Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Infall towards protostars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.


    Jorge could never aspire to such heights. He doesn't do calculations.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.
    Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?

    As for your continued claim that "We can observe it happening", apparently your reading comprehension disability worsened over the last year. I distinctly addressed the "we can observe it" point in my last post. Still the same ol' O-Mudd ... that's too bad!
    We do observe it happening, in the very same way we observe Giant Redwoods growing. We observe multiple instances of the same process at different stages of developments. If I can look at gas cloud A and B, and the only difference is that A is a little denser and a little hotter than B, and so on for 100 different stages of stellar evolution, all in accord with the laws of physics , it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are watching the stepwise development of a star in much the same way we derive the life cycle of a tree that lives 4000+ years by observing different trees in the same forest at differing stages of development.

    As I said, you are demanding (for stars, but not for trees) that we be able to observe the entire process in a single instance before you will admit it is possible as a natural event. And that is an absurd standard which you apply much like a game of "Calvin ball".



    Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.
    Claiming to have proven something is easy. Actually doing it is hard. Oh but wait - could I not accuse you of 'conveniently' relying on the disappearance of TWEB if I so desired?



    Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted.
    Oh Brother. What I said above. I'm not moving the goal posts. I just don't use the Jorge Dictionary of Random Yet Personally Convenient Meanings. (i.e. Calvin Ball).

    I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.
    The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.




    All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see. For instance, have you stopped to consider the number of problems with the model that you believe in (the "Gas Model")? Let's just take one: if, as you say, "planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars came from", then you have to explain why their individual composition is so radically different (e.g., compare Earth vs. Sun vs. Moon vs. Mars vs. Saturn vs. Jupiter vs. Venus and so on). Yes, there are plenty of conjectures about why this is so (and I've already stated that) but no one really knows. The conjectures are just-so stories with a sprinkling of science (to make them believable and publishable) ... there is no consensus on ANY conjecture.
    Planets differentiate for obvious reasons Jorge. The rocky planets are closer in because it's hotter closer in and things like methane ices and so forth can't survive there. The vapor pressures of the gases are higher and the individual nucleation bodies are smaller because most of the material is falling into the star. The gas giants form farther out and then in many cases may migrate in. But again, we can see the process in action. And the more we learn about the systems (as we observe them, again, in various stages of formation) the more we will learn about how they form. And indeed, how common or rare our particular system is. We have found over 1000 systems out there Jorge, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. We can SEE in the Orion Nebula star after star forming, and almost all of them have dust disks around them with more than sufficient material to build a solar system. Planets and Stars forming naturally right before our eyes ... for those that can stomach it any way.

    Try to get a hold of yourself ... use sound logic and science, not pseudo-logic/science as you are now.

    Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

    Jorge
    Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks Jorge
    Your reply to me is not the same thing as you addressing Jim's point, Jorge. That you are unable to understand simple points like this, is always mind blowing.

    So when did you or anyone actually observe a giant redwood tree grow from seed to maturity?

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.
    The empirical evidence says otherwise.

    If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

    Jorge
    OK, we'll mark down yet another day when you couldn't muster up the courage to back up your claim.

    One thing I will say though - when it comes to fleeing questions you are consistent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

    You could always address Jim's point, then run off.
    Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    I know you've been asked this a dozen times before but how do you do science without relying on materialism?

    Maybe once you'll finally muster up the courage to answer.
    I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.

    If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

    You could always address Jim's point, then run off.
    SInging:

    See the run away
    From the questions that you pose
    Ask for evidence
    And then see how fast he goes...


    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

    Jorge
    But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

    You could always address Jim's point, then run off.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see.

    Jorge
    I know you've been asked this a dozen times before but how do you do science without relying on materialism?

    Maybe once you'll finally muster up the courage to answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Prove I have ever 'misrepresented' your position. Case in point. You say below you don't think stars can form naturally. I think that is stupid. We can observed it happening. We can't observe a redwood grow from seeding to 300ft tall giant either, but no one in his right mind doubts they did, or that they do.
    Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.

