Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 297 (292703)
03-06-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Son Goku
03-06-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
Son Goku writes:
Except for the 80+ stars we've observed form in real time.
They didn't exist before the beginning was begun. And, your real time cmment is nonsense also. How long does it take to form a star from scratch in real time? And, how exactly is it possible?
What would be the repulsive force preventing it from doing so?
The energetic motion due to temperature for one. Polarity force also. I think you must be unaware of how weak gravity is. You must gather a tremendous amount of matter before it can collectively begin to perform any of the physical feats you and other cosmologists claim. And, the point is that you have no means of initiating such a gathering of matter.
Son Goku writes:
Except when we have an observationally confirmed theory of how the formation takes place.
For instance we even take quantum mechanics into account, with Fermi-Dirac distributions.
You haven't any such confirmation whatsoever. Anybody can take a picture and provide endless dialogue and extrapolation but, that ain't science. Explain the natural forces that achieve the tasks you claim are being performed in "real time". By the way, that isn't absolute real time is it?
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Son Goku, posted 03-06-2006 10:06 AM Son Goku has not replied

Joman
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 297 (292704)
03-06-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
03-06-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
Coragyps writes:
And you're mistaken. Your opinion fails to trump observation.
I'll let objective readers decide if you've made any sense.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2006 10:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 03-06-2006 1:08 PM Joman has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 297 (292744)
03-06-2006 12:34 PM


Dude, this isn't worth my time.
I could go to my University right now, get the mpeg that was recorded and post a link to it here. However I know you'll just have some lame "rebuttal". Your previous post shows that you have no interest in actually listening to what I have to say. You'll just misinterpret either accidentally or purposefully.
Either that or show that theories which have withstood testing for a century are obviously ridiculous.
Explain the natural forces that achieve the tasks you claim are being performed in "real time".
The average kinetic energy per particle is less than the escape velocity of the cloud.
Standard Newtonian gravity with Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 297 (292746)
03-06-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Joman
03-06-2006 7:05 AM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
quote:
What came first...
(a) the cosmos...or
(b) the laws that govern it?
The cosmos, since the "natural laws" are a human invention to describe what they see.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Joman, posted 03-06-2006 7:05 AM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Joman, posted 03-06-2006 12:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Joman
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 297 (292747)
03-06-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
03-06-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
Chiroptera,
Let me guess...Your a athiest?...that one day realized that....LAWS require a lawgiver.
Joman.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-06-2006 11:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 03-06-2006 12:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 03-06-2006 12:47 PM Joman has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 36 of 297 (292751)
03-06-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Joman
03-06-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
Joman
Let me guess...Your a athiest?...that one day realized that....LAWS require a lawgiver.
Laws in science are not like laws in the human justice system. They are simply regularities that occur over and over again in our observation of the world. They are subject to change as new evidence surfaces but they are not constructs we are free to arbitrarily build.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Joman, posted 03-06-2006 12:41 PM Joman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 3:00 AM sidelined has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 37 of 297 (292755)
03-06-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Joman
03-06-2006 11:11 AM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
Oh. He makes perfect sense to me. We have observed the stars in teh process of being formed. That trumps the opinion that 'God made it look that way'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Joman, posted 03-06-2006 11:11 AM Joman has not replied

Bubs
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 297 (292786)
03-06-2006 3:14 PM


Observed light vs calculated light
First let me state that I am a new poster and I will be the first to admit that I have limited information. I am a YEC.
To give a possible answer to the original question, here is a link: Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement | Answers in Genesis . The basic argument is that you have observed time and calculated time.
Unless things have changed, which are quit possible, evolutionists have the same issue in the horizon problem ( Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang | Answers in Genesis ). All I am familiar with is the inflation argument, but what caused inflation to start/stop, and the more important question is why?

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminJar, posted 03-06-2006 3:30 PM Bubs has not replied
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 03-06-2006 3:44 PM Bubs has not replied
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2006 4:59 PM Bubs has not replied
 Message 46 by AdminJar, posted 03-07-2006 2:02 PM Bubs has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 297 (292788)
03-06-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bubs
03-06-2006 3:14 PM


Re: Observed light vs calculated light
Welcome to EvC. We are glad that you decided to join us.
At the end of this message you will find links to several threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by Bubs, posted 03-06-2006 3:14 PM Bubs has not replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 40 of 297 (292790)
    03-06-2006 3:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 38 by Bubs
    03-06-2006 3:14 PM


    Re: Observed light vs calculated light
    Hello Bubs, welcome to EvCforum.
    Unless things have changed, which are quit possible, evolutionists have the same issue in the horizon problem ( Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang | Answers in Genesis ). All I am familiar with is the inflation argument, but what caused inflation to start/stop, and the more important question is why?
    Raising questions about the Big Bang model doesn't help young earth creationism at all.
    With or without assuming the Big Bang model, you still have stars that are billions of years old, and we are still receiving light that was radiated billions of years ago. You still have an observed red shift of light from distant galaxies, with the amount of red shift increasing with time.
    The distinction you want to make between "observed time" and "calculated time" looks ad hoc. Since the first few days of the creation story occurred before there were humans, then surely "observed time" would have to mean time as observed by God. But God would not be constrained to only observe things billions of years after they were created, especially if God himself was the creator.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by Bubs, posted 03-06-2006 3:14 PM Bubs has not replied

    Coragyps
    Member (Idle past 734 days)
    Posts: 5553
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002


    Message 41 of 297 (292800)
    03-06-2006 4:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 38 by Bubs
    03-06-2006 3:14 PM


    Re: Observed light vs calculated light
    Hi, Bubs! Welcome!
    That first link is such bizarre logic that it made my brain bleed partway through, and I had to quit reading. Really....light goes 150,000 km/sec westbound down the hall, but infinitely fast back? What happens when your transmitter and receiver are at the west end? Or if your hall runs NE to SW? Does it then go infinitely fast and return at 0.5c? How 'bout if you set up the experiment in a Hindu country like India instead of Jesusland? Does that change things?
    Ad hoc seems a bit too kind....

