Watching planets form ...

[oxmixmudd]

I ALWAYS acknowledge and submit to the Truth -- a fact that you intentionally and continuously suppress because it would destroy your agenda. Your problem with me is that I do not embrace your "truth" plus I call it out for what it is - that upsets you to no end.



No, no, no! You are NOT "seeing a historical process in action". The process you speak of - by your own theories - is one that takes many thousands if not millions of years to occur. How can you be "seeing" such a process (in action)? What you are actually seeing is a snapshot of 'something' that you then INTERPRET as what you believe is happening. What that 'something' actually is, no one knows.

No Jorge - we DO know. And we are seeing it 'in action' (a similar observation 10 or 20 years from now will likely show some change). Something orbiting the star is clearing the orbits. It's as simple as that. The only other thing capable of producing what we see would be a massive object external to the rings - and such an object would produce wobbles in the star that could be observed, or be directly observable as a star itself. To clear that much material requires a planet sized 'something' (it could eventually become something larger than a planet perhaps - but that is merely a technicality in terms of the overall implications of the observation). The conclusion is inevitable and required. The reason you can't admit that has nothing to do with the solidity of the science, it has to do with your psychological/emotional state as regards the implications of the conclusion.

If I can get you to at least comprehend that small point then there may be some hope for you. I'm not betting a plugged nickle on it, though.

You really should stop with the betting jokes till you square up with you previous boondoggle.

Very faulty logic ... garbage in, garbage out.

Jorge

Only to those that refuse to see the obvious ...

Jim

[Sparko]

Jorge, do you still not believe in extrasolar planets? If not, why not? Is there some religious reason you don't think they exist?

[TheLurch]

Incidentally, if anyone's curious about the physics-based models that help us understand the development of systems like this one, here's a freely accessible manuscript about them:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01498

It has gone through peer review and been accepted by Astronomy and Astrophysics.

[oxmixmudd]

Thanks! read it - very interesting.


Jim

[Jorge]

No Jorge - we DO know. And we are seeing it 'in action' (a similar observation 10 or 20 years from now will likely show some change). Something orbiting the star is clearing the orbits. It's as simple as that. The only other thing capable of producing what we see would be a massive object external to the rings - and such an object would produce wobbles in the star that could be observed, or be directly observable as a star itself. To clear that much material requires a planet sized 'something' (it could eventually become something larger than a planet perhaps - but that is merely a technicality in terms of the overall implications of the observation). The conclusion is inevitable and required. The reason you can't admit that has nothing to do with the solidity of the science, it has to do with your psychological/emotional state as regards the implications of the conclusion.

WOW - it's bad enough that you make such a glaring logical mistake (empirical non sequitur) but then you exponentially compound that error by refusing to accept correction. Oh well ... it has rightfully been stated that people believe what they WANT to believe. Carry on, O-Mudd.

You really should stop with the betting jokes till you square up with you previous boondoggle.

"... square up ... boondoggle"???

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you would accept Roy's crap?

Only to those that refuse to see the obvious ...

Jim

Zowee - there can be no better example of projection than what you just directed towards me.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, do you still not believe in extrasolar planets? If not, why not? Is there some religious reason you don't think they exist?

Sparko:

I've already answered that many times before. Succinctly:

It's not about "believing" (or not), it's about (1) physics and, (2) hard evidence. I know well about the models that have been constructed but with my background in physics and computer modelling I am very, very skeptical of all of those "natural planet-forming and star-forming" model results.

In short, I do not believe that physics supports natural star/planet formation; the model parameters and assumptions must be 'tweeked' ad hoc to make it happen.

As for "evidence", I have not seen anything that passes muster. Yes, observations are made that are INTERPRETED as planets/stars in formation but I'm not buying those interpretations. Why? Because I am very much aware that philosophical ideology, not science, is in the driver's seat on those interpretations.

One quick example of that last part: Did you know that decades before any observations of potential extrasolar planets (ESPs) existed, people ("scientists") like Drake were already using ESPs in their computations? I repeat, there was ZERO evidence - not a single observation of anything. Why then did Drake, et al. assume ESPs? Simple - because their religious ideology DEMANDED that ESPs exist. I've written much on that.

OTOH, my religious ideology does not demand them nor does it exclude them. I'll accept ESPs when science confirms them, not before, and certainly not to satisfy the ideological needs of Materialism.

Jorge

[Roy]

You really should stop with the betting jokes till you square up with you previous boondoggle.

"... square up ... boondoggle"???

Yes, "square up".

From your post here:

Me: Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version. I don't think you can.
Jorge: You willing to bet $150.00 on that? Come on, be a man, put your money where your fat mouth is.

You then failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

You owe TheologyWeb $150.

