How do creationists explain stars?

I have been observing this thread for the last couple days or so. Allow me to give an external and impartial view on the topic of the conversation.On one side, the debater argues that forces other than gravity outweigh gravity making it impossible for the gas cloud to collapse into a big-ass fusion reactor. On the other side, the debater argues that gravity does in fact overtake the repulsion forces of the gas and collapse the gas cloud into a big-ass fusion reactor. After a few unsupported general facts being tossed back and forth, the thread degenerated into the classic and amusing "is too... is not" argument.Therefore, as a public servant, I would like to introduce a few specific calculations that might add some new dimension to this conversation. While the following calculations may not be the whole picture, I hope that it might shed some light to this issue.Suppose we have a cloud of gas composing mostly of hydrogen gas and some helium. Since some gas clouds we know of are many light years in diameter, some as large as 300 ly accross, we will focus on the smaller size ones, especially the ones that will suppose to give rise to individual main sequence stars.Therefore, let us assume that we have a gas cloud called Booboo. The following are characteristics of Booboo. Remember that Booboo is a typical gas cloud we find in the cosmos.-temperature around 10K
-density is about 10^12 molecules per m^3
-rather low ionization, considering we're talking about hydrogen
-some molecular forces such as polar repulsion can be ignored (hydrogen)
-mass is roughly 1.5 x 10^121 kg
-diameter is 3.0 x 10^18 metersIdeal gas law PV = nRTP = F/A where A = area (we will assume that in this case area is area of hydrogen)Therefore, F = (nRTA)/V where this F refers to the force experienced by the gas molecules in this gas cloud.Or F = nkTA where k = boltzman const (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K)Inserting the appropriate numbers:F = (10^12 m^-3)*(1.38e-23 J/K)*(10K)*4pi*(25e-12 m)^2=====> 1.08e-30 J/m = 1.08e-30 NSo, each molecule experiences 1.08e-30 newton of force from the pressure of the cloud.We now refer to the force of gravity, which we can use the newton's law of universal gravitation to calculate.F = GMm/r^2 where G is 6.67 x 10’11 N m^2/kg^2, M is mass of the cloud, and m is mass of a molecule in the cloud. With this, we can calculate the force experienced by a hydrogen molecule at the outermost part of the gas cloud.
Therefore...(6.67e’11 N m^2/kg^2)*(1.5e121 kg)*(1.673e-27 kg)/(1.5e18 m)^2======> 7.4e47 NUsing the equations I have provided above, you can now change the masses, radii, etc. around and see how the forces are countering each other.By the way, between 7.4e47 N and 1.08e-30 N, which one do you think is bigger?Kindest kindest

I would like to add something else. The above post only put into account gravity as the force responsible for the contraction of the cloud. In reality, we also need to put into account a very important factor of stellar collapse that gives birth to a star: the magnetic fields. The more the gas cloud contracts, the faster it will rotate (conservation of angular momentum). This gives rise to extremely powerful magnetic fields (by several thousand magnitude) that would overwhelm any repulsion force not already overwhelmed by gravity.

Fine, just change the mass and see what happens.

Rob writes

quote:

---

If you ever go to that mountain you will understand. It's an experiential thing. Sorry for any lack of evidence...

---

I've been on the continental divide twice. What's your point?

Just curious, have you ever taken a trig/calculus class or geometry? If so, do you doubt that everything you learned in there is wrong?

Rob writes

quote:

---

Sounds to me like an atmosphere that strictly oppresses with fear!

---

Pardon me for nosing in, but I really have to comment. It is not an atmosphere of fear.When an real expert says something, he makes sure that he knows about it enough to stand up to scrutiny. That's the reason why experts are experts. Unlike you, Rob, who seem to think an expert is any regular Joe that has an opinion on everything.Would you trust a person after you've found out he blatently lied to you and everyone around you for one reason or other?

quote:

---

No wonder few scientists stop to seriously consider other angles on 'empericism' (thanks Percy). I mean What? Are you stupid or something? We all know that Genesis can't be true!

---

Rob, very few scientists stop to seriously consider the stories of genesis because those stories cannot be verified without using "goddunit" to fill in the holes.For example, how the flying fuck did Noah build an boat big enough to carry 10,000,000+ pairs of animal, not to include colonial species and non-aquatic plant life? But for argument's sake, let us assume that it was possible for such a thing to happen. How come we haven't found any evidence at all that points to a world wide flood that covered the tallest of tall mountain tops?Even in this thread, you resorted using a hypothesis that light slowed down since creation even though I haven't seen a single shred of evidence put forth. That is not honest science!

quote:

---

You boys need to stop with the absolute attitude or you'll sound like me. But the absolute can only be found in the metaphysical (thank you for that Aristotle, and for believing that light speed was infinite

---

If light speed was infinite, how come it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the Earth, or why it takes several hours for signals from the voyager and galileo spacecrafts to reach the Earth from the outer planets?Rob, you seem to have an oversimplified view of the academic community. You seem to think that any wacko idea fabricated by hicks and hillbillies without at least a single observable data has to be considered by us.Remember, in science, observation comes first, hypothesis comes second, experiment and data come after, and finally after many repeatable expeiments and observations and possibly years of collective confirmation a theory may be put forth to attempt to explain the data. And for many scientists, work differ little with taking a shot in the dark. Conclusions come much much later, sometimes half a century after the experiment started.

