Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    The First Simplest Star

    I welcome scientific answers to questions I am grappling with.

    I am trying to get my head round the formation of the first star resulting out of the Big Bang.

    From nothing or a singularity, is supposed to have come all the particles to make up the simplest atoms which are hydrogen. Were any heavier elements formed at that time of the Big Bang?

    We have hydrogen gas from which the stars are supposed to me made. Somehow the hydrogen atoms come together before being turned to helium which is at the center of the star.

    The problem I have is understanding how the hydrogen gas comes together. A gas will fill the volume it is contained in. There is a simple law that defines the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume. In free space the hydrogen atoms will naturally spread apart, there is not enough attraction/gravity to pull the atoms together. Here on earth, we simply force atoms together in a closed vessel. At the time of the Big Bang, we have an open vessel that is empty space to infinity.

    We are told that the heavier elements are formed from exploding stars so that is why I asked if elements could have formed before the first star was formed.

    There is no evidence in the universe to show that stars are forming. It would be a very slow process on a long timescale that makes it difficult to observe. What is put forward as evidence of stars forming, some will say is the same evidence for stars that have exploded and died. The gas and dust clouds are not necessarily evidence to support the claim that stars that are forming, though if stars could form, this is the likely material they will be made from.

    I have read statements that stars form our of gas and dust clouds. These stars must be different to the first stars that are supposed to be produced from just hydrogen gas. The dust (whatever that consists of must be made of heavier elements that has been made from exploding stars.

    While pondering how the first stars could form, I also have questions as to why the universe is not more uniform than it is. From the extremity of the universe looking in, some say that the universe is more uniform than some cosmologists say it is. Our solar system some will say is in an insignificant part of the universe while others say that it is within one light year of the center and that is quite significant.

    The questions I am trying to get my head around again start from the singularity or Big Bang.
    What was the singularity composed of if not nothing? Would the singularity be composed of all the simplest components from which photons, electrons, neutron, are made? Even if there is the fundamental component such as a quark, we would expect the singularity to be made up of a uniform single component. Any reaction and formation of atoms would be expected to take place uniformly.

    From this uniform singularity we get an expansion. This expansion is also thought to be a series of expansions of time and space. While I get my head around this, the one question I have is; should not the expansion all be the same? Should we not see a uniformity? From a single point, around which is only space, all the uniform components fly away. Should not the components radiate out in a uniform pattern? The conditions that should be uniform as the components fly apart and come together. Like blowing up a balloon that is a perfect sphere, all points at the extremity and points at set distances from the origin at the center should be the same temperature and pressure and flying apart from each other at the same speed. We expect conditions to be the same at equidistant points from the center. How do we explain the all the differences we see? We would expect a uniform distribution of suns, solar systems and even planets like earth.

    Is it possible in simple terns to give answers to the questions I am grappling with?



    David

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I welcome scientific answers to questions I am grappling with.

    I am trying to get my head round the formation of the first star resulting out of the Big Bang.

    From nothing or a singularity, is supposed to have come all the particles to make up the simplest atoms which are hydrogen. Were any heavier elements formed at that time of the Big Bang?

    We have hydrogen gas from which the stars are supposed to me made. Somehow the hydrogen atoms come together before being turned to helium which is at the center of the star.

    The problem I have is understanding how the hydrogen gas comes together. A gas will fill the volume it is contained in. There is a simple law that defines the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume. In free space the hydrogen atoms will naturally spread apart, there is not enough attraction/gravity to pull the atoms together. Here on earth, we simply force atoms together in a closed vessel. At the time of the Big Bang, we have an open vessel that is empty space to infinity.

    We are told that the heavier elements are formed from exploding stars so that is why I asked if elements could have formed before the first star was formed.

    There is no evidence in the universe to show that stars are forming. It would be a very slow process on a long timescale that makes it difficult to observe. What is put forward as evidence of stars forming, some will say is the same evidence for stars that have exploded and died. The gas and dust clouds are not necessarily evidence to support the claim that stars that are forming, though if stars could form, this is the likely material they will be made from.

    I have read statements that stars form our of gas and dust clouds. These stars must be different to the first stars that are supposed to be produced from just hydrogen gas. The dust (whatever that consists of must be made of heavier elements that has been made from exploding stars.

    While pondering how the first stars could form, I also have questions as to why the universe is not more uniform than it is. From the extremity of the universe looking in, some say that the universe is more uniform than some cosmologists say it is. Our solar system some will say is in an insignificant part of the universe while others say that it is within one light year of the center and that is quite significant.

