[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:49:16 +1000
Jack you seem to have highlighted as fuzzy the very points which I think make
the most sense in the galactic scale of things.. Perhaps it is your lack of
comprehension of this scale which has fuzzed your mind. I just repaste from
yours below, the best example.
"which is very different from the circumstances here on Earth. The densities in
these clouds can be lower than the best vacuums we can produce here on Earth,
but
the vast size of these clouds means they can still pack a lot of mass. The
clouds are
turbulent and some parts will have much larger densities and can start to
collapse. "
Jack it is most reasonable to expect that if you begin with an even density of
Hydrogen atoms over infinite space, that they eventually by mutual attraction
clump together in larger and larger quantities, given time.. And if you can
but leave out the limitation on time, which the creationist imposes, (which is
not fair or scientific in a discussion of physics), then in theory what Regner
proposes is quite a reasonable expectation. And more.
With God all things are possible, even a big Bang. I am loathe to reject
science based entirely on some personal interpretation of Gods Word, to the
point that I am insisting that even God Himself MUST bow to my own
interpretation, or yours. I do not think He will listen..He might even be
annoyed at such proud arrogance.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
Regner I've highlighted the bits that that demonstrate accepted and assumed
fuzziness and without real substance.
Jack
Regner Trampedach wrote:
James,
I did notice your question first time around, and I am sorry I haven't
replied until now.
The "Answers in Genesis" (AIG) page your posted got the numbers right, but
their
conclusions are, well, - hopefully based on ignorance.
Down through the first paragraph of the section "Stars Were of Supernatural
Origin"
(strange to have that in past tense...) they are quite right and I have no
objections to
what they write.
But then they state (about gas clouds collapsing to form stars)
"However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because
gas has a tendency to expand, not contract."
Here they appeal to your everyday experiences with gases in the Earth's
atmosphere
- they disperse and often rise in our atmosphere. Now, this is a very poor
analogy to
the case of giant molecular clouds which host star formation. Being
millions of times
heftier than the Sun they are self-gravitating - they produce their own
gravitational
field, which is very different from the circumstances here on Earth. The
densities in
these clouds can be lower than the best vacuums we can produce here on
Earth, but
the vast size of these clouds means they can still pack a lot of mass. The
clouds are
turbulent and some parts will have much larger densities and can start to
collapse.
They continue:
"In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed, it would
drastically
increase its pressure, magnetic field, and rotation speed. All of these
factors
would strongly resist any further compression. The compression of a nebula
would be stopped long before any star could form."
The main show-stopper is pressure, whereas rotation and magnetic fields
scale in a way
that makes them minor players in this game. So it is mainly a balance
between gravity
and pressure. This balance will be struck at some radius of the contracting
sub-cloud, and
contraction will stop. As you compress a gas adiabatically (without adding
or removing
energy from the gas) the temperature will increase, as well as the density,
thereby increasing
the pressure:
pressure = constant * density * temperature (approximately)
If we could lower the temperature, the balance would hapen at a smaller
radius - more
compact sub-cloud.
Enters atomic physics: The electrons of an atom can populate a great number
of states
or orbitals that all have different energies. The one with the lowest
energy, is the ground-
state. If you excite an atom to one of those higher energy states, the atom
will spontaneously
decay into the ground-state, emitting a photon that carries away the energy
difference
between the two states. In our gas-cloud the most likely excitation
mechanism is collisions
between particles - another one is excitation by photons (since the gas has
a finite
temperature the gas will glow with a specific spectrum) - the important
part is that there is
only one decay mechanism. This means that more photons will be emitted than
were
absorbed and the difference will be extracted from the motions of the
particles between
each other - the temperature of the gas. This is called radiative cooling,
and it can be very
efficient. In fact our models indicate that the collapse will take place in
less than a million
years (in contrast to normal stellar evolution taking billions of years).
We don't have strong
observational evidence for the speed of this phase since it is still slow
on a human scale,
and since we have seen too few to be able to do the statistical analysis to
obtain lifetimes of
proto-stars.
AIG further states: "And despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a
star forming."
I have several issues with that statement:
a) Observing stars is like taking a photo of a busy pedestrian street and
from such a single
snapshot find out how people change during their lives. The relevant
question here, is
how many births have you witnessed while shopping, or commuting to work?
We have just recently found the maternity ward and made instruments
(space-based
infrared telescopes) to peer into the maternity ward (cold, dense, dusty
gas-clouds).
b) There is no sign at the surface of a proto-star turning into a proper
star, and the process
is gradual anyway, with the nuclear fusion at the centre, slowly ramping
up.
^ c) We have seen the pregnant mothers and the newborn babies being carried
away to the
nursery. Still assuming there is no birth taking place in between seems a
bit silly to me.
But we are of course still observing to cover the full process.
To be continued (soon).
Regner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1260 - Release Date: 5/02/2008
9:44 AM
Other related posts:
