space there is enough matter to burn for BILLIONS of years. Wow! Well even if this was the case, how did it get that way? What force concentrated that much matter in that space? Why would it just spontaneously fall in on itself like that, or whatever they fantasize it did?? I find this calm way of mathematically and scientifically ignoring unimaginable power quite frustrating! I know the Bible is correct when it says "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." 2 Corinthians 4:4

#7 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 30 July 2011 - 01:50 PM

What force concentrated that much matter in that space? Why would it just spontaneously fall in on itself like that, or whatever they fantasize it did??

Do they say gravity pulls the matter together to form the star? Do you know where they say the gravity would have come from that didn't exist prior to it pulling the matter in? Unless they say it always existed and one day just decided to start sucking up matter?

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:29 AM

Do they say gravity pulls the matter together to form the star? Do you know where they say the gravity would have come from that didn't exist prior to it pulling the matter in? Unless they say it always existed and one day just decided to start sucking up matter?

I am really not up on astronomy and physics. We used to have some people that would visit, that were more up on it. I just know inventing theories that give other caustation besides an outside power tend to defy common sense and the basic physics we all know, like centrifugal and centripital force. If this stuff is all spinning then it will go out, not in. And unless there is a force exerted from the outside perimeter, the matter won't compact into a smaller volume (look at a trash compacter). Or if there is a drawing force like gravity from within to pull it. But why would a powerful source of gravity just appear in space to pull all that matter in, especially if it it's spinning? And whatforce organizes the gases into a spin?

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22

#9 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:10 AM

Before answering specific questions, some things about stars and gravity:

Gravity is the physical phenomenon whereby physical objects exert an attractive force on each other relative to their mass. This attractive force was described by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity as matter bending the fabric of space and time. The classic analogy is heavy objects placed on a suspended blanket. Objects "fall" towards each other into the depressions caused by their relative masses - think of two billiard balls placed on the blanket, they will both cause the blanket to dip around them and they will move closer together.

A 'star' is nothing more than a huge accumulation of matter. And we're talking a really, really huge accumulation. The smallest observed star is around 96 times the mass of Jupiter, which is itself 317.83 times the mass of Earth. According to physics, the smallest POSSIBLE star would be 75 times the mass of Jupiter or 23,850 times the mass of Earth.

From your High School science classes you should remember that as more mass is compressed into a given space, the pressure and heat increase. When you're dealing with the huge amounts of matter in a star, the pressure and heat become so great that hydrogen (the primary component of the Universe and thus the primary component of stars) begins fusing into helium.

When hydrogen fuses into helium, mass is 'lost'. That is, one atom of helium has slightly less mass than two atoms of hydrogen. We know from Einstein's equation E=mc^2 that energy and mass are equivalent and that a reaction where mass is 'lost' will result in a comparatively huge release of energy. In the case of hydrogen fusion, each fusion reaction releases 17.59 MeV (million electron volts).

So, to answer specific questions:

The fuel or "input" as AFJ calls it is already present within the Sun itself. As far as constructing a sun here on Earth, the first successful hydrogen-fusion reaction created by man was the November 1, 1952 Ivy Mike Atomic Bomb test, so to a certain extent we have already constructed tiny suns here on Earth.

[

As for taking a video of star formation, it wouldn't necessarily be worth watching given 1) the length of time it takes for a star to form and 2) the distance at which these events are taking place. In the case of L1448-IRS2E, the object in question in the article, the distance is 800 light-years or 4,702,900,298,546,886 miles. In any case we at least have photographs of the object.

Posted Image

Chris and AFJ - in regards to your questions about gravity and where it 'comes' from, it is not necessary for an outside force to "push" matter together, nor is it necessary for a "source" of gravity to appear. ALL matter is inherently a source of gravity as described in the Theory of General Relativity (a theory which has been confirmed by experiment) merely by existing and bending space and time around it. As described above in the blanket analogy, more matter means a deeper depression which causes matter to compress more tightly. For example, here on Earth differences in the force of gravity can be measured at different altitudes. You weigh less at the top of a mountain than you do at the bottom of a mine-shaft.