    The questions I am trying to get my head around again start from the singularity or Big Bang.
    What was the singularity composed of if not nothing? Would the singularity be composed of all the simplest components from which photons, electrons, neutron, are made? Even if there is the fundamental component such as a quark, we would expect the singularity to be made up of a uniform single component. Any reaction and formation of atoms would be expected to take place uniformly.

    From this uniform singularity we get an expansion. This expansion is also thought to be a series of expansions of time and space. While I get my head around this, the one question I have is; should not the expansion all be the same? Should we not see a uniformity? From a single point, around which is only space, all the uniform components fly away. Should not the components radiate out in a uniform pattern? The conditions that should be uniform as the components fly apart and come together. Like blowing up a balloon that is a perfect sphere, all points at the extremity and points at set distances from the origin at the center should be the same temperature and pressure and flying apart from each other at the same speed. We expect conditions to be the same at equidistant points from the center. How do we explain the all the differences we see? We would expect a uniform distribution of suns, solar systems and even planets like earth.

    Is it possible in simple terns to give answers to the questions I am grappling with?



    David
    Hello David

    I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

    I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
    Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.

    Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

    I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

    John

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hello David

    I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

    I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
    Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.

    Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

    I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

    John
    John,

    I don't understand your anti science stance. It makes no sense. You could easily educate yourself, but you choose not to. Why?

    And why do you think you are qualified to so easily dismiss the evidence from decades of research? Because the Bible shackles your mentality to the primitive age of ignorant people who knew nothing of science.

    Also, if God is the creator of human intelligence, then he created humans with the ability to apply logic to something being factual or not. What kind of sense does it make for the writings of the Bible to defy logic from the established facts science has discovered? No flood, flat earth, firmament, Exodus, Adam and eve, etc...

    Don't you think an all knowing God is infinitely superior to the mindless crap the Bible reduces him to? The Bible portrays God as grossly incompetent. He couldn't even inspire the writers to ACCURATELY portray how the world works. Instead, he allows the writers to describe the earth in a way that totally defies any logic. Especially given that we know the descriptions in the Bible are patently FALSE.

    You asked about star formation. Here you go. Courtesy of Nasa with pictures and all. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-r...formation.html

    And here is another one. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...milky-way.html
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hello David

    I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

    I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
    Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.

    Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

    I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

    John
    You are not surprised because your judgment is corrupted with a false, unjustifiable, irrational, and unrighteous prejudice against me. I am diligent to answer questions. This forum proves it. The fact that one stray post went by unanswered is no mystery given the long conversations that David and I were having in other threads at the same time.

    Your insinuation that my answers are nothing by mindless references to google pages reveals your true colors. I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and understand the information that I post. Unfortunately, neither you or David seem able to understand the most elementary science even when it is explained to you in detail. Case in point: David brought up the issue of star formation in another thread about six months after this one in this post from June 7, 2013 in the Test Everything in the Bible thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Not all theories are testable. How do you test a theory that a stars form. Two hydrogen atoms do not come together by gravitational force. We are told the interstellar gas cloud has a density less than that of a vacuum chamber and yet hydrogen atoms (or any other atoms) come together by gravity. Prove it! What can you prove evolved?
    David's assertion that hydrogen atoms do not come together by gravitational force revealed his utter ignorance of basic science. So I explained it to him in this post from June 8, 2013:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    I commend your desire for evidence, but I am mystified by what appears to be a double standard. The Bible would not stand if you held it up to the same standards.

    Also, you seem to be confused about the universal law of gravitation. It is called "universal" because any two objects with mass will attract each other according to the following formula:

