Stellar and Planetary Evolution

[Boxing Pythagoras]

the laws of physics, particularly gravity and nuclear fusion and the balance between them is sufficient to explain star formation I think. We use the word 'evolution' talking about stars but it's not really anything of the sort, but rather a timeline for the different stages of a star.

It actually is 'evolution.' It's just not biological evolution. The word 'evolution' applies to much more than just biological change.

Stellar and planetary evolution should not be conflated with biological evolution, but the word still accurately describes the phenomena.

[Sea of red]

When it comes to the evolution of the biosphere, we have the mechanic of the gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell to explain the formation of the species within.

I was wondering...do you think one day we will ascribe some sort of mechanic, to explain the formation of planetary bodies, stars, quasars, and all the other galactic formations?

Is it simply "gravity"?

We already have explained how planets form through nebular theory, how stars form through stellar formation, and how galaxies form through galactic evolution.

The universe as a whole is a construction of gravity, as gravity dominates on large wave-lengths; whereas the nuclear and electrical forces dominate on shorter wave-lengths and construct atoms and molecules.

[Sea of red]

The gravitational nuclear fusion balance does not recede? It was assuming total control of the elements down to the most explicit unit, and then suddenly the biological mechanic comes along and somehow takes partial control? If some value(the mechanic at work forming galactic bodies) is at 100% and does not recede, then how can some other thing fill in a percentage?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

If you're asking if there is some special sort of mechanics that human body and only the human body functions under then the answer is no. Living organisms are bound together with chemistry, hence the term you learned in school biochemistry. As was stated by previous posters, the processes for creating the elements to make life possible were completed in the earths formation.

I suggest you research introductory astronomy and learn some biochemistry, along with learning various geological periods in the earths history - particularly focus on Proterozoic and Cambrian periods.

Do your own research and you'll actually learn.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The universe as a whole is a construction of gravity...

This isn't quite true. Gravity is a description of the shape of the universe. It is not the constructor of the universe.

...as gravity dominates on large wave-lengths; whereas the nuclear and electrical forces dominate on shorter wave-lengths and construct atoms and molecules.

What do you mean by "large wave-lengths" and "shorter wave-lengths?" Wavelengths of what?

[Sea of red]

This isn't quite true. Gravity is a description of the shape of the universe. It is not the constructor of the universe.

Yes, that would have been a more accurate phrasing and it's exactly what I was trying to say; obviously gravity is but one of four principle forces of the universe.

What do you mean by "large wave-lengths" and "shorter wave-lengths?" Wavelengths of what?

It's just a term in physics sometimes used to describe distances and magnitude. When you study quantum mechanics and electromagnetism that's the terminology used and sometimes it finds it's way into discussions in cosmology. It's nothing to worry about as it's just vernacular more than anything else, sorry for any confusion.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, that would have been a more accurate phrasing and it's exactly what I was trying to say; obviously gravity is but one of four principle forces of the universe.

It's just a term in physics sometimes used to describe distances and magnitude.

Well, no, a wavelength is a particular class of distance-- one which describes the period of recurrence of a waveform. I think you might be confusing vectors for wavelengths.

When you study quantum mechanics and electromagnetism that's the terminology used and sometimes it finds it's way into discussions in cosmology. It's nothing to worry about as it's just vernacular more than anything else, sorry for any confusion.

In QM and EM, a wavelength is a property of a specific wave. It's not just a general descriptor which can be utilized without clarification. Are you talking about wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation? Wavelengths of quantum states? Wavelengths of a particular sinoid function?

I think what you meant to say is that, on cosmological scales of measure, gravity plays a far larger role than does electromagnetism or the strong force or the weak force. On molecular scales, these latter three forces play a far larger role. Stellar and planetary evolution are matters of cosmological scale, whereas biological evolution is a matter of molecular scale.

[Sea of red]

Well, no, a wavelength is a particular class of distance-- one which describes the period of recurrence of a waveform. I think you might be confusing vectors for wavelengths.