I hope this has answered some of your questions about stars and gravity and how they form.

-Chanzui.

#10 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:33 AM

the length of time it takes for a star to form

How long would it take and if it is a long time, couldn't they just speed up the video?

In the case of L1448-IRS2E, the object in question in the article, the distance is 800 light-years or 4,702,900,298,546,886 miles.

Seeing a video from the same distance they see these things would be fine.

In any case we at least have photographs of the object.

A picture dosen't really show a before and after or more specifically nothing there and then something there, but even if it and a movie did, like you said, its so far away, couldn't it be possible that something out there was just in the stars way and then it moved out of the way, revealing the star?

Thanks for providing answers too.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:50 AM

Here's the problem. The vacuum of space pulls things apart from being compressed. And we don't know what gravity is, it's source, or how it forms if it forms at all. Also to create a star the gravity strength has to surpass a certain point to start the fusion required. Then you have to have all the right gasses at the right ratios.

Basically you don't just get a gas cloud that = stars forming. If science says that's how it happens, and imply that their idea meets empirical standards. They need to be able to answer these questions:

1) How do you get just the right gasses needed in one place considering the vastness of space?
2) Since the vacuum of space would pull apart any effort for gas molecules to get together, How would "gravity" form to achieve this? Does gravity just form anywhere in space to pull matter together to form everything?
3) Gravity forming right where it's needed to do this is very unlikely unless someone can explain this process of what causes gravity to exist?

Nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more atomic nuclei join together, or "fuse", to form a single heavier nucleus. This is why gravity is important. It's the only force that will pull things together and has to be strong enough to make this fusion happen. No fusion no light, no light no star.

The fuel or "input" as AFJ calls it is already present within the Sun itself. As far as constructing a sun here on Earth, the first successful hydrogen-fusion reaction created by man was the November 1, 1952 Ivy Mike Atomic Bomb test, so to a certain extent we have already constructed tiny suns here on Earth.


And the reason these suns did not continue to exist is because there was no center point of gravity to hold them together.

As for taking a video of star formation, it wouldn't necessarily be worth watching given 1) the length of time it takes for a star to form and 2) the distance at which these events are taking place. In the case of L1448-IRS2E, the object in question in the article, the distance is 800 light-years or 4,702,900,298,546,886 miles. In any case we at least have photographs of the object.


I often find that science uses the time excuse for not having empirical evidences for the claims.

Chris and AFJ - in regards to your questions about gravity and where it 'comes' from, it is not necessary for an outside force to "push" matter together, nor is it necessary for a "source" of gravity to appear. ALL matter is inherently a source of gravity as described in the Theory of General Relativity (a theory which has been confirmed by experiment) merely by existing and bending space and time around it. As described above in the blanket analogy, more matter means a deeper depression which causes matter to compress more tightly. For example, here on Earth differences in the force of gravity can be measured at different altitudes. You weigh less at the top of a mountain than you do at the bottom of a mine-shaft.

I hope this has answered some of your questions about stars and gravity and how they form.


You are grasping here. General Relativity is a theory, not a law as you try to imply here.

Gravity reaches out from it's source (earth) in your example. Even a black hole requires the collapse of a dieing star. Gravity just does not just poof itself into existence. Also you are implying more than what General Relativity explains.

Example:
1) Can you explain the step by step process on how gravity forms?
2) Can you explain step by step the process for which space-time makes gravity?

#12 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:36 AM

Here's the problem. The vacuum of space pulls things apart from being compressed. And we don't know what gravity is, it's source, or how it forms if it forms at all. Also to create a star the gravity strength has to surpass a certain point to start the fusion required. Then you have to have all the right gasses at the right ratios.


