|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The truth is that it is also Christians that are opposing the Christian Cult of Ignorance and those that preach a young earth, that there was a Biblical Flood, that the creation myths in Genesis are meant to be more than plot devices, that there was a conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua and so many other absurdities.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
When Hubble proposed that the redshift is proportional to distance, it was under the assumption of no inflation. In an arbitrary inflation period time is not distance related. In essence, Hubble’s relationship works fine now but did not during inflation. The CMB isotropy shows matter had a much closer distribution than can be explained by the estimated age of the universe so BB had to have inflation. With an arbitrary inflation current red shifts may or may not predict current distances (I can explain this latter), but do not prove anything about how long it took for matter to reach those distances, that only relies on other assumptions that have empirical problems. In other words the distance of SN1987A proves nothing of how old the universe is by its current distance. But inflation occurred between 10 to the -36 seconds and 10 to the -32 seconds after the Big Bang, before the formation of protons at 1 microsecond and long before the formation of the first stars about 500 million years after the Big Bang. Inflation has no relevance to the ages of galaxies or stars, or of SN 1987A or any other supernova.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Why should Christianity respect brand new scientific attempts to justify increasing their own power and influence? That is a false question, as it presumes a false answer. One respects science because it is based on evidence.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: How long does it take to form a star? A bigger question is how a star is even formed in the first place. There is no accepted working model for star formation in physics. Cloud collapse does not work because of problems encountered in jeans mass/radius. Triggered star formation assumes unreal mechanisms like supernova, where does a supernova happen before star formation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Let us slow down by attacking one problem at a time, an ad-hoc monster like BB must be examined a piece at a time in the light of logic and fact. Patients is required, this forum has some very good minds, let us consider all the points of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: First of all I never made any such claims about 6000 years, on the contrary the Bible is not explicit about the age of the universe. You are in knee-jerk mode. I would expect nothing less than your comprehensive intellectual arguments. One point at a time. First age of the universe. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Nonukes writes: No, but far less is required to meet your challenge. Your claims are that 1) nothing shows the universe to be greater than 6000 years old and 2) that there are alternate cosmological explanations that provide a more plausible age of less than or equal 6000 years. Not just an alternate, a more plausible explanation. I will be challenging you on every single aspect of your claims. zaius writes: First of all I never made any such claims about 6000 years, on the contrary the Bible is not explicit about the age of the universe You are mistaken. You made exactly the claims that I stated you made. Perhaps you want to restate your position? No problem, just say so. But don't accuse me of lying or knee jerking. From Message 186 zaius writes: Since inflation is arbitrary and assumed to have occurred in a fraction of a second, nothing says the universe can not be 6000 years old under arbitrary inflation. There are several cosmologies based on relativity that provides a explanation via gravitational time slowing. One point at a time. First age of the universe. Retract your claim first. Once I see a more reasonable claim I may select a different counterexample. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Patients is required Patience. Please.
Let us slow down by attacking one problem at a time. Not logical because it is the agreement of many dating methods, despite the improbable what-ifs you might claim about any one such method, that gives weight to the scientific positions. Varves plus tree rings plus C-14 dating plus other radiometric dating are rightly discussed together because of the consilience in their points of over lap. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Marc,
I think your paranoia is showing. More than half of scientists believe in God or a higher power. Scientist as a group have nothing against religion, and they especially have nothing against morality, but they (as well as many non-scientists) do object to fundamentalist Christian attempts to subvert science education by promoting religious views as science. AbE: By the way, could you check your private messages? I sent you a PM from my Admin account about you needing to update your email address in your profile. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix salutation and add AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
How long does it take to form a star? It depends on which stage of star formation you are talking about, but it is from less than 10,000 years for an O-type star with a mass of >20 solar masses, to a few million years for a star like the Sun and >10 million years for an M-type dwarf with a mass of <0.5 solar masses.
How long does it take to form a star? A bigger question is how a star is even formed in the first place. There is no accepted working model for star formation in physics. Cloud collapse does not work because of problems encountered in jeans mass/radius. It's a complex problem, but we have observations of protostars in interstellar clouds, so there is no reasonable doubt that they form there, probably from the small dark clouds called Bok globules. There are many physical processes at work: turbulence in clouds may cause the formation of local density excesses; magnetic fields may play a role, for example in directing mass loss in jets; clouds may cool as a result of molecules emitting infrared and radio radiation. Star clusters form in several generations, and radiation and winds from the first-formed massive stars may compress the smaller condensations in the outer parts of the interstellar cloud and cause them to collapse. We can see this in the Rosette Nebula (NGC 2237-9 and NGC 2244) and the Cone Nebula cluster (NGC 2264) in Monoceros, and in the famous 'Pillars of Creation' image of M16/NGC 6611 in Serpens. To draw an analogy, until fairly recently there was no accepted working model for the generation of electric fields in terrestrial clouds, but we all accepted that lightning is a real phenomenon and that it has a physical cause.