    Name:  gravity.gif
Views: 34
Size:  1.8 KB


    If you DO THE MATH with interstellar gas clouds you will find that they will collapse under certain conditions. You would know this if you understood the physics underlying the virial theorem and thermodynamics. Here's a brief explanation from the wiki:
    An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[14] If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.[2] This coincides with the typical mass of an open cluster of stars, which is the end product of a collapsing cloud.[15]
    This is what constantly blows my mind. You reject science on the pretext of a "lack of proof" (which is not actually missing at all) even as you blindly accept an ancient pre-scientific religious text that is filled with mythologies, superstitious, and errors. I just don't get it. The whole point of science is PROOF whereas the foundation of religion is blind FAITH. It makes no sense for you to challenge science since it has ten trillion times as much evidence supporting it compared with the Bible.
    David's answer in post #39 indicated that he had ZERO understanding of the physics that I had just explained to him. So responded by telling him that "The answer is found in the virial theorem as I explained. But you don't understand the virial theorem, do you? Or what, are you saying it is wrong? If so, then please explain which of the mathematical equations you disagree with." David answered (with much confusion about basic concepts) in post #68. I explained and corrected his errors in post #73. Here is the post. It contains scientific explanations of all his questions. He never responded. He dropped the conversation. So are you now going to insinuate that he did this because he knew he could not answer? Of course not. That would require you to be just and true, something your religion apparently prohibits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    OK Richard. I will play along with this and ask some questions and see where we get. Incidentally, your picture and formula looks a lot simpler than the mass of equations I found in Wikipedia for this subject.
    Yes, the picture and formula I gave was a little simpler because it represents only the force between only two particles. When dealing with an interstellar gas cloud there are many more particles and so we must use statistical methods which yield the laws of thermodynamics. That's what the virial theorem is all about. But this doesn't really complicate things that much. Here's the equation:

    Name:  sumofforces.png
Views: 34
Size:  1.0 KB


    The average kinetic energy, which relates to the temperature, is given by <T> and Fk is just the force on the kth particle given by the first equation I wrote. I don't see why you think it is so complicated. It's really very simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We have to assume "under certain conditions".
    How do you know those conditions are reached? What you can say is; "a star is formed and that proves the theorem", but then that is a circular argument, for that is what this theorem is out to prove without proving the initial conditions are reached.
    There is nothing circular. The theorem simply states what will happen if the gas cloud has sufficient mass. It's no different than any other law of nature. E.g. if the temperature is hot enough paper will catch fire. You appear to be implying that interstellar gas clouds could never reach sufficient mass - known as Jeans mass - to meet the criteria. If that's your point, then you need to do more research. Gas clouds greater than Jeans mass have been observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    That aside for the moment.
    What is the density of this gas cloud? We are told that the mass of the cloud has to be "many solar masses" and had to have a critical mass before it can happen. I found a quote that said; "the density of the interstella medium is less than that of a vacuum". I cannot find the exact quote again, but this one will do from Wikipedia.

    In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely dilute by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3.
    Are molecules acting as a gas and colliding and bouncing off each other? The answer is probably no. Under collapsing conditions, the atoms must be sticking together.
    You are confusing mass with density which is mass/volume. So it doesn't matter how dilute the cloud is. And the atoms do not "stick together" - they are bound by potential energy (gravity) but still moving like a gas. You simply do not understand basic physics. And that's what's so crazy about your attack on physics. You are tilting at windmills. How can you feel competent to challenge things that you don't even understand? First you must take the time and effort to understand, then if you see an error you will have something to challenge. But as it is, you are challenging things like 1 + 2 = 3, and insisting that it really equals 17.37433. It's just nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Let's take your model of two hydrogen atoms (and only two) and ask some fundamental questions.
    What is the greatest distance apart atoms of hydrogen must be before gravitational force between them begins to attract them? The answer is probably infinite. The inverse square law would make the gravitational force between them infinitely small.

    As two molecules are attracted to each other by gravity, they will accelerate towards each other. If approaching from and infinite distance apart, will this speed accelerate to the point that will cause the two atoms to fuse together on impact and release energy or bounce off each other?

    As the two atoms accelerate towards each other, so the kinetic energy must increase. What was the original potential energy when the two atoms were at an infinite distance apart? As kinetic energy increases, the potential energy must decrease, but what was the potential to begin with? Does being infinitely apart give the two atoms infinite potential energy?
    Again, your question indicates a fundamental ignorance of basic physics. Gravitational potential energy is negative. It grows as the distance increases. Two atoms separated by infinity have ZERO gravitational potential energy.

    I think it is great that you are asking these questions. It would be great if you were actually interested in learning physics. But we both know that's not why you are challenging physics. You are looking for a "gap" where your God can find some relevance. Good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Do these atoms have thermal energy?
    No, because temperature is based on the average kinetic energy of a large number of particles. It makes no sense when speaking of only two particles. Again, this is basic physics. How is it possible that you could feel competent to challenge things of which you know nothing, all because reality contradicts that Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Once I have your explanation of these things, maybe I can begin to appreciate how gas clouds collapse.
    Why don't you just accept the established science? It is not controversial in the least. I see you gleefully accepting all sorts of fringe claims that have no evidence at all merely because they match your prejudices. This is another example of the double standard that seems to have corrupted all your judgments. This is why we can never find any point of agreement. You cannot agree with anything in reality because reality is contrary to everything you believe. Please take no offense. I've been trying to talk to you about these things for well over a year and it seems that you are falling ever deeper into a sort of abyss where we can't agree that 1 + 2 = 3. Can't you see how nutty this is? If I know anything, I know that I am being very rational with you, yet you are refusing to agree. I find that very disturbing. But I'm glad you are still participating. I just wish you would choose to find a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT IN REALITY so we have some place to start. We need to agree on something or we will never be able to agree about anything. That "something" should be common reality that is established by EVIDENCE. It shouldn't be so hard.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    John,

    I don't understand your anti science stance. It makes no sense. You could easily educate yourself, but you choose not to. Why?