No, the vacuum of space doesn't "pull things apart". A vacuum is simply a volume of space which is largely devoid of matter, it does not exert force.

1) How do you get just the right gasses needed in one place considering the vastness of space?
2) Since the vacuum of space would pull apart any effort for gas molecules to get together, How would "gravity" form to achieve this? Does gravity just form anywhere in space to pull matter together to form everything?
3) Gravity forming right where it's needed to do this is very unlikely unless someone can explain this process of what causes gravity to exist?


1) Stars are almost entirely hydrogen and the Universe is about 75% hydrogen. Any accumulation of matter is therefore likely to be "just right". Also, Gravity is the force which brings matter together.
2) As stated above, no vacuums don't do that. And yes, gravity does just 'form' anywhere in space.
3) Someone did explain the process of gravity and the explanation is called the Theory of General Relativity.

You are grasping here. General Relativity is a theory, not a law as you try to imply here.


General Relativity is as well supported by empirical evidence as any of the Thermodynamic Laws and in fact is superior to Newton's Laws of Motion which it superseded. (Einstein's work explained an observed change in the orbit of Mercury which could not be explained using Classical Mechanics).

Gravity reaches out from it's source (earth) in your example. Even a black hole requires the collapse of a dieing star. Gravity just does not just poof itself into existence. Also you are implying more than what General Relativity explains.

Example:
1) Can you explain the step by step process on how gravity forms?
2) Can you explain step by step the process for which space-time makes gravity?


General Relativity IS the explanation of Gravity. That's exactly and totally what it is. It is the answer to both of your questions, how gravity 'forms' and the process by which space-time makes gravity. Unfortunately my physics is only that of a layperson and is insufficient to make sense of Einstein's equations. I know enough to know that they are the answers you're looking for and that, if you really want to understand them all you need do is take a few classes in physics at your local University.

#13 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:29 PM

No, the vacuum of space doesn't "pull things apart". A vacuum is simply a volume of space which is largely devoid of matter, it does not exert force.



1) Stars are almost entirely hydrogen and the Universe is about 75% hydrogen. Any accumulation of matter is therefore likely to be "just right". Also, Gravity is the force which brings matter together.
2) As stated above, no vacuums don't do that. And yes, gravity does just 'form' anywhere in space.
3) Someone did explain the process of gravity and the explanation is called the Theory of General Relativity.



General Relativity is as well supported by empirical evidence as any of the Thermodynamic Laws and in fact is superior to Newton's Laws of Motion which it superseded. (Einstein's work explained an observed change in the orbit of Mercury which could not be explained using Classical Mechanics).



General Relativity IS the explanation of Gravity. That's exactly and totally what it is. It is the answer to both of your questions, how gravity 'forms' and the process by which space-time makes gravity. Unfortunately my physics is only that of a layperson and is insufficient to make sense of Einstein's equations. I know enough to know that they are the answers you're looking for and that, if you really want to understand them all you need do is take a few classes in physics at your local University.

Hey, what about me? lol

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:09 PM

No, the vacuum of space doesn't "pull things apart". A vacuum is simply a volume of space which is largely devoid of matter, it does not exert force.


If you take a jar with air in it at sea level, put a lid on it. Then take it into space, what happens when you open it? It will pull the air out and pull the air molecules apart. Vacuum does this. Where there is pressure and no other force holding things together. The vacuum of space will pull them apart.

1) Stars are almost entirely hydrogen and the Universe is about 75% hydrogen. Any accumulation of matter is therefore likely to be "just right". Also, Gravity is the force which brings matter together.
2) As stated above, no vacuums don't do that. And yes, gravity does just 'form' anywhere in space.
3) Someone did explain the process of gravity and the explanation is called the Theory of General Relativity.