Rob writes

quote:

---

Logic cannot get you there, but it is critical to test for coherence.

---

Rob, you seem to use the word "logic" a little too liberally. Are you referring to formal logic, informal logic, or just common sense? I am assuming you know what I am referring to.

Rob writes

quote:

---

Wow, you are really knowledgeable.

---

Actually, I often consider myself quite ignorant. Everytime I finished reading a book, I become slightly more ignorant.

quote:

---

May I bow at your alter?

---

You may!I've been meaning to start my own religion for some time now.

quote:

---

And you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism.

---

Ok, take a deep breath, pause for a moment, take another deep breath, then try to articulate a little more.

quote:

---

Feel free to believe what you want.

---

That's just it, Rob. I'm a skeptic. I doubt all things, including everything concluded by science thus far.

quote:

---

All your looking for is the respect and pat on the back of your peers.

---

People in california must be changing the homophones around. I believe the word you were looking for was "you're" But yes, I often try to seek attention and a pat on the back. As a matter of fact, everytime I attend a scientific conference I always stomp my feet on the ground and cry like a baby. Hasn't worked yet, but who knows.

quote:

---

I'll face hells fury and the spit and laughing of all of you, until you can convince me of what you say cannot be known.

---

Ok, you come up with a mathematical and engineering model for a boat that could hold 10,000,000+ pairs of animal, enough fresh water and food to keep them alive and productive for a year, all terrestrial plant life on Earth, and a light source that gives the full spectrum to keep the plants green for a year using nothing but Bronze Age technology and perhaps I'll try to convince the others to keep their eyes open.

quote:

---

Yeah! I'll take the a priori, you take what ever you want. As long as your alive, it's your perogative.

---

Ok, I guess.

quote:

---

I'm going to be booted. It's only a matter of time! But that is what will prove my point!

---

I'm curious to how this will prove your point? Please elaborate.

Rob writes

quote:

---

Are you really skeptical of everything? Both that stars are old; and that stars are young?

Both that Noah had an Ark; and that the story is impossible?

---

Rob, I really feel that you don't really know what the word "skeptical" means. You seem to be under the impression that "skeptical" means having some kind of negative attitude towards a given idea.I encourage you to read more on skepticism before you continue to show your blatent misunderstanding of the concept.But to make things clear, I have yet to make any definitive assertion other than the general scientific approach to natural phenomena.

quote:

---

You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.

---

Your statement here is neither scientific nor logical.

quote:

---

I know that light inasfar as truth is slowing down, since more and more question if it is even real. But they then assume that it's non-existance is true. So, because of that, truth must exist and we are simply dead to it.

---

The scientific, and decent, approach to this would be for you to present us with some kind of mathematical equations and experimental results showing us some kind of evidence that light does indeed slow down. If you wish, you could submit your results to be peer reviewed and get it published in scientific journals for those of us who actually know a thing or two about physics can start repeating these experiments ourselves. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Rob writes

quote:

---

The reason is that the metaphysical implications of tentatively knowing thse things that are repeated by TV science programs are enormous...

---

I find most of the so-called science programs out there to be either oversimplified versions of elementary science text books or outright misrepresentations of what we do know. For example, I have been quite annoyed with the science and history channels having programs on the supernatural and present things like alien abductions and ghosts as facts.But to relate this to the age of stars, you shouldn't put too much faith in tv. They care more for ratings than the truth.And just so you know, your girlfriend Ann Coulter embraises Einstein's relativity as both scientific and "godly" in her new book The Church of Liberalism: Godless. You should read it.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

Rob writes

quote:

---

Then the next day it dawned on me... So I sent him an email asking him why he assumed that Jesus created new matter when performing the miracle? And then I asked him why Jesus could not simply have transferred energy from one place to the other?

---

Rob, you just admitted that Jesus could have been a technologically advance alien.

Rob writes

quote:

---

How in the name of Fritjof Capra did I admit that?

---

I'll get to that after I've gotten through the other things first. Bare with me.

quote:

---

Whoa whoa whoa! I just got your point... And all I was saying is that we do not know how He did it. I believe Syvain got that point, because he was very engaged until a dummy like me pointed out something so simple.

