|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How do creationists explain stars? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
tanzanos Inactive Member |
A very good starting point will be to read Steven Hawkin's 'A Brief History of Time'.
"Elementary my dear Watson" Mighty is the sword that draws blood! Mightier is the Pen that draws ink! Mightiest is the tongue that draws ears! (Yiannis Mantheakis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
A very good starting point will be to read Steven Hawkin's 'A Brief History of Time'. I find Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' to be even better This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-04-2006 12:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I like Stephen Hawkins's "A Timely History of Briefs."
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've always enjoyed listening to MC Hawking's "A Brief History of Rhyme."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
What came first...
(a) the cosmos...or (b) the laws that govern it? At the moment of beginning were there any laws of physics that prevented the transmission of light? If so where did the law against it come from? The Bible says that, God said; "Let there be light." The phrase, "let there be light" expresses God's desire that light be free of any resistance to it. In consequence of this it can be expected that in adherence to this command "Let there be..." there existed at that time, NO RESISTANCE to the transmission of light. In big bang cosmology it is also proposed that, the laws of physics now operating, didn't apply at the 'initial' moment of beginning. Thus, no law existed to limit the speed of light. Another, biblical comment is where God declares that he "stretched forth the heavens." A little consideration of that phrase will reveal that at the moment of beginning the heavens were stretched out from a smaller construction to a larger one...like a balloon. This also provides a hypothesis concerning the speed of light. Initially all points would be immediately connected and after stretching space the light connection would still be there. These are just some thoughts from a biblical point of view. I see no advantqage with any cosmological theory of beginnings in the scientific literature. All the theories are unable to explain the construction of the universe as now measured. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I see no advantqage with any cosmological theory of beginnings in the scientific literature. All the theories are unable to explain the construction of the universe as now measured.
What? That's all they do.I thought you were going to say that they don't explain how it began. They definitely explain the current state of the universe as it is now measured, or else we wouldn't use them. Also, do you actually know what these theories say about the universe?
What came first...
When it comes to the universe as a whole time isn't that simple or even applicable. I can explain if you wish.
(a) the cosmos...or (b) the laws that govern it? At the moment of beginning were there any laws of physics that prevented the transmission of light? If so where did the law against it come from?
I think the use of the word "law" in the phrase, laws of physics, might be conveying something to you that isn't intended. The Bible says that, God said; "Let there be light." The phrase, "let there be light" expresses God's desire that light be free of any resistance to it. In consequence of this it can be expected that in adherence to this command "Let there be..." there existed at that time, NO RESISTANCE to the transmission of light. In big bang cosmology it is also proposed that, the laws of physics now operating, didn't apply at the 'initial' moment of beginning. Thus, no law existed to limit the speed of light. There isn't some law preventing light from being transmitted in the early universe, it is simply that the arrangement of matter was such that, being so hot and dense, matter simply instantly reabsorbed any photons which were emitted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Son Goku,
Joman writes: All the theories are unable to explain the construction of the universe as now measured. By the phrase "The construction of the universe" I mean "the process by which it was constructed" not how it appears in it's final form of construction.
Son Goku writes: They definitely explain the current state of the universe as it is now measured, or else we wouldn't use them. If by this you mean that mankind can measure many things accurately and gather the data correctly...then I agree. But, the theories about "how" things came about are full of holes. I challenge you to scientifically explain and verify the validity of any of them. I'm no scientist but I'm no fool either. For example "you can't show me a picture of clouds in space and say "here is were stars are being formed" and think I'm dumb enough to believe it.
Son Goku writes: ...do you actually know what these theories say about the universe? Somewhat. I doubt you have any shocking revelations. But, hey! I might be wrong.
Son Goku writes: When it comes to the universe as a whole time isn't that simple or even applicable. I can explain if you wish. Explain. Thank you.
Son Goku writes: I think the use of the word "law" in the phrase, laws of physics, might be conveying something to you that isn't intended. I think not. By law I mean a regulating force that governs the operation of physical constansts and which limits the operational ranges of variables.The point is simple. At the moment before anything that exists, came into existence it cannot be logically supposed that there existed any governing constraints upon the not yet existing things. Unless of course you believe in a pre-existing law maker with a pre existing plan. Son Goku writes: There isn't some law preventing light from being transmitted in the early universe, it is simply that the arrangement of matter was such that, being so hot and dense, matter simply instantly reabsorbed any photons which were emitted. What matter? Are you proposing that all matter just popped into existence and began to interact? Where is you proof? Regardless, your point about absorbtion of photons as is presently observable has nothing to do with the speed of light in the distances between points of absorbtion. The primary governing law is the 'dielectric constant'. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
For example "you can't show me a picture of clouds in space and say "here is were stars are being formed" and think I'm dumb enough to believe it. Are you being serious? Pictures, along with dozens of observations of baby stars, toddler stars, adolescent stars....., all gobbling up their protostellar disks and igniting to full starhood, and you'll refuse to believe it??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
If by this you mean that mankind can measure many things accurately and gather the data correctly...then I agree. But, the theories about "how" things came about are full of holes. I challenge you to scientifically explain and verify the validity of any of them. I'm no scientist but I'm no fool either. For example "you can't show me a picture of clouds in space and say "here is were stars are being formed" and think I'm dumb enough to believe it.
What if I showed you an mpeg file of the cloud actually collapsing and the nuclear furnace bursting into life, such as LkHa 101 in Perseus?We've seen their birth in real time from molecular clouds. And what is with the "dumb enough" comment, it's not like us cosmologists are actively trying to fool you. Somewhat. I doubt you have any shocking revelations. But, hey! I might be wrong.
Depends, how much of the subject have you actually read?Do you know about Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity? Explain. Thank you.
Time is simply a direction within the universe and isn't absolute. Different observers will call different paths through the universe time. What's time for one observer might be an angle in space to another. With regards to the expansion of the universe I'll paste an old post from me: Think of the Universe as the Earth. Each Longtitude up from the south pole to the North pole is the Universe at a given time.The South Pole is the Big Bang for Example and the North Pole is the Big Crunch. Each Circle is the Universe at a different time. The Universe at a given time (Each circle) gets bigger away from the South Pole.To us this looks like Inflation because we crawl up each bit of longtitude and see the circle getting bigger. In reality the Universe was always been this shape and is static. The Circle seen here would be the Universe at its maximum size, half way between the Big Crunch and Big Bang. As you can see, whether there is space outside the Earth or not doesn't matter when discussing this.A similar case applies to the Universe. (I know there doesn't necessarily have to be a Big Crunch, but this is just to make the Example simpler.)
By law I mean a regulating force that governs the operation of physical constansts and which limits the operational ranges of variables.
No, it's not a regulating force nor does it limit things. The laws of physics is simply a phrase used to describe the Classical idea of various principles which underline how the world operates. They don't regulate it actively or anything, the simply describe it. However the phrase "laws of physics" isn't really in use anymore.
The point is simple. At the moment before anything that exists, came into existence it cannot be logically supposed that there existed any governing constraints upon the not yet existing things. Unless of course you believe in a pre-existing law maker with a pre existing plan.
Before with respect to whom? Also, as I've pointed out above the universe is more like a sphere, where North-South is time. Everywhere on the sphere matter, and the rules which go with it, exist.The sphere itself doesn't need a beginning though. There is no time "before" the rules. What matter?
The matter that absorbed the photons.
Are you proposing that all matter just popped into existence and began to interact?
No.
Regardless, your point about absorbtion of photons as is presently observable has nothing to do with the speed of light in the distances between points of absorbtion. The primary governing law is the 'dielectric constant'.