    And why do you think you are qualified to so easily dismiss the evidence from decades of research? Because the Bible shackles your mentality to the primitive age of ignorant people who knew nothing of science.

    Also, if God is the creator of human intelligence, then he created humans with the ability to apply logic to something being factual or not. What kind of sense does it make for the writings of the Bible to defy logic from the established facts science has discovered? No flood, flat earth, firmament, Exodus, Adam and eve, etc...

    Don't you think an all knowing God is infinitely superior to the mindless crap the Bible reduces him to? The Bible portrays God as grossly incompetent. He couldn't even inspire the writers to ACCURATELY portray how the world works. Instead, he allows the writers to describe the earth in a way that totally defies any logic. Especially given that we know the descriptions in the Bible are patently FALSE.

    You asked about star formation. Here you go. Courtesy of Nasa with pictures and all. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-r...formation.html

    And here is another one. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...milky-way.html
    Hey there L67,

    Excellent post. The sad fact is that neither jce nor David have any interest in learning about star formation at all. They are not astrophysicists and they don't even understand when it is explained on an elementary level. As everyone can see, they have one motive: they are desperate to justify their rejection of science in favor of ignorant crap scribbled by scientifically illiterate goat-herders because they have been brainwashed by their religion. This is why I say that fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. The irony is palpable - their primary claim is that their religion teaches them truth when in fact it breeds a contempt for it!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416

    Understanding Star Formation

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Now if you really were interested in star formation, the internet is overflowing with knowledge. There is no excuse your for ignorance. Here is something I found in a few seconds:

    Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview
    Charles J. Lada
    Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA USA 02138

    The problems of star and planet formation are among the most important challenges
    facing modern astrophysical research. Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are
    continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of
    the star forming process. However, stars form invisibly deep within cold and dark molecular
    clouds. Observations of these stellar birth sites at infrared and millimeter wavelengths from
    space and the ground have resulted in considerable progress toward a physical understanding
    of stellar origins. In this contribution I will review the empirical basis for our current
    understanding of the process of star formation with an emphasis on the origin of low mass
    (sunlike) stars.
    Richard

    To use your words "Is there anything praiseworthy in that post?" Yes, I think so. I conducted a "quote mining" expedition into this 20 page paper that you represented as answering the question about star formation and below is what I found.

    First a word about quote mining. When one prospects for something of value, such as gold or silver, he must sort through mountains of lesser worth material (or worth-less) in search of something of value. In this example, I was able to uncover some "Nuggets of Truth".

    To convince someone that something is true ("there's gold in them thar hills"), it is necessary to include some truth (gold). It's like fishing, just use something the fish values (bait) to conceal the hook (lie). The whole thing is simply a misrepresentation to the fish.

    The introduction misleadingly titled "Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview" drops some bait into the water.

    Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview

    1. Introduction

    Stars are the fundamental objects of the Cosmos. They are the homes of planetary systems and they provide the energy necessary for the development and main- tenance of life. The evolution of stars drives the evolution of all stellar systems in- cluding clusters and galaxies. Stellar Evolution also controls the chemical evolution of the universe.

    Despite its spectacular success in explaining the life histories and deaths of stars, the theory of stellar evolution is incomplete in a very fundamental aspect. It is not able to account for the origin of stars. Knowledge of the physical mechanism for the formation of stars is essential for understanding the evolution of the galaxies and the universe from the earliest times after the big bang to the current epoch of cosmic history. Development of a theory of star formation is also crucial for understanding the origin of planetary systems which, in turn, is important for evaluating the possibility of biology beyond the solar system.
    In essence, understanding star formation is the key to understanding time, space, matter and life.

    The inability of the theory of stellar evolution to explain star formation likely points to the inherent complexity of the physical process itself. Consequently construction of a theory of star formation must require a strong foundation of empirical data or observation. The empirical study of star formation is greatly facilitated by a fundamental property of the universe. Namely that star formation has been a continuous and ongoing process which in our galaxy extends into the present epoch. Consequently, the physical process of star formation can be investigated by direct observation.
    The concluding remarks speak for themselves.