In QM and EM, a wavelength is a property of a specific wave. It's not just a general descriptor which can be utilized without clarification. Are you talking about wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation? Wavelengths of quantum states? Wavelengths of a particular sinoid function?

I think what you meant to say is that, on cosmological scales of measure, gravity plays a far larger role than does electromagnetism or the strong force or the weak force. On molecular scales, these latter three forces play a far larger role. Stellar and planetary evolution are matters of cosmological scale, whereas biological evolution is a matter of molecular scale.

One of my main studies was gravitational waves and radio-astronomy, and astronomers like myself sometimes get in a bad habit using that kind of vernacular. I simply misspoke and meant say measurements or just lengths. It's not a big deal.

And yes, you have the bold part completely accurate as that is what I was trying to illustrate.

Although I think our poster could probably serve herself better to simply use a search engine.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

One of my main studies was gravitational waves and radio-astronomy, and astronomers like myself sometimes get in a bad habit using that kind of vernacular. I simply misspoke and meant say measurements or just lengths. It's not a big deal.

No worries. Mathematics nuts (like me) tend to be sticklers for well-defined statements and strict terminology, so we can get a bit nit-picky.

[Sea of red]

No worries. Mathematics nuts (like me) tend to be sticklers for well-defined statements and strict terminology, so we can get a bit nit-picky.

No problems man, we're on the same page. :)

[Pytharchimedes]

Many interesting things said, a lot of knowledgeable people are about. I guess I could google my stupid questions but where is the fun in that?

1. Space with dust hydrogen in it

2. By the action of gravity, the particles aggregate, as more and more aggregates, the resulting sphere has more and more mass and exerts a greater gravitational force on the remaining dust.

3. As the sphere becomes larger, the temperature and pressure in its interior become larger thanks to gravity compressing it.

4. If the sphere continues to aggregate, the pressure and temperature at its core will reach a point where fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form helium takes place. This produces massive amounts of energy which tend to burst outwards from the centre in direct opposition to the gravitational compression. When these forces 'balance' the star attains a stable size (until more weird stuff happens later when it runs out of hydrogen.)

So you see star processes only begin once the mass crosses that threshold where gravitational compression can trigger fusion.

Lets look at a the anatomy of a star.

Starblueprint.jpg

The reason I ask about the "mechanic" that forms the heavenly bodies in a similar manner in line with the one apparent in biological evolution is because I do not understand where the anatomy of a star comes from, how does it receive its design? Lets look at the anatomy of a simple biological body.

Ecolianatomy.jpg

You see, I can understand where the design of this simple biological body comes from due to the mechanic behind it, the R&D department that is the gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell, now, if a simple biological body spontaneously generated akin to the manner in which stars seem to proliferate, I would be sorely vexed without an explanation that included the source of the "blueprint" of the body. I would like to know where does the "blueprint" come from? Should I assume like people of old did, that the spontaneous generation of flies on shit was the natural course of things? Why do stars spontaneously generate?

Let's talk about planets:

1. As stars go through their stages, they produce heavier elements.

2. These heavier elements are ejected from the star and begin to accrete in gravitationally stable orbits around the star. (I am simplifying a lot!)

3. Our old friend gravity tends to push these elements together into a sphere. (rather like a snowball rolling down a mountain.)

4. However, these bodies are not massive enough to produce the compression for fusion and so these bodies remain 'cold'.

5. This is a planet.

Now let's think about what happens on the planet.

1. There are lots of different kinds of molecules on the planet.

2. Given a particular chemistry and conditions, molecules combine and change. The laws at play here are not nuclear (not enough energy for that) but rather chemical (moving electrons around between atoms.)

3. In some instances complex, self replicating molecules and systems may form (how rare or common this is, we simply don't know).

4. Now we have the beginnings of life.

If variations exist in life forms that will be more or less adapted to the environment then actual evolution begins.