Pay up, welcher.

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you would accept Roy's crap?

Probably because he isn't a dishonest scumbag like you.

[Sparko]

Sparko:

I've already answered that many times before. Succinctly:

It's not about "believing" (or not), it's about (1) physics and, (2) hard evidence. I know well about the models that have been constructed but with my background in physics and computer modelling I am very, very skeptical of all of those "natural planet-forming and star-forming" model results.

In short, I do not believe that physics supports natural star/planet formation; the model parameters and assumptions must be 'tweeked' ad hoc to make it happen.

As for "evidence", I have not seen anything that passes muster. Yes, observations are made that are INTERPRETED as planets/stars in formation but I'm not buying those interpretations. Why? Because I am very much aware that philosophical ideology, not science, is in the driver's seat on those interpretations.

One quick example of that last part: Did you know that decades before any observations of potential extrasolar planets (ESPs) existed, people ("scientists") like Drake were already using ESPs in their computations? I repeat, there was ZERO evidence - not a single observation of anything. Why then did Drake, et al. assume ESPs? Simple - because their religious ideology DEMANDED that ESPs exist. I've written much on that.

OTOH, my religious ideology does not demand them nor does it exclude them. I'll accept ESPs when science confirms them, not before, and certainly not to satisfy the ideological needs of Materialism.

Jorge

It takes a lot more "blind faith" to believe that there are no other planets in this universe than in our own solar system than otherwise. Why would there only be planets around our star and no others? If there is some reason that God doesn't want any other planets, then why the heck did he fill our own solar system with so many? Why would he NOT put planets around other stars? You do realize that once we are glorified and are immortal that we have an entire universe we can explore? So why wouldn't God make that universe interesting? Your aversion to believing anything scientists say is nothing but paranoia.

[TheLurch]

Thanks! read it - very interesting.


Jim

Man, you plowed through 17 pages of astrophysics fast. I'd tip my hat to you if i were wearing one.

[TheLurch]

It takes a lot more "blind faith" to believe that there are no other planets in this universe than in our own solar system than otherwise.

I think Jorge is saying there could be plenty of other planets, but they wouldn't have formed naturally. Note he says, "I do not believe that physics supports natural star/planet formation", so he could easily believe that God formed many planets, but none have formed since (consistent with the fact that this is a million-year scale process and Jorge doesn't think millions of years have been available). Although his ideological beef with Frank Drake would seem to argue otherwise, so who knows.

For those who aren't Jorge, some background on Drake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

He was well aware that many of the items in his equation could only be very tenuous estimates at the time. But some of those could also be filled in as we got better information. In fact, a number of exoplanet researchers have indicated that their work was inspired in part by the intellectual questions that the Drake Equation posed.

Also, a small note on Jorge's derogation of physics-based models, specifically his suggestion that they work only because the parameters are tuned. That's precisely how modeling works in science. You have physics. You have a phenomenon. Can you start with physics and get to the phenomenon? i.e., is there a plausible physical mechanism that will produce what we see?

If the answer is no, it's a way of telling you you're probably missing something - maybe the dust particles are a different size/composition, maybe the disk is thinner than you thought, etc. So you change some parameters and see if it does work - you do an experiment of a sort. This is what Jorge is deriding as "tuning". But really, all it's telling us is that there are physically plausible ways of forming planets if the right conditions are met.

What's not mentioned is that identifying those "right conditions" is incredibly valuable, since the parameters can help direct research programs. Think the disks might be thinner? Well, there are probably telescopes we could build that would let us look at that. Think the dust grains are larger? Well, we've got ongoing efforts to try to identify and examine interstellar dust. Etc. etc.

[Sparko]

no. Jorge even dismisses the idea of us having found existing ESPs, much less those that are currently forming.

Heck we have photographic evidence of stars and even galaxies forming at various stages. Yet I bet he denies that too.

[Jorge]

I think Jorge is saying there could be plenty of other planets, but they wouldn't have formed naturally. Note he says, "I do not believe that physics supports natural star/planet formation", so he could easily believe that God formed many planets, but none have formed since (consistent with the fact that this is a million-year scale process and Jorge doesn't think millions of years have been available). Although his ideological beef with Frank Drake would seem to argue otherwise, so who knows.

For those who aren't Jorge, some background on Drake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

He was well aware that many of the items in his equation could only be very tenuous estimates at the time. But some of those could also be filled in as we got better information. In fact, a number of exoplanet researchers have indicated that their work was inspired in part by the intellectual questions that the Drake Equation posed.

Also, a small note on Jorge's derogation of physics-based models, specifically his suggestion that they work only because the parameters are tuned. That's precisely how modeling works in science. You have physics. You have a phenomenon. Can you start with physics and get to the phenomenon? i.e., is there a plausible physical mechanism that will produce what we see?