    6. Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects

    The story of stellar origins described in the previous section represents the current paradigm for star formation research. However, it is only a small part of the whole story. For example, a major deficiency with the current theoretical paradigm is that it cannot yet predict the form of the IMF.

    Another issue to be considered is that most stars form in clusters and the physical process of star formation in the clustered environment is not yet understood.

    In addition, the current paradigm has not been extended to massive stars which begin their post-protostellar evolution as hydrogen burning objects and never experience a pre-main sequence phase of post-protostellar evolution. The details of the formation of such massive stars are much less known.

    Developing a theoretical picture of massive star formation and star formation in the clustered environment are two of the most important challenges facing modern star formation research.

    Another outstanding problem that deserves attention is the formation and early evolution of GMCs and the dense cores within them. It is clear that the mechanism responsible for creating the mass spectrum of dense cores and, in particular, the most massive dense cores, is ultimately responsible for the fact that most stars form in embedded clusters. Solving the problem of embedded cluster formation requires solving the problem of dense core formation. Yet our understanding of cloud and core formation is meager.

    Understanding these issues presents another important challenge for star formation studies. What are the critical observations that will reveal how clouds are formed and how dense cores evolve to become star forming factories?

    It is not clear that new capabilities or technological developments will help answer this question.

    Our ability to detect and measure the gaseous component of molecular clouds has existed for more than thirty years, yet little progress has been made in determining even such basic facts as the ages of molecular clouds.

    Here the challenge will be to devise new ways of thinking about the problem….
    Conclusion, one must find "new ways of thinking". Translation... what we know and how we think about it is insufficient.

    Based on the author's concluding remarks in this paper, there is no "proof" that new stars are being formed in the universe. Instead, what is observed is entropy at work. The universe is winding down. What was once, in the beginning, a very well ordered and perfect system is in the process succumbing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Degeneration. The empirical evidence from observation is that stars burn out.

    If one chooses to believe that new stars are being formed, then one must accept that stars form themselves. If true, then it logically follows that the first star formed itself. Following that trail to the beginning leads to one inevitable conclusion. This is why those with PHd's in Astrophysics, who choose to omit God from the equation are working on this idea:

    "It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing"
    Allen H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt


    "... our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness:
    Edward Tryon


    'This "quantum cosmology" provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing without violating any laws of physics". Paul Davies
    Richard, if you chose to buy into the idea that stars create themselves and that the first star created itself, then have at it. But know this, there are only two possibilities... something from nothing or Creation by Design". Choose wisely..

    Cheers!

    John

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Richard

    To use your words "Is there anything praiseworthy in that post?" Yes, I think so. I conducted a "quote mining" expedition into this 20 page paper that you represented as answering the question about star formation and below is what I found.

    First a word about quote mining. When one prospects for something of value, such as gold or silver, he must sort through mountains of lesser worth material (or worth-less) in search of something of value. In this example, I was able to uncover some "Nuggets of Truth".

    To convince someone that something is true ("there's gold in them thar hills"), it is necessary to include some truth (gold). It's like fishing, just use something the fish values (bait) to conceal the hook (lie). The whole thing is simply a misrepresentation to the fish.

    The introduction misleadingly titled "Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview" drops some bait into the water.

    John,

    You have just revealed your utter contempt for anything concerning truth. In your pathetic attempt to discredit this paper by quote mining(as do all deceitful Christians),you missed one MAJOR part of the introduction.

    For much of the last 50 years direct observation of the star formation process and the development of a theory to explain it, have been severely hampered by the fact that most stars form in dark clouds and during their formative stages are invisible optically. FFortunately, advances in observational technology over the last quarter century opened the infrared and millimeter-wave windows to astronomical investigation and enabled direct observations of star forming regions and this has signiØcantly expanded our knowledge of the star formation process. As a result the foundations for a coherent theory of star formation
    and early evolution are being laid



    Now, you balked at the ideas of star formations being observed. This paper PROVES that as does the link I gave you courtesy of Nasa. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-r...formation.html

    Your attempt to drive a wedge into someones credible work by quote mining tid bits is down right insane. You should be ashamed of yourself. And you call yourself a follower of Jesus(truth)? You are the enemy of truth.





    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    The concluding remarks speak for themselves.
    Yes, they do to anyone with a functioning brain that cares about the truth.