This thread broke my mind off into a tangent, one that I find very satisfying to spend time thinking of, let me explain;

The forces at work constructing all of the heavenly bodies, called them the fundamental forces, I think 4 of these forces have been identified, now, if these 4 forces are responsible for the formation of all things before the dawn of biological bodies, why then would we not also ascribe the formation of the biological bodies to them as well? The gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell is but a mere proxy power when it comes to the formation of biological bodies, for example compare these two succulent plants;

Cactus1.jpg

Euphorbia

cactus2.jpg

Astrophytum

These succulent plants are very distant on the biological tree, but physically, the spitting image of each other...I liken them to two different planetary structures.

Basically what I am trying to say is this; if we can explain the spontaneous generation of stars through the fundamental forces involved in galactic formation, why then do we need another proxy power to explain the formation of biological bodies? What makes biological bodies special that they can escape the power of these forces and take a course based upon some overarching power, why ascribe the formation of life to the gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell when we already have the agent at work? The work of the fundamental forces.

In other words, where is the true source of the design of the two succulent plants, is it solely the work of the 4 fundamental forces with no need for any other explanation, or do we need the meta explanation of the gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell?

Another way of asking would be this; What happens between these steps described by pancreasman;

2. Given a particular chemistry and conditions, molecules combine and change. The laws at play here are not nuclear (not enough energy for that) but rather chemical (moving electrons around between atoms.)

3. In some instances complex, self replicating molecules and systems may form (how rare or common this is, we simply don't know).

4. Now we have the beginnings of life.

If the formation of a planet up to the point of the molecules bouncing around can be explained without the mechanic of the gene passing self replicating naturally selecting cell, then what changed that we would need to describe it in our explanation of the source of biological bodies? Was a new "force" involved in these steps as compared to the previous? Or is it just an illusion?

[Pytharchimedes]

Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.

Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).

Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).

Change is helical (spiral), not circular (negation of the negation).

The 4 forces of Hegelian dialectics...some of them truly make sense it seems to me. They almost seem like reworded versions of Newton's laws of force and gravity, yet, strangely, covering an upper domain.

Especially the statement of truth that movement is helical, it is so advanced, even today people think the circle overcomes the spiral in terms of perfection. Not so, Newton proved it long ago with his beautiful rendition;



Observe Newtons theory of ovals, called the Archimedean spiral. It is glorious, I think by looking at it, you glimpse the nature of time.

Is it not transcendent?

[pancreasman]

The 4 forces of Hegelian dialectics...some of them truly make sense it seems to me. They almost seem like reworded versions of Newton's laws of force and gravity, yet, strangely, covering an upper domain.

Especially the statement of truth that movement is helical, it is so advanced, even today people think the circle overcomes the spiral in terms of perfection. Not so, Newton proved it long ago with his beautiful rendition;



Observe Newtons theory of ovals, called the Archimedean spiral. It is glorious, I think by looking at it, you glimpse the nature of time.

Is it not transcendent?

May I encourage you to read some actual introductory physics texts. Try this too http://www.openculture.com/physics_free_courses

[Pytharchimedes]

May I encourage you to read some actual introductory physics texts. Try this too http://www.openculture.com/physics_free_courses

I am encouraged...might take me a while to process the massive amount of information to be honest...looks like Mount Everest to me, yet, I ask you to contemplate my stupid questions, look at a simple drawing, and you have no response?

What do you expect from me after I read this load of stuff?

[pancreasman]

I am encouraged...might take me a while to process the massive amount of information to be honest...looks like Mount Everest to me, yet, I ask you to contemplate my stupid questions, look at a simple drawing, and you have no response?

What do you expect from me after I read this load of stuff?

I believe you will be able to answer your own stupid questions. 'Teach a man to fish' and so on.

[Pytharchimedes]

I believe you will be able to answer your own stupid questions. 'Teach a man to fish' and so on.

Wise words. Where did you learn this?