If the answer is no, it's a way of telling you you're probably missing something - maybe the dust particles are a different size/composition, maybe the disk is thinner than you thought, etc. So you change some parameters and see if it does work - you do an experiment of a sort. This is what Jorge is deriding as "tuning". But really, all it's telling us is that there are physically plausible ways of forming planets if the right conditions are met.

What's not mentioned is that identifying those "right conditions" is incredibly valuable, since the parameters can help direct research programs. Think the disks might be thinner? Well, there are probably telescopes we could build that would let us look at that. Think the dust grains are larger? Well, we've got ongoing efforts to try to identify and examine interstellar dust. Etc. etc.

Some very good points in the above post; others not so good; others bad.

At least you noted the "natural" point in my writing - good one!

I don't have an "ideological beef" with Drake ... it's with Materialism.

Lastly, "... physically plausible ways of forming planets if the right conditions are met." : those "right conditions" are what I am referring to when I say "tweeking". Sans this "tweeking" - parameters and assumptions - it never happens in any model. That was my point and saying "... that's the way modeling works in physics" misses that point. Again, my hands-on experience in these matters prevents me from swallowing these results.

Jorge

[Jorge]

no. Jorge even dismisses the idea of us having found existing ESPs, much less those that are currently forming.

Without due qualification, the above is NOT TRUE.

Heck we have photographic evidence of stars and even galaxies forming at various stages. Yet I bet he denies that too.

Read my previous posts - I am quite clear on my position and my reasons for it.

Jorge

[Jorge]

This is for everyone (O-Mudd, Sparko, etc ...) disagreeing with my position:

Just today (14 April 2016) the article (below) by Dr. John Hartnett, PhD in Physics, was published --- so this is hot off the frying pan. I post it here because Dr. Hartnett says the essence of the things that I have been trying to communicate here (though not as nicely as he does). Also, while my credibility with you may be non-existent, that of a PhD Physicist may carry some weight. I don't think it will because I know that if it opposes your adopted beliefs then you will simply dismiss it. As I've said from day one, "It's not about science, it's about ideology - science is just a ruse."

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask that those of you not knowing and/or understanding my true position on various matters to refrain from stating what you THINK is my position or, worse yet, from intentionally misrepresenting my position. I have ample sound reasons for holding my position, a position that I believe is the only reasonable, justifiable position for a Christian. Of course, that last statement would not apply to the misinformed, the uninformed or to the 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.

If anything else, read the article - it is well put together ... worth the read.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic...anet-formation

Jorge

I saw this over at UniverseToday.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14579[/ATTACH]

Looks like not only can we watch stars form, we can watch planets form. This image is taken by the ALMA submillimeter array in Chile and shows gaps in a protoplanetary disk around a young star. These are exactly the kinds of gaps which form when a planetary object is 'cleaning up its neighborhood' by accreting new material (e.g. growing larger). The inset shows the inner region about the size of the Earth's orbit - IOW, there are likely planets in there too.

There have been debates in the past on this site with certain YEC's over whether stars form naturally, whether the planets we are finding are 'really' planets, all sorts of silliness. Some of the resistance to these ideas come from a rather silly assumption that God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done making things in the heavens.

So here's another nail in the coffin of the idea "God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done with creation". Planets are forming too - right before our eyes.

And a really cool observation in the relatively new and rapidly expanding set of observational science surround star and planetary system formation.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

This is for everyone (O-Mudd, Sparko, etc ...) disagreeing with my position:

Just today (14 April 2016) the article (below) by Dr. John Hartnett, PhD in Physics, was published --- so this is hot off the frying pan. I post it here because Dr. Hartnett says the essence of the things that I have been trying to communicate here (though not as nicely as he does). Also, while my credibility with you may be non-existent, that of a PhD Physicist may carry some weight. I don't think it will because I know that if it opposes your adopted beliefs then you will simply dismiss it. As I've said from day one, "It's not about science, it's about ideology - science is just a ruse."

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask that those of you not knowing and/or understanding my true position on various matters to refrain from stating what you THINK is my position or, worse yet, from intentionally misrepresenting my position. I have ample sound reasons for holding my position, a position that I believe is the only reasonable, justifiable position for a Christian. Of course, that last statement would not apply to the misinformed, the uninformed or to the 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.

If anything else, read the article - it is well put together ... worth the read.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic...anet-formation

Jorge

Yikes, I could barely get through the first paragraph. But I'll read it all the way through Jorge, including the 'references (often his own work of course - especially the 'stars just cant form' ones). Then we'll talk some more.

Jim