    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Conclusion, one must find "new ways of thinking". Translation... what we know and how we think about it is insufficient.

    Based on the author's concluding remarks in this paper, there is no "proof" that new stars are being formed in the universe. Instead, what is observed is entropy at work. The universe is winding down. What was once, in the beginning, a very well ordered and perfect system is in the process succumbing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Degeneration. The empirical evidence from observation is that stars burn out.
    Nonsense! You have no idea what you are talking about. Star formations have been formed and observed. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-r...formation.html


    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    If one chooses to believe that new stars are being formed, then one must accept that stars form themselves. If true, then it logically follows that the first star formed itself. Following that trail to the beginning leads to one inevitable conclusion. This is why those with PHd's in Astrophysics, who choose to omit God from the equation are working on this idea:
    Nobody chooses to omit God from the equation. How do you test the supernatural? You can't. What is wrong with your brain? Your suggestion is the Bible says this therefore we need not explore any further. Just plain silly.

    I also can't believe you posted those same quotes out of context yet again. As if you think those quotes somehow discredit legitimate science. You haven't shown why any of those quotes are wrong. You copied those quotes from some other brain dead creationist who quote mined the sources. It's painfully obvious you don't know anything about legit science and absolutely refuse to educate yourself. Nothing could be more pathetic.

    Let me put those quotes in context John. Go ahead refute them please.

    From 1984: http://books.google.com/books?id=1BB...ing%22&f=false

    Let's quote the whole thing. The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing


    This was the only quote I could find but it makes sense given the text of the out of quote one.

    How did nothing become something and then explode?
    Paul Davies’ answer is that it happened through quantum physics applied to cosmology. He says, ‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’18



    http://books.google.com/books?id=qcA...ess%22&f=false


    In normal circumstances, such pairs vanish after an exceedingly brief time: there persistence would violate energy conservation(which hols up over macroscopic times in quantum theory, but may be violated for microscopic durations because of a time-energy uncertainty relation). But if there were a spontaneous quantum fluctuation yielding a system with zero net energy, that system could persist forever. In principle, there is no limit to how large such a fluctuation could be. So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre- existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. Thus stood matters when my proposal of creation ex nihilo was published in Nature December 1973


    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Richard, if you chose to buy into the idea that stars create themselves and that the first star created itself, then have at it. But know this, there are only two possibilities... something from nothing or Creation by Design". Choose wisely..
    No, it's NOT creation by design. You believe that God created something from nothing. The only difference is that you assert God did it with no evidence. That doesn't advance the argument.

    I want to thank you for revealing your utter contempt for the truth. Pat yourself on the back because you should be very proud of your quote mining.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    John,

    You have just revealed your utter contempt for anything concerning truth. In your pathetic attempt to discredit this paper by quote mining(as do all deceitful Christians),you missed one MAJOR part of the introduction.

    For much of the last 50 years direct observation of the star formation process and the development of a theory to explain it, have been severely hampered by the fact that most stars form in dark clouds and during their formative stages are invisible optically. FFortunately, advances in observational technology over the last quarter century opened the infrared and millimeter-wave windows to astronomical investigation and enabled direct observations of star forming regions and this has signiØcantly expanded our knowledge of the star formation process. As a result the foundations for a coherent theory of star formation
    and early evolution are being laid
    L67

    Did you note that the quote you posted implies that the foundation is not yet even laid regarding star formation? That any theory regarding star formation is currently "incoherent? In other words, there is no formula, nor foundation in science for star formation. The author concedes in his conclusion that before we can even begin the process, "new ways of thinking" will be required. What does such a statement suggest to you?

    So, this is the current state of scientific knowledge on this topic and L67 has decided to proclaim otherwise and dive right in before there's any water in the pool. Why is L67 so eager to go "all in" on a hand in which the cards are yet to be dealt? An idea that doesn't even have a footing, and likely won't in L67's lifetime? Is it "by faith"?

    Also, I did nothing but recite what the author of the article admitted in his own integrity, He proposed a number of possibilities in an effort to explain what he believes, that stars are forming to create new stars. If you have an axe to grind, it is with the author who is perhaps more knowledgeable and qualified to write or speak on the subject than you are.

    Do you have a PHd in astrophysics? Can you explain how a star forms? Can you explain any of the problems associated with the Nebular Hypothesis? Can you state what is observed within the dark gaseous clouds in space, millions of light years from Earth?

    If not, why do you believe that new stars are forming? Because you reject the Bible and prefer an alternative explanation as told by people you don't even know? Is that your definition of wisdom?

