Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jason777

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Recommended Posts

We aren't talking about how molecular clouds form - we are talking about how stars inside molecular clouds form.

34648[/snapback]

Shouldn't we recognize a chicken and egg problem if it is reasonable? As good scientists, that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the evidence shows, through the laws of gasses (how's that :lol: ) that star formation would not be possible based on currently observable phenomena. Now you can disagree with me because your worldview demands that the answer is naturalistic and since there are stars it must have happened but that's not science, it's a belief.

 

You can tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about mine. :D

34649[/snapback]

Here is the observed phenomenon; Molecular clouds are cold and dense and there are young stars in them and we have seen transitions from proto-stars to young stars consistent with theory. All that must happen is that P_grav > P_gas in a small region inside these clouds for gravity to compress the gas in our region. We know that gravity affects the motions of gas on Earth (this keeps our atmosphere from flying away) so we don't have to invoke anything fancy to qualitatively talk about this. So the question is - what stops P_grav > P_gas. Just saying that it is impossible demonstrates nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the observed phenomenon;  Molecular clouds are cold and dense and there are young stars in them and we have seen transitions from proto-stars to young stars consistent with theory.

34651[/snapback]

When you say this, in essence, you're telling us that you have seen a spot getting brighter, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we recognize a chicken and egg problem if it is reasonable? As good scientists, that is?

34650[/snapback]

 

??? This is not the chicken in the egg problem. Those clouds are there - we see them. For this discussion it doesn't matter how they got there - it just matters that they are there. To push the discussion from "gas pressure is always greater than grav pressure" to "where did molecular clouds come from" is called moving the goal posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say this, in essence, you're telling us that you have seen a spot getting brighter, right?

34652[/snapback]

 

No. We have measured radiation signatures that are different before and after consistent with the theoretical model of stellar evolution - meaning it follows the theoretical pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks (HR diagrams again). Consistency (something creationist all too often overlook) is extremely important in Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???  This is not the chicken in the egg problem.  Those clouds are there - we see them.  For this discussion it doesn't matter how they got there - it just matters that they are there.  To push the discussion from "gas pressure is always greater than grav pressure" to "where did molecular clouds come from" is called moving the goal posts.

34653[/snapback]

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. When you say that the item in space that is most likely to form stars is itself a blown up star then you are between the horns of a dilemma.

 

You need gas clouds to make the stars but you need stars to make the observed gas clouds. That is not shifting the goal posts, it is demonstrating a problem. The fact that there was a great past force that acted on matter to produce these gas clouds in the first place the question arises how did the star that made that gas cloud form? Was that the one that formed solely from gas and gravity?

 

Besides when we see a spot, in the midst of a gas cloud no less, getting brighter isn't it also a reasonable inference to postulate that we see dust clearing away from our field of vision so we can see an already existing star more clearly?

 

If a dark molecular cloud can block our field of view, what do you suppose would happen if it moved a little? Would we declare that a new star was formed or would we say that we're seeing a star that simply wasn't visible before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. When you say that the item in space that is most likely to form stars is itself a blown up star then you are between the horns of a dilemma.

 

You need gas clouds to make the stars but you need stars to make the observed gas clouds. That is not shifting the goal posts, it is demonstrating a problem. The fact that there was a great past force that acted on matter to produce these gas clouds in the first place the question arises how did the star that made that gas cloud form? Was that the one that formed solely from gas and gravity?

 

Besides when we see a spot, in the midst of a gas cloud no less, getting brighter isn't it also a reasonable inference to postulate that we see dust clearing away from our field of vision so we can see an already existing star more clearly?

 

If a dark molecular cloud can block our field of view, what do you suppose would happen if it moved a little? Would we declare that a new star was formed or would we say that we're seeing a star that simply wasn't visible before?

34655[/snapback]

It is moving the goal posts. We are not discussing where the first star came from - we are discussing star birth in the universe today. In the universe we observe low temperature high density clouds with young stars in them. It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion where the first star came from.

