Jump to content


Photo

Oops, There Is Water On The Moon

results ignored

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

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 04 June 2012 - 09:13 PM

http://phys.org/news...t.html#firstCmt


The article makes a glaring statment, and I think it is correct. These results were ignored.


I had a chuckle about the comment posted on the 1st of June, (kevinrtrs) since these findings defies the evolutionist "theory" that the moon formed via an impact.... (Which is ridiculous via other modes of investigation anyway, which have been discussed previously)

#2 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:46 AM

http://phys.org/news...t.html#firstCmt
The article makes a glaring statment, and I think it is correct. These results were ignored.
I had a chuckle about the comment posted on the 1st of June, (kevinrtrs) since these findings defies the evolutionist "theory" that the moon formed via an impact.... (Which is ridiculous via other modes of investigation anyway, which have been discussed previously)


Yeah, what that person wrote was quite funny. I do wonder what cosmology has to do with evolution.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:47 AM

Yeah, what that person wrote was quite funny. I do wonder what cosmology has to do with evolution.


Its to do with the formation of planets, and the supposed "millions" of years it took... Take away the "millions" of years and then there is not enough time for evolution to occur

#4 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:26 AM

Its to do with the formation of planets, and the supposed "millions" of years it took... Take away the "millions" of years and then there is not enough time for evolution to occur


So is the thinking here:

There is water on the moon => The moon wasn't formed by a collision => The earth & moon didn't form over millions of years => Evolution couldn't happen ?

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:27 AM

So is the thinking here:

There is water on the moon => The moon wasn't formed by a collision => The earth & moon didn't form over millions of years => Evolution couldn't happen ?


Pretty much.

Though whoever thinks its from a collision is pretty daft, since the moon is a spherical object, how many spheres has anyone seen produced from collisions? Could go on but won't

#6 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:21 AM

Pretty much.

Though whoever thinks its from a collision is pretty daft, since the moon is a spherical object, how many spheres has anyone seen produced from collisions? Could go on but won't

Any object above a certain size (the exact limit varies depending on composition) will be a sphere due to it's own gravity.

The principle is called hydrostatic equilibrium or you may find it helpful to google "why are planets round".
http://en.wikipedia....tic_equilibrium

According to the definition of planet adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 2006, planets and dwarf planets are objects that have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium
....
The smallest object known to be in hydrostatic equilibrium is the icy moon Mimas at 397 km, while the largest object known not to be is the rocky asteroid Pallas at 532 km.

For comparison, the moon has a diameter of about 3400 km.

#7 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:34 AM

The smallest object known to be in hydrostatic equilibrium is the icy moon Mimas at 397 km, while the largest object known not to be is the rocky asteroid Pallas at 532 km.


Very interesting.
I suppose the size difference is because ice is less rigid than rock ?

EDIT : How about that, I've got an avatar now ! I am stupidly pleased with it :D

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:19 AM

Any object above a certain size (the exact limit varies depending on composition) will be a sphere due to it's own gravity.

The principle is called hydrostatic equilibrium or you may find it helpful to google "why are planets round".
http://en.wikipedia....tic_equilibrium

According to the definition of planet adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 2006, planets and dwarf planets are objects that have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium
....
The smallest object known to be in hydrostatic equilibrium is the icy moon Mimas at 397 km, while the largest object known not to be is the rocky asteroid Pallas at 532 km.

For comparison, the moon has a diameter of about 3400 km.


One problem your answer assumes that all planets were liquid.... Considering the name hydrostatic equilibrium this should be self-evident...


Perhaps try again

#9 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 07 June 2012 - 01:34 PM

One problem your answer assumes that all planets were liquid.... Considering the name hydrostatic equilibrium this should be self-evident...


Perhaps try again

1. The moon is assumed to have been at least partially molten at some point as were pretty much all the rocky planets (earth for example is still partially liquid).