    The paper speaks for itself, don't get mad at me. Study the topic.



    Genesis states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. He claims responsibility for the manifestation of the universe. I can accept that and I can accept that God is not limited to the natural laws that restrict us. Jesus made that point unambiguously when He demonstrated His supernatural ability in transforming matter, healing infirmities, reshaping deformities and by resurrecting dead people, including Himself. If you believe that Jesus did these things, then why not simply accept that He made the stars also. If you don't believe Jesus, then you have greater problems to explain than arguing about star formation.

    "He created them and named them" and it's also worthy to note that not one of them is missing. "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing".

    Trying to explain creation in purely natural terms, while simultaneously omitting God from the process is an arrogant assumption, especially in light of His instruction to us.... "to look up to the heavens and acknowledge Who created all these things".

    I accept the Genesis account of His Creation. He states the stars are his handiwork, not the result of natural processes. He would know. He was there.

    Peace.

    John

    Edit note. To simply close the quote box of L67 by adding the "[/quote]"
    Last edited by jce; 08-20-2014 at 11:16 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and understand the information that I post.
    Okay Richard, since you have the superior education, take your place in the "on deck" circle following L67's turn at bat and prepare your presentation of a coherent theory on star formation.

    John

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hello David

    I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

    I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
    Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.

    Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

    I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

    John
    Hello John
    Thank you for continuing with this subject. I have read the responses from Richard and L67 and they are continuing in their usual style of attack, which I am so tired of, I do not feel like continuing, even though I have not quit as Richard likes to suggest and I have much to put to Richard (or L67) for them to answer. The evidence they are submitting is not substantive enough.
    With so many points at variance, it is difficult to know where to begin. One fact at a time has to be dealt with.

    It is fact that the science we are dealing with is called 'Theoretical Physics'. As such, the theory cannot be proved by experiment. The things being discussed cannot be proven in the laboratory under experimental conditions. The science is highly dependent upon mathematics to model what is happening. "How good is the model?" we might ask. On Richard's side, the model is accepted, whilst on the opposite side, we question the validity of the model. For the model to even stand a chance of being shown correct, it has to be assumed that initial conditions could be established.

    In the last article L67 gave you the link to, many questions arise. They talk about a "massive" star. Why is not information shown about a 'normal' sized star forming. What establishes the difference? In fact, they estimate the size of G35 to be 8x the size of our sun. That is not massive compared to VY Canis Majoris which is said to have 30 solar masses, yet its radii is 1,800 to 2,100 solar radii. Here is what Wikipedia gives on the subject;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris


    Controversy

    VY Canis Majoris ejects huge amounts of gas during its outbursts.[20]

    There have been conflicting opinions of the properties of VY CMa. In one view,[17] the star is a very large and very luminous red hypergiant. The various larger estimates of the size and luminosity fall outside the bounds of current stellar theory, both beyond the maximum predicted size of any star and far cooler than a star of its luminosity can become. In another opinion (such as Massey, Levesque, and Plez's study),[10] the star is a normal red supergiant, with a radius around 600 solar radii and falling comfortably inside models of stellar structure and evolution. More recent papers[7][8] produce intermediate values for radius and luminosity, falling at the very extreme for the expected size and luminosity of red supergiants (or hypergiant based on its emission spectrum and high mass loss rate).

    VY Canis Majoris also illustrates the conceptual problem of defining the "surface" (and radius) of very large stars. With an average density of 0.000005 to 0.000010 kg/m3, the star is a hundred thousand times less dense than the atmosphere of the Earth (air) at sea level. It is also undergoing strong mass loss with the outer layers of the star no longer gravitationally bound. The definition of the boundary of such stars is based on the Rosseland Radius, the location at which the optical depth is one (or sometimes a different value such as 2/3).[21] In cases such as VY CMa, the radius may be defined on a different opacity value or on an opacity at a particular wavelength.[8]
    On the opposite end of the scale, we have brown dwarfs or red dwarfs that are the smallest stars. Here is what is said about brown dwarfs;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._massive_stars
    Although brown dwarfs lack sufficient mass to ignite core hydrogen fusion (75–87 Jupiter masses, depending on metallicity), the smallest true stars (red dwarfs) can have such cool atmospheric temperatures (below 4,000 K), that it is difficult to distinguish them from brown dwarfs.
    The gas helium contains two hydrogen atoms so the same can be said of hydrogen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
    In the Earth's atmosphere, the concentration of helium by volume is only 5.2 parts per million.[69][70] The concentration is low and fairly constant despite the continuous production of new helium because most helium in the Earth's atmosphere escapes into space by several processes.
    Helium (and Hydrogen) are escaping the gravitational pull of the earth. That begs the question how hydrogen gas was compressed under gravity in the first place. I know we have the mathematical equations as Richard has presented in the mathematical equation he cited, but this goes against what is found in practice. OK, so let's say we have a mass of hydrogen gas produced by some means. That gas has to have the correct initial conditions for gravity to take effect and attract the hydrogen atoms in the way that meets the mathematical equation. That is one perspective of how hydrogen came to accumulate at the core of a star. The other perspective is that there is an outside force (unknown to science, but known as God) compressing the hydrogen gas together. With an outside force compressing the gas together, it would be impossible for any hydrogen to escape. The problem with the natural model (as I see it) is that hydrogen will escape and not come together because it was always escaping from the moment of the Big Bang.