 

Edit: Remember that the defining moment when a clump of gas becomes a protostar is the moment that fusion ignites. Fusion looks different than other forms of thermal radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is moving the goal posts.  We are not discussing where the first star came from - we are discussing star birth in the universe today.  In the universe we observe low temperature high density clouds with young stars in them.  It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion where the first star came from.

34657[/snapback]

I'm sorry if I confused you but that was the premise of my whole argument. Where and how did the first stars form? To claim that the argument is limited to a potential boost that comes from matter violently coming from a star that exploded, which already existed, but there is no answer for how that initial star formed then you are kidding people into believing that you have answers in a way that you don't have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, how does someone differentiate between a nebulae that is 'forming new stars' and one that is a nova remnant?

34538[/snapback]

BTW, A.Sphere, you'll notice how early in this thread this was a concern of mine^

 

I have had this in my sites the moment I started interacting in this thread because I knew the best, so-called evidence for star formation is also first the best evidence for stars exploding.

 

We see stars exploding and we infer that we might be seeing stars forming from this stuff that came from an exploded star. Well you aren't just dealing with an ordinary gas cloud now are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we know about this unusual feature? What is it? Is this an unenhanced image? How for away is it? What else is around it?

34644[/snapback]

It's a cold cloud of molecular hydrogen measuring half a light year across and has a mass of around 2 solar masses. It has not been enhanced, what you are seeing is the cloud in the visible light spectrum. It's dense enough to be opaque, obscuring the light of the stars behind it. This cloud is about 500 ly away and there is nothing else around it or in its immediate vicinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

That looks like a cluster of stars with a hole in the middle. What is inferred from this observation and why?

34645[/snapback]

So... Not a nova remnant then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...  Not a nova remnant then?

34662[/snapback]

I have no clue. I wonder what A.Sphere could tell us about that?

 

Would you agree that there would be a lot of speculating all around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a cold cloud of molecular hydrogen measuring half a light year across and has a mass of around 2 solar masses.  It has not been enhanced, what you are seeing is the cloud in the visible light spectrum.  It's dense enough to be opaque, obscuring the light of the stars behind it.  This cloud is about 500 ly away and there is nothing else around it or in its immediate vicinity.

34661[/snapback]

That's pretty wild stuff. How do they know that that object is just hydrogen gas? What is the perceived density of that cloud and how do they measure such things? How do we know that we aren't looking headlong onto an extremely long cloud which is causing the inability to see through it?

 

Astronomy is really neat and I love learning about the new technologies that are being used to peer as far as we can into outer space but how much solid empirical data can really be drawn off of something we can only glare it from a great distance?

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think astronomy is a pseudoscience, or anything like that, but shouldn't we acknowledge the fairly limited nature of the facts that we are drawing inferences off of?

 

I think what A.Sphere does for a living is awesome. I think I could get a whole lot of satisfaction learning the ins and outs of how an observatory functions and what the daily grind is like. I hope we can have some more neutral topics in the future so we can understand more about exactly what is observed and why certain inferences are broadly accepted and other inferences are contested and even overturned.

 

It would be a great learning experience for all of us. I've really enjoyed getting into the work of people like Guillermo Gonzalez and Jason Lisle and last but certainly not least I'm excited to have A.Sphere back.

 

I still have that thread warmed up if some neutral dialogue of nonhottopic issues can be had for the betterment of all that are interested in science:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1934

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty wild stuff. How do they know that that object is just hydrogen gas? What is the perceived density of that cloud and how do they measure such things? How do we know that we aren't looking headlong onto an extremely long cloud which is causing the inability to see through it?

 

Astronomy is really neat and I love learning about the new technologies that are being used to peer as far as we can into outer space but how much solid empirical data can really be drawn off of something we can only glare it from a great distance?

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think astronomy is a pseudoscience, or anything like that, but shouldn't we acknowledge the fairly limited nature of the facts that we are drawing inferences off of?