2. Don't get caught up on the name, it is not required that all planets were once liquid, merely that they deform under their own gravity. The amount of force a rock can withstand to hold it's shape is basically a constant for a given shape. Gravity is a force that isn't a constant, it can increase via accumulation of mass and eventually exceed the strength of any given rock. When that happens the rock deforms until its new shape can withstand the pressure and there is a state of equilibrium. The type of deformation can be elastic, plastic or fracture depending on the exact circumstances. For elastic or plastic deformation the rock will bend* or squash into a new shape. If fracture occurs the rock will be breaking down into smaller components which will form a more rounded shape. Either way, it's perfectly fine to use a concept from fluid mechanics for a solid that can't maintain it's shape.

*I know some creationists like to claim that rock can't bend in order to say that uncracked folded rock layers were created by a flood. Rock will deform under pressure and/or heat just like any other solid. Look up plastic deformation if you need further details.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 08 June 2012 - 06:42 PM

1. The moon is assumed to have been at least partially molten at some point as were pretty much all the rocky planets (earth for example is still partially liquid).

2. Don't get caught up on the name, it is not required that all planets were once liquid, merely that they deform under their own gravity. The amount of force a rock can withstand to hold it's shape is basically a constant for a given shape. Gravity is a force that isn't a constant, it can increase via accumulation of mass and eventually exceed the strength of any given rock. When that happens the rock deforms until its new shape can withstand the pressure and there is a state of equilibrium. The type of deformation can be elastic, plastic or fracture depending on the exact circumstances. For elastic or plastic deformation the rock will bend* or squash into a new shape. If fracture occurs the rock will be breaking down into smaller components which will form a more rounded shape. Either way, it's perfectly fine to use a concept from fluid mechanics for a solid that can't maintain it's shape.

*I know some creationists like to claim that rock can't bend in order to say that uncracked folded rock layers were created by a flood. Rock will deform under pressure and/or heat just like any other solid. Look up plastic deformation if you need further details.



Firstly what empirical evidence do you have to support this.... How many planets have they observed or tested this MODEL on?

Considering that the planets are claimed to be made up of dust they wouldn't even have the gravity to come together in the first place... owing to Boyles gas law... increasing pressure outwards and the negative pressure of space pulling outwards too.

Furthermore when the rock cracks and breaks into smaller pieces as you said there is no way to get them to reform again unless you claim that somehow gravity is capable of the extreme temperature to melt rock..... in space... (Do you see why I think this is absolutely ludicrous, it defies what we already know about nature)


Plastic deformation... so the planets are plastic now? :P First liquid now plastic seems like you're drawing from models for other materials rather than what planets are actually derived from

#11 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 08 June 2012 - 09:51 PM

Firstly what empirical evidence do you have to support this.... How many planets have they observed or tested this MODEL on?

The earth's crust sags and bends under the weight of large mountains and glaciers, that's a direct observation of rock deforming under the effect of gravity. There are places where the crust is still undergoing rebound after the retreat of the glaciers from the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia....ostatic_rebound


Considering that the planets are claimed to be made up of dust they wouldn't even have the gravity to come together in the first place... owing to Boyles gas law... increasing pressure outwards and the negative pressure of space pulling outwards too.

1. Dust isn't gas, it doesn't expand to fill available volume so boyle's law doesn't apply. Gas laws would only affect gas giants or the atmosphere of planets, neither of those has anything to do with why rocky planets and moons are round.
2. Space doesn't have negative pressure, it has 0 pressure.
3. Gravity is based on mass, not particle size or phase. A kg of dust has the same gravity as a kg of anything else.

Furthermore when the rock cracks and breaks into smaller pieces as you said there is no way to get them to reform again unless you claim that somehow gravity is capable of the extreme temperature to melt rock..... in space... (Do you see why I think this is absolutely ludicrous, it defies what we already know about nature)

Pressure from gravity, radioactive decay, and energy from impacts would be the primary sources of heat to melt rock in space. If you're having trouble with the idea of melted rock in space, it may help to remember that the earth is basically a large ball of mostly melted rock floating in space.