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by Bubs, posted 03-06-2006 3:14 PM Bubs has not replied

    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 42 of 297 (292875)
    03-07-2006 12:43 AM


    I have been observing this thread for the last couple days or so. Allow me to give an external and impartial view on the topic of the conversation.
    On one side, the debater argues that forces other than gravity outweigh gravity making it impossible for the gas cloud to collapse into a big-ass fusion reactor. On the other side, the debater argues that gravity does in fact overtake the repulsion forces of the gas and collapse the gas cloud into a big-ass fusion reactor. After a few unsupported general facts being tossed back and forth, the thread degenerated into the classic and amusing "is too... is not" argument.
    Therefore, as a public servant, I would like to introduce a few specific calculations that might add some new dimension to this conversation. While the following calculations may not be the whole picture, I hope that it might shed some light to this issue.
    Suppose we have a cloud of gas composing mostly of hydrogen gas and some helium. Since some gas clouds we know of are many light years in diameter, some as large as 300 ly accross, we will focus on the smaller size ones, especially the ones that will suppose to give rise to individual main sequence stars.
    Therefore, let us assume that we have a gas cloud called Booboo. The following are characteristics of Booboo. Remember that Booboo is a typical gas cloud we find in the cosmos.
    -temperature around 10K
    -density is about 10^12 molecules per m^3
    -rather low ionization, considering we're talking about hydrogen
    -some molecular forces such as polar repulsion can be ignored (hydrogen)
    -mass is roughly 1.5 x 10^121 kg
    -diameter is 3.0 x 10^18 meters
    Ideal gas law PV = nRT
    P = F/A where A = area (we will assume that in this case area is area of hydrogen)
    Therefore, F = (nRTA)/V where this F refers to the force experienced by the gas molecules in this gas cloud.
    Or F = nkTA where k = boltzman const (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K)
    Inserting the appropriate numbers:
    F = (10^12 m^-3)*(1.38e-23 J/K)*(10K)*4pi*(25e-12 m)^2
    =====> 1.08e-30 J/m = 1.08e-30 N
    So, each molecule experiences 1.08e-30 newton of force from the pressure of the cloud.
    We now refer to the force of gravity, which we can use the newton's law of universal gravitation to calculate.
    F = GMm/r^2 where G is 6.67 x 10’11 N m^2/kg^2, M is mass of the cloud, and m is mass of a molecule in the cloud. With this, we can calculate the force experienced by a hydrogen molecule at the outermost part of the gas cloud.
    Therefore...
    (6.67e’11 N m^2/kg^2)*(1.5e121 kg)*(1.673e-27 kg)/(1.5e18 m)^2
    ======> 7.4e47 N
    Using the equations I have provided above, you can now change the masses, radii, etc. around and see how the forces are countering each other.
    By the way, between 7.4e47 N and 1.08e-30 N, which one do you think is bigger?
    Kindest kindest

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2006 4:37 AM rgb has replied
     Message 45 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2006 4:47 AM rgb has not replied

    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 43 of 297 (292876)
    03-07-2006 12:52 AM


    I would like to add something else. The above post only put into account gravity as the force responsible for the contraction of the cloud. In reality, we also need to put into account a very important factor of stellar collapse that gives birth to a star: the magnetic fields. The more the gas cloud contracts, the faster it will rotate (conservation of angular momentum). This gives rise to extremely powerful magnetic fields (by several thousand magnitude) that would overwhelm any repulsion force not already overwhelmed by gravity.

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 44 of 297 (292892)
    03-07-2006 4:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by rgb
    03-07-2006 12:43 AM


    Calculations are good
    Thanks for providing some calculations. I looked up the maths of collapsing stars, and naturally things are massively more complicated than the stuff you present. That's not why I thought I'd post though. I'm trying to figure out your figures. The figure that struck me was the mass: roughly 1.5 x 10^121 kg, I've seen one calculation for the mass of the solar system as being 21030 kg , which is a long way off the mass you chose. It did seem like your final forces involved where a little large.
    Here is a page with some more involved mathematics on it.
    Still, its good to see something substansive finally get onto the thread. Hopefully it'll serve as a spring board for further discussion - I was kind of hoping to see an mpeg of a collapsing star

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by rgb, posted 03-07-2006 12:43 AM rgb has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by rgb, posted 06-13-2006 12:48 PM Modulous has not replied

    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3643 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 45 of 297 (292894)
    03-07-2006 4:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by rgb
    03-07-2006 12:43 AM


    A couple of quick points...
    Since some gas clouds we know of are many light years in diameter, some as large as 300 ly accross, we will focus on the smaller size ones, especially the ones that will suppose to give rise to individual main sequence stars.
    You then use a cloud of diameter 300 ly...
    Using this diameter (10^18m) you have a volume of 10^54m3 and hence a molecule count of 10^66 at your density. I would thus revisit your mass of 10^121kg which is somewhat(!) larger than the mass of the observable universe...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by rgb, posted 03-07-2006 12:43 AM rgb has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024