 

I think what A.Sphere does for a living is awesome. I think I could get a whole lot of satisfaction learning the ins and outs of how an observatory functions and what the daily grind is like. I hope we can have some more neutral topics in the future so we can understand more about exactly what is observed and why certain inferences are broadly accepted and other inferences are contested and even overturned.

 

It would be a great learning experience for all of us. I've really enjoyed getting into the work of people like Guillermo Gonzalez and Jason Lisle and last but certainly not least I'm excited to have A.Sphere back.

 

I still have that thread warmed up if some neutral dialogue of nonhottopic issues can be had for the betterment of all that are interested in science:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1934

34664[/snapback]

If you really like astronomy as much as you say you do....go research your questions and report back to us on what you find. The answers are either there or they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty wild stuff. How do they know that that object is just hydrogen gas? What is the perceived density of that cloud and how do they measure such things? How do we know that we aren't looking headlong onto an extremely long cloud which is causing the inability to see through it?

34664[/snapback]

They can tell that it is hydrogen gas by its absorption spectrum. Molecular hydrogen has a definitive wavelength. The density is measured by looking at the light from the stars behind the cloud. The more light absorbed, the denser the cloud. The way we know we aren't looking into an extremely long cloud pointed towards us (or an extremely flat cloud perpendicular to us) is by comparing the light that the cloud is opaque to against light that the cloud is transparent to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

It would be a great learning experience for all of us. I've really enjoyed getting into the work of people like Guillermo Gonzalez and Jason Lisle

 

Judging from this:-

" So detailed are his arguments against finding extraterrestrial life that he recently co-authored a new book, "The Privileged Planet," that aligns with a scientific theory known as the Rare Earth Hypothesis. That theory was first proposed in 2000, in a book published by his former colleagues Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee at the University of Washington, "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe."

 

The latter says the evolution of intelligent life on Earth is likely unique in the cosmos -- with our planet offering just the right mix of celestial positioning, planetary mass, liquid water and plate tectonics, a combination so rare it is unlikely another exists. Gonzalez's book expands the debate to argue that Earth "is not only most habitable place we know of, but offers the best opportunities overall for scientific research. And those places most habitable in the universe offer the best basis for scientific discovery." "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...6/ai_n11828131/

you need to expand your reading substantially if you are to get anything like a balanced view as a basis for forming your own opinion.

If you were interested in a controversial trial, would you restrict yourself to listening to just the lawyers for one side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to expand your reading substantially if you are to get anything like a balanced view as a basis for forming your own opinion.

If you were interested in a controversial trial, would you restrict yourself to listening to just the lawyers for one side?

34673[/snapback]

If you think about it, Keith, we are inundated with the evolutionary philosophy... History Channel, Discovery Channel, Scientific American, Discover Magazine, Astronomy Magazine, National Geographic all sources that I go out of my way to entertain. I'm already balanced and open to hear other perspectives. I came from submission to the 'overwhelming evidence' for evolution to the position I hold now.

 

I don't think I come in here pretending to know everything, and also, I feel pretty confident that I approach arguments with the feeling that I could argue the evolutionary side if I had to demonstrate that I understand the other side before I consciously reject it.

 

I include a lot of material to help others with sources I find useful but I don't use them as a crutch to keep from forming my own opinions.

 

You can paint whatever picture you want to discourage others. Anyone who wants to see if I'm fair and willing to argue through the evidence, and not talking points, can read my posts to see for themselves.

 

 

Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel pretty confident that I approach arguments with the feeling that I could argue the evolutionary side if I had to demonstrate that I understand the other side

34676[/snapback]

I've actually been interested in putting this idea to the test, for both sides. I'm thinking we could create a forum where you are only allowed to argue against the side you stand for (i.e. YECs would argue for evolution, atheists/agnostics for creation).

 

I think it would be a really interesting test to see if each side does in fact understand the others point of view.

 

I've refrained from trying such a thing because I highly doubt people would be able to put their bias aside and seriously debate for the other side. Do you think it's got any chance of working?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually been interested in putting this idea to the test, for both sides. I'm thinking we could create a forum where you are only allowed to argue against the side you stand for (i.e. YECs would argue for evolution, atheists/agnostics for creation).