Plastic deformation... so the planets are plastic now? :P First liquid now plastic seems like you're drawing from models for other materials rather than what planets are actually derived from

Plastic deformation is a material science term that refers to permanent changes in shape of solids. It has absolutely nothing to do with polymer plastic, just like elastic deformation has nothing to do with rubber bands. I'd highly recommend looking up what terms mean before assuming just from the name.

http://en.wikipedia....y_%28physics%29
Plastic deformation is observed in most materials including metals, soils, rocks, concrete, foams, bone and skin.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 08 June 2012 - 11:23 PM

The earth's crust sags and bends under the weight of large mountains and glaciers, that's a direct observation of rock deforming under the effect of gravity. There are places where the crust is still undergoing rebound after the retreat of the glaciers from the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia....ostatic_rebound



1. Dust isn't gas, it doesn't expand to fill available volume so boyle's law doesn't apply. Gas laws would only affect gas giants or the atmosphere of planets, neither of those has anything to do with why rocky planets and moons are round.
2. Space doesn't have negative pressure, it has 0 pressure.
3. Gravity is based on mass, not particle size or phase. A kg of dust has the same gravity as a kg of anything else.


Pressure from gravity, radioactive decay, and energy from impacts would be the primary sources of heat to melt rock in space. If you're having trouble with the idea of melted rock in space, it may help to remember that the earth is basically a large ball of mostly melted rock floating in space.


Plastic deformation is a material science term that refers to permanent changes in shape of solids. It has absolutely nothing to do with polymer plastic, just like elastic deformation has nothing to do with rubber bands. I'd highly recommend looking up what terms mean before assuming just from the name.

http://en.wikipedia....y_%28physics%29
Plastic deformation is observed in most materials including metals, soils, rocks, concrete, foams, bone and skin.


So your empirical evidence has no correlation to what you are claiming.... In other words you're using your own imagination to allude to this conclusion from observations from something totally different... (I am sure there are no mountains inside the dust cloud)... That is not science, nor is it logical. Actual empirical evidence would be to observe gas / dust clouds in space and watch to see if gravity itself plays a role in keeping the cloud compact, if the cloud is quite spaced out, then that is evidence that gravity is not strong enough to compact the cloud into a solid. If the cloud is observed to be very compact in reference to the amount of particles and was getting more compact then that would be evidence of your claims. Perhaps you should take your ques from reality rather than the evolutionary model of imagination.


Yes dust isn't gas in and of itself, yet when it is proposed that planets form from clouds of gas and dust particles the dust would be displaying "gas like" qualities... the formation of a cloud for example... which therefore would entail Boyle's gas law which renders this model of planet formation against natural law.

http://en.wikipedia....he_Solar_System


Yes a kilo of dust is a kilo however considering that out in space, spaceships which weighed many tonnes didn't have their own noticeable gravity fields means that the gravity caused via a kilo of dust is effectively zero. Furthermore, you may want to have empirical evidence that such negligible gravity would cause the attraction required to form solid rock.
Considering that whilst a kilo of dust is a kilo, a dust particle itself is much much much lighter and therefore its amount of gravity in respect to other particles of the dust cloud would be much much much less than negligible. Its not a matter of how much dust there is it's a matter of much much attraction do each particles have in reference to each other to allow them to compact, in this scenario the gravity between dust particles, (which is the essential thing), is absolutely tiny, so tiny in fact I am sure that the impact of bouncing off each other would force the particles away sometimes so far that they would not be held within the gravity field of the other particle, hence a cloud of such particles bumping into each other would be rendered to be a large cloud for an indefinite amount of time... Perhaps keep that in mind.