1) All stars start out with 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium, with other trace elements. Over time, stars convert some of their hydrogen into helium. That’s why our Sun’s ratio is more like 70% hydrogen and 29% helium. Also you cannot prove that an exact ratio of what needed to make stars exists all through the universe or where ever needed. If the universe were so balanced, the planets in our solar system would all be the same as earth. But they are not, which proves my point.
2) Vacuum does as I explained above this post. And if gravity just forms anywhere, then our planet would not exist because it would have been already destroyed by gravity that just forms anywhere.
3) It's not a law, right? It's not a law, right? It's not a law, right? I'll keep asking the question until you answer it. Dodging the question that makes you face real reality does not change reality.

General Relativity is as well supported by empirical evidence as any of the Thermodynamic Laws and in fact is superior to Newton's Laws of Motion which it superseded. (Einstein's work explained an observed change in the orbit of Mercury which could not be explained using Classical Mechanics).


Is it a law yet? Is it a law yet? Is it a law yet?

General Relativity IS the explanation of Gravity. That's exactly and totally what it is. It is the answer to both of your questions, how gravity 'forms' and the process by which space-time makes gravity. Unfortunately my physics is only that of a layperson and is insufficient to make sense of Einstein's equations. I know enough to know that they are the answers you're looking for and that, if you really want to understand them all you need do is take a few classes in physics at your local University.


Let my school you for a minute.

1) A theory has to be falsifiable, or it's not a theory. You are trying to imply that this is not falsifiable.
2) A law never changes unless the condition in which it works changes. But the foundation of how the law works remains the same. This is what you are trying to imply which does not work. Understand? And as long as you do this, I will point out that you are wrong.

So answer the question:
Is it a law that never changes, or a theory that has to remain falsifiable?

#15 Basin

Basin

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:All subsections of physics, really.
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:25 AM

If you take a jar with air in it at sea level, put a lid on it. Then take it into space, what happens when you open it? It will pull the air out and pull the air molecules apart. Vacuum does this. Where there is pressure and no other force holding things together. The vacuum of space will pull them apart.


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.

1) All stars start out with 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium, with other trace elements. Over time, stars convert some of their hydrogen into helium. That's why our Sun's ratio is more like 70% hydrogen and 29% helium. Also you cannot prove that an exact ratio of what needed to make stars exists all through the universe or where ever needed. If the universe were so balanced, the planets in our solar system would all be the same as earth. But they are not, which proves my point.
2) Vacuum does as I explained above this post. And if gravity just forms anywhere, then our planet would not exist because it would have been already destroyed by gravity that just forms anywhere.
3) It's not a law, right? It's not a law, right? It's not a law, right? I'll keep asking the question until you answer it. Dodging the question that makes you face real reality does not change reality.


1) Your English is very poorly constructed, so I'm not surprised you so often accuse people of not answering your question when it's almost impossible to tell what you're asking. You've said you can't prove what ratio is needed to create a star but at the beginning of your statement you said exactly what stars start out with - aren't you kind of shooting yourself in the foot? There is no ratio of gases needed to start a star. You just need enough mass to create pressure high enough to start nuclear fusion in the core of the star, and then enough hydrogen to fuel this fusion. It's not as if you need a perfect, exact formula to create a star - you just need enough hydrogen and that's it. You also don't seem to understand how solar systems are formed - when a very young star (protostar) has just started fusion, it continues to capture dust and gas into its orbit. This dust collects together to form the planets but notice I said orbit - the particles are spinning round the star and so therefore due to various conservation laws the lighter elements move further away from the star and heavier elements move closer towards it. That's why the rocky planets like Mercury and Earth are close to the Sun, and gaseous planets like Uranus and Saturn are further away.

2) As Chanzui has said, gravity does not 'form', gravity 'is'. A gravitational field is an intrinsic property of mass in space. All matter has always had a gravitational field since the Universe began, and always will do. Nothing special reaction has to occur, matter doesn't just 'decide' to have a gravitational field. I won't go into the origin of the Universe argument here because I'm sure it's being heatedly debated in other threads.

