|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3120 days)  Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Creation Guy writes: If all that was required to make fusion was just a lot of gas being in one spot how have we not been able to replicate that? We have worked on it for 50 years now almost. Because the amount of energy caused by an increase in pressure and temperature is not enough is not enough to produce spontaneous fusion. It is not until the Coulomb Barrier is overcome that nuclei will begin to fuse together spontaneously to form larger nuclei. It is only when enormous nebulaus clouds of gas, dust, and other material are large enough to create the Jean's instability phenomena that Cave Diver pointed out earlier that gravitation overcomes the internal pressure of the gas itself and causes it collapse. At this point stellar evolution is inevitable as the gas eventually collapses to the point in which the Coulumb Barrier is overcome and spontaneous fusion occurs.
Creation Guy writes: I would also ask why no new star has ever been seen to wink into existence and all we have good hubble shots of is stars in nova or supernova status, close to 50 since we have been able to view them over the past half century. Primarily because stars do not "wink into existence". Rather they slowly evolve over hundreds of millions of years as vast clouds of gas slowly collapse to form a protostar and eventually T Tauri star then mature stars. Star formation pics:
Image of star 'birth' at the centre of the tiny Papillon Nebula observed using Hubble:
CG writes: Particles of matter do not clutter together in open space, nor do gasses. False. Then why do we see nebulae and other gaseous regions in interstellar space?
They keep their distance based on the gravity that they are acted on by. It is gravitational forces that is bringing them together not keeping them apart. Other forces such as brownian motion and the internal pressure of the gas itself can resist this gravitational force but if the gravitational force is greater than these other forces than there the collapse of these gasous particles is inevitable.
If they are not acted on by any gravity then they would move to equally distribute themselves across space - very slowly since nothing is acting on them except the random collisions in space of the wayward partciles. But they are being acted on by gravity. Everything has a gravitational pull on everything else in the universe it is just in different degrees of gravitational attraction and gravitational forces from some matter can overcome or nullify the gravitional attraction by other matter depending on the amount of mass and distances involved.
CG writes: By stellar evolutions account why is the Earth not a star? Because the solid surface of the Earth itself impedes gas from being condensed to a small enough area at the center of the Earth to create pressures and temperature high enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier, spontaneous fusion does not occur. Besides this would not be near enough gas to create enough gravitational force to overcome the internal pressure of the gas at the center and cause atomic nuceli to fuse together. Typical stellar birth nebulae can be hundreds to thousands of light years across. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
CG writes: Gas does not compact of its own accord. We can force it to. Gravity can act on it, but it does not happen to the point of stellar compression, whatever that may be. Baseless assertion. Gas does compact on it's own as you have already given an example of the gas in the atmosphere being compressed through atmospheric pressure and I gave an example of gas being compressed in the blood stream through atmospheric pressure on a column of water which itself is compressed through gravitation.
CG writes: Second the fact that stars age and die does not prove anything other that entropy. Actually star creation is the result in the decrease in entropy in a certain region of space.
CG writes: Stars are not being born. Show me one. I already showed you.
CG writes: I am not suggesting stars do not age and go from one phase to the next - they just simply cannot form. Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence why.
CG writes: They must be created by some amount of intelligence. Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence.
CG writes: Again sustainable fusion reactions are not easy. It is not only easy but inevitable once the Coulumb Barrier is passed.
CG writes: The entire universe is not at equilibrium. Agreed.
CG writes: Not until everything is burned out and scattered to fill the container evenly - will it be. With accelerating cosmic expansion this will never occur.
It is said that 14 billion years ago we exploded from a bang and now here we sit - everything all nice and orbiting and somewhat stable. I do not buy it. You don't have to, but don't expect us to believe you with you providing evidence to support your claims.
There were 3 universe theories - Big bang and everything is expanding outward - filling more and more volume. That is not really what the Big Bang theory asserts. The volume of spacetime itself is actually expanding or more accurately stretching. There is no 'outward' as 'outward' would implie there is something the universe is expanding 'into'. It is actually a misnomer people uneducated in astrophysics purport that the Big Bang is an explosion that through matter outward into empty space.
CG writes: This would lead to eventual loss of all heat through irrecoverable heat loss and the components slowly wearing down as there is no way to recover most of it. Yes heat loss is entropy but entropy can be reversed in an open system.
CG writes: Photosynthesis notwithstanding. Photosynthesis is just one of many examples of decreasing entropy in an open system. Other phenomena include the evolution and growth of life, the formation of crystals, net increase of energy from the Sun which drives climate and other natural phenomena on the planets and moons of the solar system, etc.
Off topic material hidden CG writes: Do not be so quick to assume that all scientists are evolutionaries. Well, it depends on what you mean by a "evolutionary". Do you mean biological evolution or all types of evolution i.e. cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, etc. Steady state theorists such as Frank Hoyle and others had no problems with stellar evolution. They just disagreed with exactly how the universe originated.
Roughly half are not. Half are. What we do have is a muzzle on the ID crowd that as soon as you mention it you are labeled as religious and tossed out of the party. Bullshit. I would venture that most scientists are religious in one degree or another. The problem is when you bring the pseudoscience of creationism and intelligent design into credible scientific endeavors.
It is as though we all know there is an elephant in the room - called Design - and none of us are allowed to mention it? This does not seem like science it seems like censorship of ideas. A great many scientific minds were Creationist or did not engage the subject at all. The ones who were great evolutionaries have squandered there scientific life - chasing thier own tail around the Origins Question. Mention it all you want. Just don't call it science. It is philosophy and religion not science.
I will do my best to remain civil, but I reject evolution because it is inconsistent and depressing and if it is correct - then none of this life matters. I am not willing to do so. That is why we see millions of atheists who are miserable and committing suicide every day. Most atheists I know (including myself) have families and enjoy very fulfilling lives.
I will quote a big time evolutionary to tell you what you already know: That's nice but this is an argument from authority fallacy if you think this gives your position more credence.
The say in law enforcement that confession is the strongest form of evidence - more reliable that eye witness or actual hard evidence So are you confessing you are wrong? Sorry you just walked into that one  Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