Perhaps you should make reference to HOW these rocks melt in space, the fact that Earth has molten rock within it is not evidence of your claims, nor is it logical to claim as such. I was asking you HOW do small fragments that get broken have the energy to melt, and stay molten for any period of time. Considering that molten rock is about 700 to 1300 degrees C and that the temperature in space is around -274 degrees C, the arbitrary heat caused from "impacts", "pressure" (which is very small when you consider what I said before about dust particle's gravity in reference to each other), and "radiation" ... which this link claims is a mere 3 kelvin... (though I am sure it is coming from the stars, therefore in this scenario, the formation of stars and planets it would effectively be zero anyway.... unless you are positing that dust and gas have some other form of radiation?)

http://imagine.gsfc....rs/980301b.html


Again reality defies your imaginary expectations

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:57 PM

Planets are only observed to disintegrate.

Doomed Worlds: Planets Seen Disrupting, Not Forming

Much as astrobiologists would like to see the birth of a new planet, the ones we observe seem to be dying, not being born.

Newly found planet may turn into dust,” reads a headline on NASA’s Astrobiology Net. This does not bode well for any inhabitants the astrobiologists would like to meet. Echoing a press release from MIT, the article described how a planet around a star 1,500 light-years away appears to have a comet-like tail, evidence of a cloud of dust following the planet as it disintegrates.

http://crev.info/201...ng-not-forming/

#14 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:06 PM

The big bang is merely a silly story bearing no relationship to natural law as known on earth.
Gravity being the weakest force in the known universe proves that an outside force was required to clump matter into gravitational centers.
The least amount of energy is sufficient to overcome matter that isn't clumped.
If dust in space cools it doesn't condense unless a large center of gravity already exists, because each particle keeps it's own trajectory.
If all matter once existed in one locale as if by magic, and expanded, then no tragectories to the contrary would exist since the expansion force must be reasoned the greater of all forces.

But, why labor against what the Hubble Telescope proved to everyone with clear eyes and no tinted glasses?
The universe is the same visually out to far past a hundred billion light years.
That is not possible without a creator.

The notion that a cold dead rock called the moon was created by rocks just happening to want to herd together for no rason is pathetic theorizing isn't it.
You can't reason the moon flew here from the great beyond and obtained a orbit that 1) has a orbital period equal to its axial rotation as seen from earth 2) just happens to provide a designer's touche' for creating the correct tidal forces to oxygenate the oceans for life and the cleanliness that goes with it, which provides mankind good evening light at harvest time for overtime benefits of work and pay.
And, who thinks that all meteors that land on the moon never do so obliquely?
Lets get real...shall we? Where are the skid marks...so to speak?

If I didn't know any better about modern myth making consensus science larnin', I would be led to think that the moon was created by God boiling rock hot and then snap frozen.
But, where is the evidence of God in a conjectured universe where chance rules in such manner as to always accidentally produce the appearance of design everywhere.?
I think God has the educated liars who lie about about his handiwork caught in their own useless, and foolish devices, which designed to lead men away from truth and comprehension.

The darkness compehendeth it not.

Water on the moon is likely due to its expulsion from the earth when the windows of heaven openened and the flood began as scheduled..


#15 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 June 2012 - 07:59 AM

Firstly what empirical evidence do you have to support this.... How many planets have they observed or tested this MODEL on?

The fact that gravity makes planets round is undeniable.

#16 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 10 June 2012 - 08:18 AM

So your empirical evidence has no correlation to what you are claiming.... In other words you're using your own imagination to allude to this conclusion from the observations from something totally different... That is not science, nor is it logical. Actual empirical evidence would be to observe gas / dust clouds in space and watch to see if gravity itself plays a role in keeping the cloud compact, if the cloud is quite spaced out, then that is evidence that gravity is not strong enough to compact the cloud into a solid. If the cloud is observed to be very compact in reference to the amount of particles and was getting more compact then that would be evidence of your claims. Perhaps you should take your ques from reality rather than the evolutionary model of imagination.