 

I think it would be a really interesting test to see if each side does in fact understand the others point of view.

 

I've refrained from trying such a thing because I highly doubt people would be able to put their bias aside and seriously debate for the other side. Do you think it's got any chance of working?

34677[/snapback]

Hey Arch,

 

I wouldn't do it in this format for reasons of avoiding confusion but on occasion I believe we should step up to the plate and fulfill a request from someone else if they wish that we articulate what they are saying in our own words to demonstrate that we at least understand the perspective.

 

This request usually goes ignored or it turns into an attempt to weasel in a bias or a sarcastic twisted perspective.

 

I will make this deal to you personally though. If you ever feel that I'm at a loss because my arguments seem to be demonstrating that I don't understand what I'm being told, just ask and I'll do my best to rephrase what I think someone else believes from their perspective with a treatment that you would find satisfactory. Would you return the favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great scripture verse that goes along with what we're talking about, Arch:

 

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I think a good paraphrase would be. You're a fool if you judge something before hearing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can tell that it is hydrogen gas by its absorption spectrum.  Molecular hydrogen has a definitive wavelength.  The density is measured by looking at the light from the stars behind the cloud.  The more light absorbed, the denser the cloud.  The way we know we aren't looking into an extremely long cloud pointed towards us (or an extremely flat cloud perpendicular to us) is by comparing the light that the cloud is opaque to against light that the cloud is transparent to.

34669[/snapback]

Can you demonstrate what you mean? Especially the last part? The reason I question the nature of the last part is this. If the cloud was cone shape with the tip pointed at us, it would appear to be clearer at the edges and denser at the center when it is just the shape of the cloud. Just thinking out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make this deal to you personally though. If you ever feel that I'm at a loss because my arguments seem to be demonstrating that I don't understand what I'm being told, just ask and I'll do my best to rephrase what I think someone else believes from their perspective with a treatment that you would find satisfactory. Would you return the favor?

34678[/snapback]

Sounds reasonable ;)

 

Love the proverbs quote by the way.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Percy, could you put this post on you priority list? I would like to have it answered:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=34583

34637[/snapback]

Sure, but the answer isn't that interesting or even relevant. Here's your question:

 

Now here is the only question that I want you personally to answer, if nothing else. You claim to be a theistic evolutionist. What does a verse like this mean to you?

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Please explain to us how we see God's handiwork.

34583[/snapback]

I suspect this question stems from my selection of "Theistic Evolutionist" as my Worldview. If you go to your "Edit Profile" page and look at the options available for Worldview you'll see that they are:

  • Atheist
  • Agnostic
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Creationist
  • Young Earth Creationist
Notice that missing from the list is "None of the above." You have to select something. Because I'm a deist who accepts evolution I thought that "Theistic Evolutionist" was the least misleading, but I'm not a Christian or even a theist.

 

I remember suggesting when I first joined, maybe I sent email to Fred, maybe I posted a message, I don't remember, that they expand the list of options under Worldview, and I still think it would be a good idea.

 

--Percy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I can accept that. That request is under consideration.

 

What leads you to be a deist if only naturalistic ideas are allowed to have a foot in the door? Is there an honor in maintaining a perspective that seeks to strip the honor and power away from the maker?

 

I won't make this a big derail but where does this deity actually fit in your life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

 

I don't think there's enough of interest here to warrant a discussion, so I'll just reply here.

 

What leads you to be a deist if only naturalistic ideas are allowed to have a foot in the door? Is there an honor in maintaining a perspective that seeks to strip the honor and power away from the maker?

34729[/snapback]

Nothing led me to deism. I never went through any period of change or doubt. My personal beliefs are just an expression of who I am. I have no idea where my beliefs come from, they're just there.

 

I won't make this a big derail but where does this deity actually fit in your life?

34729[/snapback]

I don't know anything about the nature of my deity. Deity is just the best word I have for my belief (not based upon any evidence) that there is purpose within the universe, or at least somewhere within existence.

 

--Percy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms