1st law of thermodynamics... energy can never be create nor destroyed
I'm not a physicists, so any out there up to date please correct this, but I'm fairly certain what I'm about to say is right.
Ever hear of E = mc^2? With that simple formula, you can create energy from mass, or mass from energy. That whole first law only applies to limited systems (as in size, not whether they are closed or open). Sadly enough, I don't remember where I heard (or read) this exactly, but I have a vague feeling it was at livescience or from a science jounral, like Scientific American.
Point is, energy can be made, not just converted to other forms of energy.
High school texts still, with a respectable fraction of our electric power directly from fission, say things like "under ordinary circumstances, energy is conserved." Like a power reactor or the Sun was unordinary, I guess...
This pre-1915 mentality is a little odd, indeed. Just because Kelvin and J. Willard Gibbs did their work before Einstein doesn't mean that textbook publishers shouldn't try to catch up a bit. The classic Laws Of Thermo are, as usually phrased, for non-nuclear phenomena. And that works a lot of the time in fossil-fuel sorts of isolated cases, but not at all in general. After all, those fossil fuels, and wind energy, and wood to burn all are dependant of the Sun "destroying" mass to make light and heat. It's like Cavediver says, though: we're not destroying but converting less-familiar to more-familiar forms of energy.
Mass is essentially made up of two components - rest mass and "conventional" energy.
For example, a hydorgen atom is made up of the rest mass of the four fundemental particles of which it is made: 1 eletcron, 2 up quarks, and a down quark. This totals about 16 MeV. The mass of the hydrogen atom is close to 1GeV!!! Just about all the unaccounted 984 MeV is from binding energy between the quarks, and a tiny tiny fraction from the electromagnetic binding energy between the electron and the proton.
So mass, to all intents and puposes IS energy. The only "matter" bit of the mass accounts for less than 2% of actual mass.
And even the rest mass is not sacred as "pair annihilation" (matter/anti-matter annihilation) will reduce matter (electrons, quarks, etc) to photons, and so even the rest mass has gone now!
To me it is not the facts that are the problem, it is the lens by which we look at them.
religion without science is blind
Rob, I've had the unique opportunity to live in an Amish neighborhood in Northeast Ohio. It is like looking into the mindset of a 2000 year-old Biblical community.
Their education stops at the eighth grade. They've had NO science education. They read at a 5th grade level. They aren't stupid, but they are incredibly ignorant about things that don't matter to them. Actually that makes sense, when you think about it.
Case in point...
There was a lunar eclipse awhile ago. An amish neighbor who had a telescope invited the neighborhood to view the eclipse. He patiently explained to anyone who would listen about the relationships between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth that allowed an eclipse to occur. They had to imagine for a moment that the Earth rotated and the Sun DID NOT go around the Earth. Some bought it, others didn't. In the end, he was ridiculed and the Bishop (in an Amish community, he's the one who tells you which way to spit) asked my neighbor to give up his telescope. Too much education will steer you away from God.
So, on clear evenings, my Amish neighbor and I, set up his telescope in his back yard (several acres, mind you) away from prying eyes. We study God's Creation and talk about photons and sub-atomic particles and galaxies and string theory and all that neat stuff, with an occasional middle finger extended in the direction of the Bishop's house.
Now, to segue back to the original topic so I don't get yelled at...
Question: How do creationists explain stars? Answer: I don't know, but the Amish sure as Hell can't.
You guys really need to relax. I thought I did a great job of explaining that this whole exercise is just speculation. Even so, you get so offended. Truth is relative remember? What's wrong with my truth? You have yours right?
relax about what? misinformation is a zero-tolerance thing for me :) whos offended? i'm not i'm just tired of the same things recapped. true isn't relative sorry its eather true or false
I'm dissapointed I have to addresss some of these things. Really sloppy on your part.
i'm sorry you have to post again..
sorry but the bible is not a science text no matter how much you wish it was, even if it sounds like it
Other scientifically accurate Bible quotes that preceed science, and that 'old science' argued with. NKJ Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..." It was people who said the earth was flat, Not the word of God.
sorry but the hebrew has a word for sphere if i remember correctly and the author didn't use it in 40:22, the hebrews had the same outlook as everyone else in the area, the best i could think of would be like a snow globe
NKJ, Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth upon nothing" Now when you read that, please don't pretend that you know what gravity is and presume to argue the point
no i would argue that hebrews didn't think the earth moved, but the sun spun around it
To God, 'good' is perfect... NIV Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. NIV Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
so interpretation wins out, so you are arguing with god then? i would think that if god meant perfect he would say perfect not good
You're too cynical little goat boy, Christ is also portrayed as the morning star, and said Himself 'I am the light of the world'. 'I have come into the world as a light' etc. The terms star and light have a double meaning to confuse the proud and learned...
you need to go read what the verse was about, its about the king of tyre - he called himself son of the morningstar - he fell
The terms star and light have a double meaning to confuse the proud and learned...
of course!, didn't realize that god was loki now i know better!
nice so you use lines from people who tied the serpent to satan to make a point using mythology, sorry my cynical nature prevents me from taking lines from the bible serously with no context
those lines about pefection are about god and about how we should act, not about us being designed perfect, wheres the universe called perfect? still not convencing
Dr, Martin gives it in his book. It's totally testable, as are many of the things in Genesis. He documents his conclusions well. Check it out. I know your interested inexpanding your horizons in a relentless pursuit of the truth..
sorry but i'm not going to read a book to learn your argument, its your job not mine
I'm making it all up. I went back in time and changed the ancient texts...
go read some history
It's a damn conspiracy!
i hope you are joking, its very true just ask around
well let me alter what i said, the hebrews thought the sky was a solid object that god "beat" like metal to put the stars and objects into place
What I believe has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. And the same goes for you. I am so glad you understand this point because some people have a hard time comprehending the fact that reality preceeds them. Reality is absolute!
reality is not absolute, have you ever talked to any pychotic people? they have a very different reality than you or i do - reality is relative to the person, what you mean is the universe is absolute
Whatever the truth turns out to be, it will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So this whole notion of diversity and the truth being relative is completely false. Thank you for proving that point on accident.
who said the truth is relative if you are talking about morals, then i still stand by the fact that yes the are relative and you haven't proven why they are not
You need to have your sight restored. If it is true... I think it has tremendous bearing on all of reality.
i wish he would then i would like to not wear glasses, everything is a blob without em, what if its false though?
But your statement is true and therefore absolute?
if we accept our reality as it is, i would never say anything is absolute, but i can say i agree with reality and not a book writen by people with no clue about anything
But Reverend, I have to admit... your God would be a lot less scary and would let me live anyway I want without compromise. Uconditonal love man...
i was just thinking about this, its amazing to me how easy christians can change god to fit thier motive when confronted by people saying god is about love and not heavy rules, but when people talk about how cruel god is, they say thats not my god! maybe we should change all the churchs into IHOPS, because of all the waffeling christians like to do
No, I'm making it all up... There is nothing in the Bible about Eternal life, Heaven, the new Heaven and Earth, or the patient endurance of the saints. You got me boss...
i think you are distorting what i said, and i'd wish you to not quotmine like that - plus theres not really A bible, but many and i guess thats besides the point
Oh yeah... how do creationists explain the stars???...
I'm going to try to yank this thread back on-topic. Since you seem to be representing the creationist viewpoint in this thread, could you start us back on the 'true path' by providing a brief summary of how creationists explain stars. Of, if the explanation appears earlier in this thread, please provide a link to that message.
I believe the central issue raised in the opening post is how light from stars further away than 5 or 6 thousand light years came to exist.