You've lost me here. You originally wanted to know how rocky planets get to be spheres. I told you the principle behind it and then gave you an example of earth deforming and becoming more spherical that can be measured directly. Now you are talking about gas clouds but rocky planets aren't formed from gas. If you want an example of gravity keeping gas together just look at jupiter. It's a big ball of gas held together by gravity.

Let's perform a thought experiment to show that gravity can pull gas together.
If you cut jupiter in half and moved each half a few feet apart, would the two halves...
A. fly apart
or
B. be pulled back together by gravity
(The answer is b )
Now repeat this idea, but cut jupiter into quarters instead. The pieces will still be pulled together by gravity.
Repeat, each time cutting jupiter into smaller and smaller pieces. As long as certain conditions are met (such as not giving the pieces escape velocity) gravity will pull the gas back together.

Jean's instability will give you the math for when gas clouds collapse vs expand.
http://en.wikipedia....ans_instability
http://burro.astr.cw...ycle/jeans.html

Yes dust isn't gas in and of itself, yet when it is proposed that planets form from clouds of gas and dust particles the dust would be displaying "gas like" qualities... the formation of a cloud for example... which therefore would entail Boyle's gas law which renders this model of planet formation against natural law.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Solar_System

Where in that article does it suggest that dust behaves like a gas? Could you provide some evidence that there's a violation of natural law, perhaps by setting the force of gravity F(g) against the force of pressure of a gas F(p) and showing that there are no conditions where gravitational pull F(g) is greater than the force of pressure F(p).

I'll get you started, F(g) = G (M1 * M2) / r^2 and PV=nRT where P=F(p)/r^2.
F(g) = the force of gravity
F(p) = force due to pressure
G = the gravitational constant
M1 = mass 1 (the mass of the portion of the cloud with gravitational impact on a particle)
M2 = mass 2 (the mass of a particle)
r = the distance between the center of mass and a particle
P = pressure
V = volume
n= number of particles
R = the gas constant
T= temperature

Just rearrange these equations to show that there are no values of M1, M2, r, n, V, and T which cause F(g) to be bigger than F(p) and you've got yourself a concrete proof. If there are values for these variables that cause F(g) to be bigger than F(p) then you can't claim that gas laws overcome gravity at all times.

Yes a kilo of dust is a kilo however considering that out in space, spaceships which weighed many tonnes didn't have their own noticeable gravity fields means that the gravity caused via a kilo of dust is effectively zero. Furthermore, you may want to have empirical evidence that such negligible gravity would cause the attraction required to form solid rock.
Considering that whilst a kilo of dust is a kilo, a dust particle itself is much much much lighter and therefore its amount of gravity in respect to other particles of the dust cloud would be much much much less than negligible. Its not a matter of how much dust there is it's a matter of much much attraction do each particles have in reference to each other to allow them to compact, in this scenario the gravity between dust particles, (which is the essential thing), is absolutely tiny, so tiny in fact I am sure that impacts would force the particles away so far that they would not be held within the gravity field of the other particle, hence a cloud of such particles bumping into each other would be rendered to be a large cloud indefinitely... Perhaps keep that in mind.


The bolded part is not physically possible, a cloud of dust can't stay a cloud indefinitely without an influx of energy, collisions are not perfectly elastic, kinetic energy is lost via inelastic collision causing the particles to slow down.

Gravity is cumulative, if there's a mass of dust M that covers a region of a certain volume, anything outside that volume will experience a gravitational pull proportional to the total mass M. It doesn't matter what size the individual particles in that region are. Example, if the moon were expanded into a cloud 400,000 km wide with the center of gravity at the same location it is now, the earth would experience the same gravitational pull as it does now with the moon as a solid mass.
At small scales, electrostatic forces also plays a role in dust particles sticking together and clumping up.