    Once again the article cited by L67 is still speculative. Words used in the article like; "suggest", means that evidence is not conclusive. A new fact could come along that would suggest something else. The images shown at the bottom of the article are computer models. Computer models are man-made as a result of man's programming. A tweak of the program here and there could cause a different image to be produced. The science is still being worked on.

    L67 talks about the last 50 years, yet the information in the images produced from the different wavelengths detected were taken in 2011. In one snapshot in time, we are do deduce what took millions of years to form a star and is still taking millions of years to observe. For a start L67 and Richard should explain to me what the different wavelengths are meant to represent. Here is a reply to why stars take so long to form as confirmation of the length of time;
    http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/stars.html
    How long does it take to produce a star? Why does it take that long?
    To make a star like the Sun, the process takes some tens of millions of years. As to why, that's actually a very complex question. When the gas sphere that will become a Sun first condenses out of the interstellar gas cloud, the sphere is quite large in radius (compared to the Sun). It must shrink in size, squashing itself under its own gravity until, because of the pressure of the squashing, the central temperature reaches 10 million degrees Kelvin and fusion starts (it becomes a Sun). The shrinking is only possible since the sphere is losing energy from its surface (light is escaping), and so the material is settling down under gravity. Once the central temperature rises to 10 million Kelvin, fusion starts, energy is released by the fusion, replacing the lost energy from the surface, and the sphere stops contracting --- it is now a star like the Sun. The process of losing energy, and shrinking, while the central temperature rises as the pressure builds, all takes 10 million years or more. Why so long? Well, it' a combination of two things. First, such a large amount of gas (as is contained in the star) must lose a large amount of energy (by light lost from the surface) before it can settle down to the radius of the Sun. Second, it is losing that energy at a specific rate dictated by the way energy is transported up the surface from the interior. Both of these facts determine how long the entire shrinking process will take place. As I said, it is complex, but one can perhaps think of it as taking a long time because there is so much work (energy loss) that a gas sphere must do to shrink to the size of the Sun.
    As for condensing hydrogen gas to form stars, Richard has given another mathematical equation to explain what is happening, but can that be shown to be true in practice? I began this thread with saying, "I am grappling to understand this". Richard and L67 should not hide behind the articles they present, but should be able to answer the questions that those articles raise.

    Could the initial conditions ever come about naturally? The same question comes into play as with other aspects of evolution. Evolution is started from the first cell, but in my book, Evolution has to start with the first atom before the first star. How did these things come into existence? I do not believe they came from nothing, but accepting the relativistic relation between mass and energy as expressed by Einstein's equation, the universe came from pure energy, which I associate with God. God and his energy/power has always existed from infinity and will do so for infinity. That is the only answer anyone can give, otherwise "where did God come from?". These concepts are difficult to get our head around. How mass forms from energy is a BIG MYSTERY.

    Once it is accepted there is a power greater than anything known, that has the power to make the first atom, then anything is possible. To explain the operation of God by taking God away, is what the Evolutionists are trying to explain. Something exists, therefore there has to be an explanation for its existence. Science has to find an explanation that does not include God. Science has reached the limits of measurement and there is very little else to be found out. Science is coming up against barriers that to some, it is wishful thinking the barriers can be got over . Others are resigned to the fact that the limit is reached and there are still more questions than answers.

    In conclusion, I see a resemblance between science with all its suggestions and theories masquerading as truth, to be summed up in the tone of language found in Isaiah 28; 13-15
    13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
    14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
    15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:


    For the word "lies" in verse 15 read; "not the truth", or "suggestions and theories".

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 08-21-2014 at 01:54 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •