Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 373 (741143)
11-10-2014 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by zaius137
11-09-2014 8:31 PM


Re: The hand of God
By the way population III stars apparently don’t exist or have never been observed. Population III should be very plentiful at long distances as observed from earth.
But should such stars be easy to observe? The oldest stars are necessarily the small dim stars. Even stars the size of the sun would be dead by now.
Then HD 140283 formed from population III supernova in that same 400 million (corrected) years. This seems (Impossible) unlikely.
How do you estimate this probability?
We are just getting started.
You have yet to start, but you're already putting up propositions with errors in them and making assertions without backing them up.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:31 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:51 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 245 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:10 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 242 of 373 (741161)
11-10-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by zaius137
11-10-2014 1:15 AM


quote:
Does any of this suggest a 6000 year old Earth/universe?
Why are you so enamored with 6000 years?
Because this is the number creationists such as yourself frequently claim for the age of everything.
And in fact, you have mentioned that number in a previous post.
Are you denying that the whole point of all of your posts is to support an age of about 6000 years?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 1:15 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:05 PM Coyote has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 243 of 373 (741192)
11-10-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by NoNukes
11-10-2014 5:22 AM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
How do you estimate this probability?
Since HD140283 is older than the estimated age of the universe with an uncertainty of .8 billion years. The 400 million years would be the overlap of uncertainties between the age of the universe and the age of HD140283.
I would claim that HD140283 would have to have formed 400 million years after inflation. Likely this time frame would be impossible, because some Population III stars would have to have formed, aged and went supernova before HD140283 could have formed (that by metals available in the early universe).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 5:22 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 12:47 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 244 of 373 (741197)
11-10-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Coyote
11-10-2014 10:11 AM


quote:
Because this is the number creationists such as yourself frequently claim for the age of everything.
And in fact, you have mentioned that number in a previous post.
Are you denying that the whole point of all of your posts is to support an age of about 6000 years?
I challenge you to read and find out what Genesis 1 says. The heavens and the Earth were first created then afterward was the six days of creation (concerning electromagnetic radiation, earth from a void state and life). The 6000 years you speak of do not allow a gap between the creation of the heavens and the Earth and the 6 days of creation. The gap is just some interpretation I happen to agree with. I am not set in stone on these issues because my understanding is always improving with information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2014 10:11 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2014 12:13 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 12:56 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 251 by nwr, posted 11-10-2014 1:01 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 245 of 373 (741200)
11-10-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by NoNukes
11-10-2014 5:22 AM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
You have yet to start, but you're already putting up propositions with errors in them and making assertions without backing them up.
Ok, I need specifics from you about what is not backed up. Everyone makes errors, even you.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 5:22 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 12:35 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 246 of 373 (741202)
11-10-2014 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:05 PM


I challenge you to read and find out what Genesis 1 says.
Why should I read it? There are so many creationists and other believers who are willing to tell me what it says.
Unfortunately, there is seldom any real agreement among them as to what it means.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:05 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by zaius137, posted 11-11-2014 12:15 AM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 247 of 373 (741203)
11-10-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by zaius137
11-09-2014 9:15 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
You miss the point completely, the problem is relating the age of the universe. ...
Not missing it at all, just laying some groundwork.
Two other things that SN1987A confirm are:
  1. the speed of light has been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred, and
  2. radiation decay rates have been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred.
This also confirms a minimum age for the universe of 168,000 years, but also that this is not even close to the real age. The real age must be significantly longer for this star to form and reach the point of going nova.
And it gives us a yardstick to check other star distances.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 9:15 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 373 (741207)
11-10-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:10 PM


Re: The hand of God
Ok, I need specifics from you about what is not backed up. Everyone makes errors, even you.
I've already noted some in my posts.
We all make errors, yes. But I've seldom seen someone as loathe to admit an error as you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:10 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 249 of 373 (741211)
11-10-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by zaius137
11-10-2014 11:51 AM


Re: The hand of God
Likely this time frame would be impossible, because some Population III stars would have to have formed, aged and went supernova before HD140283 could have formed (that by metals available in the early universe).
Just hand waving an assertion.
The stars that go super nova are the very large ones. Very large stars have lifetimes measured in a few million years with the largest having even smaller life times. Given that, what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283? And given the vastness of the universe, what is the basis for assuming that it is unlikely that there is not at least one HD140283? 1 in 10? 1 in 10^9?
What stops the addition of metals long after HD140283 is created?
Finally, is it not the case that even small errors in estimating the error bars around the measurement of the age of HD140283 provide even more time for creating heavy elements.
I don't believe you have any possible way to make even a back of the envelope calculation of the probabilities. And you aren't going to get away with faking it.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:51 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:18 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 373 (741213)
11-10-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:05 PM