Perhaps you should make reference to HOW these rocks melt in space, the fact that Earth has molten rock within it is not evidence of your claims, nor is it logical to claim as such. I was asking you HOW do small fragments that get broken have the energy to melt, and stay molten for any period of time. Considering that molten rock is about 700 to 1300 degrees C and that the temperature in space is around -274 degrees C, the arbitrary heat caused from "impacts", "pressure" (which is very small when you consider what I said before about dust particle's gravity in reference to each other), and "radiation" ... which this link claims is a mere 3 kelvin.

http://imagine.gsfc....rs/980301b.html

Again reality defies your imaginary expectations


I don't know why you are asking about melting small fragments, It's only when discussing large collisions or you start getting to planet or moon size that pressure and heat start accumulating to high levels. Here's an example of a asteroid made up of a collection of bits and pieces.
http://news.softpedi...ble-25446.shtml

I said that radioactive decay causes heat, not microwave background radiation, they are two different things. The Uranium decay chain is the source of a large amount of heat.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:00 AM

1. You've lost me here. You originally wanted to know how rocky planets get to be spheres. I told you the principle behind it and then gave you an example of earth deforming and becoming more spherical that can be measured directly.

2. Now you are talking about gas clouds but rocky planets aren't formed from gas. If you want an example of gravity keeping gas together just look at jupiter. It's a big ball of gas held together by gravity.

3. Let's perform a thought experiment to show that gravity can pull gas together.
If you cut jupiter in half and moved each half a few feet apart, would the two halves...
A. fly apart
or
B. be pulled back together by gravity
(The answer is b )
Now repeat this idea, but cut jupiter into quarters instead. The pieces will still be pulled together by gravity.
Repeat, each time cutting jupiter into smaller and smaller pieces. As long as certain conditions are met (such as not giving the pieces escape velocity) gravity will pull the gas back together.

Jean's instability will give you the math for when gas clouds collapse vs expand.
http://en.wikipedia....ans_instability
http://burro.astr.cw...ycle/jeans.html


Where in that article does it suggest that dust behaves like a gas? Could you provide some evidence that there's a violation of natural law, perhaps by setting the force of gravity F(g) against the force of pressure of a gas F(p) and showing that there are no conditions where gravitational pull F(g) is greater than the force of pressure F(p).

I'll get you started, F(g) = G (M1 * M2) / r^2 and PV=nRT where P=F(p)/r^2.
F(g) = the force of gravity
F(p) = force due to pressure
G = the gravitational constant
M1 = mass 1 (the mass of the portion of the cloud with gravitational impact on a particle)
M2 = mass 2 (the mass of a particle)
r = the distance between the center of mass and a particle
P = pressure
V = volume
n= number of particles
R = the gas constant
T= temperature

Just rearrange these equations to show that there are no values of M1, M2, r, n, V, and T which cause F(g) to be bigger than F(p) and you've got yourself a concrete proof. If there are values for these variables that cause F(g) to be bigger than F(p) then you can't claim that gas laws overcome gravity at all times.



5. The bolded part is not physically possible, a cloud of dust can't stay a cloud indefinitely without an influx of energy, collisions are not perfectly elastic, kinetic energy is lost via inelastic collision causing the particles to slow down.

6. Gravity is cumulative,

7. if there's a mass of dust M that covers a region of a certain volume, anything outside that volume will experience a gravitational pull proportional to the total mass M. It doesn't matter what size the individual particles in that region are. Example, if the moon were expanded into a cloud 400,000 km wide with the center of gravity at the same location it is now, the earth would experience the same gravitational pull as it does now with the moon as a solid mass.
At small scales, electrostatic forces also plays a role in dust particles sticking together and clumping up.



8. I don't know why you are asking about melting small fragments,

9. It's only when discussing large collisions or you start getting to planet or moon size that pressure and heat start accumulating to high levels. Here's an example of a asteroid made up of a collection of bits and pieces.
http://news.softpedi...ble-25446.shtml

10. I said that radioactive decay causes heat, not microwave background radiation, they are two different things. The Uranium decay chain is the source of a large amount of heat.