---

I believe you were referring to that person you were exchanging email with.You seem to be very proud of yourself and holding your nose up high for having supposedly stumped an expert. In a way, you have. But it's not what you think.Experts, or at least intellectually honest people who have studied certain specific fields, do not like to converse with intellectually dishonest people and to talk about things they are not experts in. When you talk to a physicist, you can be sure that you will stump him if you introduce something like genetics or geology, that is unless he is also a geneticist or geologist.Intellectual honesty requires that you don't just pull an answer out of your ass to answer a question. Intellectual honesty requires that you are willing to say "I don't know" when you really don't know. Intellectual honesty requires that when you say you understand something, you really understand it and not just googled it in 20 seconds.For example, when I refer to the pauli exclusion principle, most people can just look it up and find out that it losely states that no 2 particles, like electrons, cannot occupy the same space. I have met many people that claim to really know what it is even though all they know is this very simplistic view of the principle. In fact, they don't even know that this principle can be derived mathematically. That is intellectual dishonesty.The person you debated with over email took the time to explain to you how certain scientific principles work. These principles have launched man into space, made it possible for manmade nuclear fission and fusion, increased dramatically the food production to accomodate for population explosions, and a myriad other things that a technical society must have to continue to exist. For most people, that takes effort. Your answer to him was intellectually dishonest for several reasons:(1) You introduced the "goddunit" explanation to stump his expertise
(2) You wandered from science (physics) into philosophy, a field he might not have been familiar with
(3) You literally pulled that answer out of your butt
(4) You introduced the "what if" factor, something that should never be used if you are intellectually honestAll of those things could have revealed to him that he was wasting his time with you and simply gave you the victory.Since the rest of your post was just a rant, I'll get to the point right now.I came to the conclusion that you admitted that Jesus could have been a technologically advance alien for several reasons. At the time, we all can agree that no civilization on Earth possessed the human know-how to do what Jesus supposedly did. You were willing to encase Jesus (God) into the science box where the parameters (laws and principles) coudn't be violated, so we all can agree that it wasn't magic Jesus was using to create those fish and bread. The possibility of the miracles being a serious of magic tricks that were exaggerated when recorded would make Jesus a scam artist, a proposition I'm sure YOU will not stand for. Aside from Jesus being a mutant like mutants in x-men, the only other explanation is Jesus possessed the technology to perform those so-called miracles and that he did not get them from any civilization on Earth at the time.

quote:

---

We're gonna be so busted for being off topic...

---

To the admins, I really don't think we are off topic. We are talking about intellectual honesty, which is part of the debate about the stars. I am trying to point out to Rob that the answers he's been making up to accomodate for the incoherence between the YEC universe and the apparent age of the stars (including data and observations). But if you're going to blank out the off topic portions of my post, I just ask that you blank out everything. Each part of my post reinforces the others. You blank out a section and my post doesn't make sense anymore (like last time).

Rob writes

quote:

---

As for E=mc2... I don't have a problem with it, particularly because Einstein was a believer in some sort of metaphysical reality. He was far wiser than his secular peers were, or will ever be (in my simple-minded, theistic, and uneducated opinion).

---

Then why do you believe that light slows down? Let me explain to you why this would be disasterous for the universe if c was not a constant.The stars, including our sun, produces energy through nuclear fusion (2 hydrogen combine to make helium and energy). C is a constant, which is the speed of light. E is energy. M is the mass. As you can see, a very tiny amount of mass would give you a lot of energy, as is very apparent in nuclear bomb testings back in the 50's.If the universe was only 6,000 years old, in order for the light from galaxies millions, hundreds of million, even billions of light years away to get to us in 6,000 years, light speed back then had to be several hundreds of millions of times larger than the current value. The energy output by the sun and other stars would have been so much that it would have lit up the cosmos. With such a tremendous energy output, no life could have existed on Earth back then.

quote:

---

I never heard form him again... Geuss I'm just too stupid for some folks who know a lot of 'stuff'

---

Again, intellectual dishonesty makes a lot of us uncomfortable.Personally, I would have been fine with a simple "God made the light travel a lot slower nowadays than thousands of years ago..."Added by edit.

quote:

---

Havn't got time for Coulter... But she is hot! (sorta...)

---

So now we know you are into anorexic chicks. For me, they make me want to volmit.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

Rob writes

quote:

---

I CONCEDE THE THREAD TO THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING...

---

That's just it, isn't Rob? You think people like us are a bunch of know-it-alls don't you?It is not our place to tell you that we have the answer to everything. It is our place, however, to tell you what is plausible and what is not.So far, the few times that I have engaged with you on specific matters relating to this subject, I have been patient enough to play by your rules. I waited for you to say what you believed and what didn't believe before I went on. Specifically, you said that you believed in Einstein's E=mc^2, so I used that to establish a common ground. I then went as far as assuming that light speed indeed changed and that the universe was indeed 6 thousand years old just so we could have a common ground.Using both of these main points that you insisted on being truths, I pointed out the logical conclusion, that light speed would have been several hundred million times, or even several billion times, faster 6 thousand years ago than now in order to explain the apparent distances of distant objects in the cosmos. With that, there is only one possible outcome, that the energy output by each star in the universe, including our own sun, would have been so high that the Earth would have been instantly sterilized, if not vaporized.Your rules, Rob. Unless, of course, you begin to deny that what goes on in the sun is nuclear fusion taking place. It's still not too late for you to take this route. Tell me if you want to, and we can go from there.

Rob, I think I have finally understand your mindset, or at least have an idea of how those neurons in there work. We'll talk about this later.