The heavens and the Earth were first created then afterward was the six days of creation
That's a pretty liberal reading of the text. The text literally places the creation of the stars, the sun and the moon after the creation of the earth and electromagnetic radiation. You are welcome to your gap, but the sun and stars were not created during that gap. They are stated to be created on day four.
That's probably off the topic.
In any event, your position on the age of the universe is noted. Can we assume that a universe of at least 13.5 billion years of age is of no theological problem for you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:05 PM zaius137 has not replied

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


(5)
Message 251 of 373 (741214)
11-10-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:05 PM


I challenge you to read and find out what Genesis 1 says.
(a) the sky is a domed ceiling above the earth;
(b) the sun, moon and stars are moving light fixtures in that domed ceiling;
(c) the luminosity of the ceiling (during the daytime) is independent of the light coming from the sun;
(d) there are waters above the ceiling;

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:05 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 258 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:16 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 252 of 373 (741246)
11-10-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by zaius137
11-09-2014 8:36 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
For example, for a Bok globule consisting of molecular hydrogen with T = 10 K and a number density of 50 billion molecules per cubic metre, a condensation with a mass of 10 to the 30 kg (0.5 solar masses) will contract under its own weight.
The problem is not mass it is Jeans’s radius or length.
You can work it out. The mass of a hydrogen molecule is 3.310 to the -27 kg, so a 0.5 solar mass condensation contains 310 to the 56 molecules. If there are 50 billion molecules per cubic metre, the volume of the condensation is 610 to the 45 cubic metres. If the condensation is spherical, its radius is 1.110 to the 15 metres (1.1 Pm), or about 7500 astronomical units. The free-fall time of this condensation is 510 to the 12 seconds (5 Ts), or about 160,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:36 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2014 4:51 PM Astrophile has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 373 (741249)
11-10-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Astrophile
11-10-2014 4:33 PM


Learn LaTeX fools!
The mass of a hydrogen molecule is 3.310 to the -27 kg, so a
The mass of a hydrogen molecule is kg, so a....
Check the peek mode.
Coding can be found here: LaTeX/Mathematics - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Note: I'm not calling you, Astrophile, a fool. That was a joke.
But please, people, Percy put the coding in so let's use it. It will make the internet a better place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Astrophile, posted 11-10-2014 4:33 PM Astrophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 6:30 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 373 (741259)
11-10-2014 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2014 4:51 PM


Re: Learn LaTeX fools!
The mass of a hydrogen molecule is kg
[latex]3.3 \times 10^{-27}[/latex] kg
Cool thing to add to formatting tips on Posting Tips ...
Edited by RAZD, : peeked

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2014 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 255 of 373 (741272)
11-10-2014 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by NoNukes
11-10-2014 12:47 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
The stars that go super nova are the very large ones. Very large stars have lifetimes measured in a few million years with the largest having even smaller life times. Given that, what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283? And given the vastness of the universe, what is the basis for assuming that it is unlikely that there is not at least one HD140283? 1 in 10? 1 in 10^9?
There is an inconstancy with population III stars, if they were large and ended in supernova they were likely to have dispersed the metals they formed. If they formed black holes the metals they formed were sucked in. Waive your hands to make all the problems just go away.
quote:
what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283?
Restating my point: There was not enough time for HD140283 to have formed since the end of inflation. Simply because population III stars did not have enough time to form, age and go supernova. HD140283 was a low metal star not a zero metal star when it formed.
Your assertion that Population III stars are super massive is even outdated.
Large, short lived stars in the early universe create more problems than they answer. Consider the following
Population III stars were not only smaller than believed, they actually formed in binary systems, that is, pairs of stars that orbit a common center, say the results of a new simulation.
Population III Stars And The Early Universe Get A New Hypothesis | Science 2.0
Smaller stars with less initial metal last longer. So there goes the short lived population III idea. Also population III stars have never been observed (your whole point could be a fairytale).
There is a struggle to produce a realistic star formation model without producing numerous paradoxes. So far there is no comprehensive and scientific star formation model.
All your hand waiving about stars and there formation is pure speculation and off subject. We were discussing the age of the universe. I still say that stars add nothing to question of the age of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2014 12:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2014 12:41 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2014 1:11 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 264 by Astrophile, posted 11-11-2014 4:07 PM zaius137 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