1. Yes and what you told me has no relevance to how a mass of rock becomes a sphere. Your empirical evidence of mountains bending rock has no relevance here since there are no mountains to bend the rock.. Instead you are positing that gravity has the same rock-bending capabilities of mountains... Logic would say NO, these are two different things. You are claiming apples as oranges.

2. Misrepresentation (or just your own confusion). I'm not asking for how gas stays together I am asking how gravity can form solid rock from dust.

3. Again you are claiming apples as oranges. Firstly your "thought experiment" is not empirical, secondly it starts with a fully formed planet, the question here is how do they form in a naturalistic context so the fact that you are using fully formed planets in your "experiment" invalidates its use here.

4. Are you serious?

How can one "re-arrange" the equation to show that there is no mass value anymore



However this jeans instability is interesting, has it been empirically demonstrated or is this merely a model made from equations? I'd also like to know what are the nanoscale effects, (if any) since things that are tiny do not conform to the normal rules of physics.... Hence if this is derived from equations then it really is a big assumption.


5. Point taken, yet if gravity can do what you claim then there is the influx of energy required for the dust particles to bounce off each other... You can't have it both ways, either gravity is a strong force able to create solid rock from dust or it is weak and therefore cannot induce ricocheting from collisions.

6. You sure? Each second I live I don't feel Gravity pushing down on me any more than it did before... Perhaps I am perpetually getting stronger to counteract the cumulative effects :P

7. Yes that is the cloud itself. I was talking about the individual particles themselves... How would they form solid rock with each other from the miniscule gravity that emanates from such a tiny mass. (avoiding this query won't solve it)

8. I'm sure you don't know.... Consider the chorus of a song... "From little things big things grow".... You cannot logically expect solid rock the size of a planet to magically appear in an instant, or do you?

9. Yeah and the fact that there is water on the moon debunks that claim, since the intense heat would have evaporated all the water..... (unless they come up with an ad hoc "theory" for this one)

10. And I don't doubt that..... However when we are discussing the formation of the planets from dust and gas, one must wonder where in the universe did this uranium come from?....

Radioactive decay is a source of heat.... But generally not so when it is left to its own natural decay rate... Only when we apply human invention and ore refining techniques do we amass the full potential of Uranium, now are you positing that before planets formed there were "nuclear reactors" as well as pure uranium "deposits" inside the dust clouds?

#18 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:35 PM

1. Yes and what you told me has no relevance to how a mass of rock becomes a sphere. Your empirical evidence of mountains bending rock has no relevance here since there are no mountains to bend the rock.. Instead you are positing that gravity has the same rock-bending capabilities of mountains... Logic would say NO, these are two different things. You are claiming apples as oranges.

I've reread the bolded part several times, trying to understand your position, and I honestly can't conceive of what possible grasp of physics could allow such a statement to be made. If you don't understand that the "rock-bending capabilities of mountains" is the result of gravity acting on non-spherical shapes then I don't think there's any possible way to continue this conversation. I'll go through the rest of your points but after that I'm going to let this topic drop.

2. Misrepresentation (or just your own confusion). I'm not asking for how gas stays together I am asking how gravity can form solid rock from dust.

The same way rocks form on earth, pressure and heat.

3. Again you are claiming apples as oranges. Firstly your "thought experiment" is not empirical, secondly it starts with a fully formed planet, the question here is how do they form in a naturalistic context so the fact that you are using fully formed planets in your "experiment" invalidates its use here.

I was trying to show you a very clear case where gravity would cause a contraction of a gas region. If you want a step by step experiment you could take two masses of gas, use a torsion balance to determine the gravitational attraction in order to verify that gravity depends solely on mass rather than phase, then use the mass of jupiter as empirically determined by orbital characteristics, then put it all together to determine that the gravity is capable of pulling gas together.