3) Childishly repeating a phrase does not make you right. No, General Relativity is NOT a law, it is a theory. Laws can't be used to explain anything because laws are merely descriptive. Newton's Law of Gravity says that if you hold a ball in the air and let go it will fall to the ground. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity says that if you hold a ball in the air and let go, it will drop to the ground because of the distortions in space-time caused by the mass of the Earth as Chanzui explained in an earlier post. Theories explain things, laws describe things. And yes, there is empirical, observable evidence for General Relativity. If you take an appropriately powerful telescope to the sky and look at a large star, you will see circular distortions in the light around the star, an effect called 'gravitational lensing'.
Posted Image
This is because of the fact that the star bends the light rays from bodies behind it, that would have otherwise missed the Earth, on a path towards us. This was predicted by General Relativity, which perfectly explains it. You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what laws and theories are in that calling relativity a law would be counter-productive as laws are less useful for explaining things than theories are.

Is it a law yet? Is it a law yet? Is it a law yet?


Are you really 48? You're acting like a 10-year-old in the back of a car.

Let my school you for a minute.

1) A theory has to be falsifiable, or it's not a theory. You are trying to imply that this is not falsifiable.
2) A law never changes unless the condition in which it works changes. But the foundation of how the law works remains the same. This is what you are trying to imply which does not work. Understand? And as long as you do this, I will point out that you are wrong.

So answer the question:
Is it a law that never changes, or a theory that has to remain falsifiable?


1) No he isn't trying to say that. Only a fool would say relativity is falsifiable. For example in the light-distortion by stars in my example above, if these distortions weren't observed, relativity would be easily falsified because relativity says it should happen. If they didn't distort the light, the theory would be wrong and therefore stop being a theory.
2) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, could you clarify? Either way, as I've said Relativity is NOT even close to a law nor will it ever be, so it's kind of irrelevant.

And as to your final question: again I don't have a clue what you're saying or why it's even relevant. In answer to what I think you're trying to say, relativity is a theory. And as such yes, it has to (and indeed does) remain falsifiable. The idea that a theory can at one point be falsifiable and then not be is ludicrous anyway.

#16 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:31 AM

nvm. not worth it.

#17 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 03 August 2011 - 01:03 AM

Let my school you for a minute.

1) A theory has to be falsifiable, or it's not a theory. You are trying to imply that this is not falsifiable.
2) A law never changes unless the condition in which it works changes. But the foundation of how the law works remains the same. This is what you are trying to imply which does not work. Understand? And as long as you do this, I will point out that you are wrong.

So answer the question:
Is it a law that never changes, or a theory that has to remain falsifiable?


If Laws never change, why was Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation unable to properly predict the orbit of Mercury while the Theory of General Relativity was?

#18 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:51 AM

"And the reason these suns did not continue to exist is because there was no center point of gravity to hold them together."

What an incredible point.This is almost certainly the very reason no one has ever observed swirling matter become a star nor even a planet.

#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:58 AM

Basin

"Your English is very poorly constructed, so I'm not surprised you so often accuse people of not answering your question when it's almost impossible to tell what you're asking.

Are you really 48? You're acting like a 10-year-old in the back of a car."

You better watch it, fella. Everyone makes typos. I understood exactly what he was saying.Forces in the universe subject to entropy will naturally dissipate...unless they are created with a degree of order. The order, however, will not increase; it decreases with time.

#20 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 07:31 PM

Are you really 48? You're acting like a 10-year-old in the back of a car."

You better watch it, fella. Everyone makes typos. I understood exactly what he was saying.Forces in the universe subject to entropy will naturally dissipate...unless they are created with a degree of order. The order, however, will not increase; it decreases with time.


I don't think the "10-yr-old in the back of a car" comment was regarding typos, though. It was probably directed at "childishly" repeating the cute (yet fallacious) phrase "is it a law yet? is it a law yet?" over and over which is, understandably, obnoxious to someone who has already explained to the questioner why the phrase is meaningless.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users