I don't understand what you mean here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: Are you being serious? Pictures, along with dozens of observations of baby stars, toddler stars, adolescent stars....., all gobbling up their protostellar disks and igniting to full starhood, and you'll refuse to believe it?? There exists no scientific basis for star formation. Gravity is the weakest force in the known universe and is thereby insufficient to condense energetic atoms and molecules. Just proclaiming that stars form magically behind and/or within cloud formations is not science. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Even though we see it happening.... That's very interesting, Joman. Do you think mankind will ever be able to build a heavier-than-air flying machine?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
There exists no scientific basis for star formation.
Except for the 80+ stars we've observed form in real time.
Gravity is the weakest force in the known universe and is thereby insufficient to condense energetic atoms and molecules.
What would be the repulsive force preventing it from doing so?
Just proclaiming that stars form magically behind and/or within cloud formations is not science.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
All quotes by Son Goku:
What if I showed you an mpeg file of the cloud actually collapsing and the nuclear furnace bursting into life, such as LkHa 101 in Perseus? Lets see it!
We've seen their birth in real time from molecular clouds. You have not seen any such thing.
And what is with the "dumb enough" comment, it's not like us cosmologists are actively trying to fool you. They fooled you didn’t they? Show me your data. Yes.
Time is simply a direction within the universe and isn't absolute. You cannot prove whether or not time is absolute. All Einstein and others were saying is that there exists no scientific way to prove a absoute reference for time. That doesn’t equate to proof that no absolute time reference exists.
Different observers will call different paths through the universe time. What's time for one observer might be an angle in space to another. Nonsense. On this basis you can claim anything you want, anywhere, at anytime, and everyone can be right in their own eyes. Look, if you think a thing cannot be proven one way or another then, it's not a foundation for extrapolation.
With regards to the expansion of the universe I'll paste an old post from me: Your example explained nothing. The facts are in . the universe isn’t spherical nor circular.
No, it's not a regulating force nor does it limit things. The laws of physics is simply a phrase used to describe the Classical idea of various principles which underline how the world operates. Dream on. In one sentence you philosophically argue that the laws of physics is just a phrase. Then you define it with the phrase “various principles” which is another word for laws. And, you in no way have refuted the existence of laws governing nature.
They don't regulate it actively or anything, the simply describe it. Then what does? You sound like you claiming that I think "phrases" govern physical things.
However the phrase "laws of physics" isn't really in use anymore. Call the forces that govern physical action or inaction anything you want. Why are you debating semantics anyway?
Before with respect to whom? Before: with respect to the existence of any and all known things.
Also, as I've pointed out above the universe is more like a sphere, where North-South is time. This, is as I pointed out earlier is false.
Everywhere on the sphere matter, and the rules which go with it, exist. There isn’t any sphere that corresponds to your imaginary construct.
The sphere itself doesn't need a beginning though. All things must have a beginning or an explaination for not.
There is no time "before" the rules. Nor distance nor limitations excetra. Therefore, there was at one time no RESISTANCE to the speed of light nor any expansion of matter capable of outrunning it.
The matter that absorbed the photons. I know what you claimed. But, you haven’t explained where the photons nor the absorbing matter came from. And, furthermore, they don't refute my point anyway.
I don't understand what you mean here. I was talking all along about the speed of light and why it is understandable to expect that at the beginning of all created things there existed no barrier to the formation of the universe as we see it today. Why? Because the regulating powers in operation today didn’t exist. The forces that we measure today are not the forces capable of forming the known universe. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: Even though we see it happening.... That's very interesting, Joman. Do you think mankind will ever be able to build a heavier-than-air flying machine? Not without obeying the law when doin it. This is all you got? A scoffers attitude? Where is your scientific explaination for star formation? Do you think the matter that a star consists of just condensed together and ignited? I explained why such condensing action isn't possible. Gravity cannot overcome the energy of the individual atoms and molecules. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I explained why such condensing action isn't possible. Gravity cannot overcome the energy of the individual atoms and molecules. And you're mistaken. Your opinion fails to trump observation. Where's the repulsive force to resist gravity in a collapsing gas cloud?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024