4. Are you serious?

How can one "re-arrange" the equation to show that there is no mass value anymore


However this jeans instability is interesting, has it been empirically demonstrated or is this merely a model made from equations? I'd also like to know what are the nanoscale effects, (if any) since things that are tiny do not conform to the normal rules of physics.... Hence if this is derived from equations then it really is a big assumption.

The letters are variables, you replace them with numbers in order to calculate an answer. When a variable x is assigned a value it is called the "value of x". The statement "show that there are no values of M1,M2..." means demonstrate that all the possible numbers that could be plugged in for M1,M2, etc. yield a answer for F(p) that is greater than F(g). I'll save you some trouble and tell you that there are values for mass, temp, radius etc. that cause the force of gravity to exceed the force of gas pressure.

Jean's inequality is a simple result of the equations for gravity and the equations for gas pressure . It's emprically tested everytime those equations are tested. There are no quantum effects that apply.

5. Point taken, yet if gravity can do what you claim then there is the influx of energy required for the dust particles to bounce off each other... You can't have it both ways, either gravity is a strong force able to create solid rock from dust or it is weak and therefore cannot induce ricocheting from collisions.


6. You sure? Each second I live I don't feel Gravity pushing down on me any more than it did before... Perhaps I am perpetually getting stronger to counteract the cumulative effects :P


http://dictionary.re...owse/cumulative
1. increasing or growing by accumulation or successive additions
2. formed by or resulting from accumulation or the addition of successive parts or element

Yes, I am quite sure that the force of gravity increases with successive additions of mass. Perhaps you are getting confused with another word?

7. Yes that is the cloud itself. I was talking about the individual particles themselves... How would they form solid rock with each other from the miniscule gravity that emanates from such a tiny mass. (avoiding this query won't solve it)

They don't necessarily form solid rock when just talking about individual particles sticking together. When a lot of them get together and the pressure builds on the internal sections of the planetismal is when heat and pressure would cause them to start to merge.

8. I'm sure you don't know.... Consider the chorus of a song... "From little things big things grow".... You cannot logically expect solid rock the size of a planet to magically appear in an instant, or do you?

Isn't that the creationist position?

9. Yeah and the fact that there is water on the moon debunks that claim, since the intense heat would have evaporated all the water..... (unless they come up with an ad hoc "theory" for this one)

The material measured came from less than 2 meters under the surface, well within the depth that other sources of water would apply. It's not clear that the water is from the lunar formation or arrived after. If it does turn out to be part of the lunar formation then the model will be adjusted to account for this new information, this is how science is supposed to work.

10. And I don't doubt that..... However when we are discussing the formation of the planets from dust and gas, one must wonder where in the universe did this uranium come from?....

Radioactive decay is a source of heat.... But generally not so when it is left to its own natural decay rate... Only when we apply human invention and ore refining techniques do we amass the full potential of Uranium, now are you positing that before planets formed there were "nuclear reactors" as well as pure uranium "deposits" inside the dust clouds?

Uranium comes from the same place dust and non-hydrogen gas comes from, other stars. You are drastically underestimating the amount of energy produced by radioactive decay.
http://en.wikipedia....hermal_gradient
The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%)

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:09 AM

The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%)



No. There is no measured evidence for that figure.


"But has this been established, or has it been supposed? As a matter of fact, it is freely acknowledged that radioactive heat sources within the earth do not account for its present internal temperatures if the earth had really existed for 4.5 Ga (1 Ga = 109 years):

‘Heat flow from the Earth’s interior is 4 x 1013 W. The energy of the decay of radioactive elements (235U, 238U, 232Th, and 40K) is of the same order of magnitude (2.4 x 1013 W) as that of the heat flow . . . ."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n1/kelvin


Enjoy.

#20 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 12 June 2012 - 08:19 AM

Heat (and radioactivity) inside the Earth almost certainly came from gravity settling after the Earth was deformed significantly from the spherical in ancient times.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users