Triggered star formation assumes unreal mechanisms like supernova, where does a supernova happen before star formation? Supernovae are real enough; I have seen several myself, in external galaxies. Also, isotopic anomalies in meteorites provide evidence of nearby supernovae that happened a few million years before the formation of the solar system; perhaps these supernovae triggered the collapse of the cloud that formed the Sun and the planets. Triggering of star formation by supernovae is only a more extreme form of the compression of clouds by the radiation and winds of massive OB-type stars, and these massive stars will certainly explode as supernovae at the ends of their lives. Of course, supernovae didn't trigger the formation of the first stars of a cluster, or the first stars in the universe; triggered star formation isn't a universal solution to the problem. I am sorry that I can't answer all your questions, but in my opinion the observational evidence is enough to show that stars form by the formation and collapse of relatively dense condensations in larger interstellar clouds, even if we don't understand everything about the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
marc9000 writes: My reason for saying that "I'm not convinced spirituality is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested" is a way to cut through all the rabbit trails and get to my point so that I can....maybe finish up! No matter how you cut it, no matter what excuses you provide, your statement is still wrong. No one claimed that spirituality can be falsified or tested. There are no atheists or agnostics out there, and certainly no one here, claiming or implying or even saying anything that can be remotely interpreted as implying that spirituality can be falsified or tested.
Books like these are responses to fundamentalist Christian attacks on science and science education. When Christian fundamentalism ceases these attacks the responses will also cease. Sure, then science becomes god! Global warming and abortion are the new morality. As you probably noticed from the last election, it's going to take a while. This is again a reflection of your own paranoid thoughts rather than anything real, and once again it isn't a response to anything I said. Science wouldn't be responding to fundamentalist Christian claims that Genesis is science if fundamentalist Christians weren't making those claims. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Since you cannot recognize a hyperbole, I will be specific. My point is that you can not ascertain the age of the universe by star formation or redshift under a arbitrary inflation. The Bible never said the universe is 6000 years old. So since I was not present at its beginning that statement is meaningless. Now tell me how a star is formed Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Until you present sufficient evidence of your "arbitrary inflation" (whatever that means) we can most certainly set limits on the age of the earth and even the universe.
We can say that the accounts of creation found in Genesis 1&2 are factually incorrect. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I can appreciate your opinion, but the fact still remains that a actual model in physics is nonexistent, concerning even a single star formation in the early universe. The parameters under which star formation could occur involve more than undetermined apparatus , but defy physical phenomena (gas action in a vacuum). My opinion is that star formation can not be assumed to have a specific time value if we do not know the mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Since you cannot recognize a hyperbole, I will be specific. My point is that you can not ascertain the age of the universe by star formation or redshift under a arbitrary inflation. The bible never said the universe is 6000 years old. So since I was not present at its beginning that stamens is meaningless. Your statement had meaning. The problem is that the meaning expressed was incorrect. I'll note in passing that it is you and not I that are bringing up conflicts with the Bible or YEC claims. You cited 6000 years. If your statement was mere 'hyperbole' then why did you deny making it? Why not retract or explain it when I first cited your statement. And why did your statement say nothing about red shift or star formation but instead claim that nothing could provide such evidence. If missing the 'hyperbole' was my mistake, what key did I miss that would limit your statement of 'nothing' to just star formation and red shift? And why should I accept such limitation anyway? The universe is at least as old as the objects in it. Inflation or no inflation, we can put a lower bound on the age of the universe by dating any object in the universe. The best evidence is that the sun is about 9 billion years past its formation period, and consequently we should expect the universe is at least that age. That age has nothing to do with red shift. It also has nothing to do with how long it took the sun to form or even how it formed. Retraction accepted. I assume that you accept that there is evidence for the proposition that the universe is at least 160,000 years old and that you have no wish to contradict that. I am also assuming that will want to introduce something other than alternate cosmology theories when you discuss the age of the sun and earth. And nobody here is defending 'arbitrary' inflation. If inflation is correct, then it must be consistent with all evidence we can find. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024