    As for your continued claim that "We can observe it happening", apparently your reading comprehension disability worsened over the last year. I distinctly addressed the "we can observe it" point in my last post. Still the same ol' O-Mudd ... that's too bad!


    To bad you can't read. I said that in my post. The point is, we CAN observe in the local cosmos all the extant phases of star formation, from collapsing cloud to mature star. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest.
    Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.



    By observing the spectra and other characteristics of the protostar. Fusion ignition occurs at certain temperatures and pressures. If we observe a hot ball of gas where those temperatures and pressures don't yet exist in its core, then we can know it's not there yet - up to a point of course. The problem for you is that you set absurd standards of proof and then hide behind them because your world view collapses if the universe is really billions of years old.
    Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted. I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.



    Planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars form from. It's all a singular process Jorge. We observe that process at all possible stages across the sky. In fact, we can see most stages in a single place - the Orion Nebula, 1500 light years hence.
    All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see. For instance, have you stopped to consider the number of problems with the model that you believe in (the "Gas Model")? Let's just take one: if, as you say, "planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars came from", then you have to explain why their individual composition is so radically different (e.g., compare Earth vs. Sun vs. Moon vs. Mars vs. Saturn vs. Jupiter vs. Venus and so on). Yes, there are plenty of conjectures about why this is so (and I've already stated that) but no one really knows. The conjectures are just-so stories with a sprinkling of science (to make them believable and publishable) ... there is no consensus on ANY conjecture.

    Try to get a hold of yourself ... use sound logic and science, not pseudo-logic/science as you are now.




    Silly Jorge. I guess you don't believe the big tall redwoods grew up on their own either. God had to make the really tall ones, but the little ones we see growing today, they came from the seeds because we can observe that process from its beginning to its present state. But we would be foolish to assume that just because we can extrapolate that if they continue growing one of these little guys can grow into one of the big fellas they actually did. Right?
    Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'

    Observing very hot balls of gas in the center of large gas clouds on the verge of fusion ignition is not a 'just so story'

    Observing stars which match the theoretical characteristics of what would be a recently formed star surrounded by dense circumstellar dust disks is not a 'just so story'

    Observing stars surrounded by circumstellar rings of similar dust where the inner sections has been cleaned and where planets can be observed is not a 'just so story'.
    Wasn't there an example of a star being found where previously there had just been a hot cloud on the old Tweb? In the "Birth of a new star" thread. If so, you can add:

    Observing a star where there was no star before is not a 'just so story'.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.
    Well yes.

    About the only facts we do have in science are the data we observe. We observe data (via lab experiments or observations in the field) to test our ideas.

    Those data become evidence in support of the ideas we accept. They become evidence in support of our rejecting other ideas.

    If the ideas (the theories) were observable, then we wouldn't need to test them. We could always go out and see them, directly.


    (I know it's a bit more complex that this. But this is the gist of it, IMHO).
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-20-2014, 03:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Outis
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    When did extrapolation become a bad thing?
    When it provides evidentiary support for a view that Mr. Fernandez rejects ab initio.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post

    ... it's all handwaving and just-so stories ...
    Let me get this straight:-

    1) Evidence for outflow is "fact, Fact, FACT"?

    2) Evidence for inflow is "just so story"?

    ?


    Originally posted by Jorge
    Of course, to Materialists and their ideological allies, natural star formation is an ideological prerequisite.
    Well we do believe that nature exists and that natural processes can cause things to happen. Such as, rain forming and falling from clouds. So, its natural to think that maybe natural processes can cause gravitational collapse, in part because we also believe that gravity is real.

    The Bible does not say that natural processes cannot cause stars to form. On the other hand, the Bible does not say that natural processes cause rain to fall. But is does state that rain falls because God tells it to.

    So just how much do you actually believe the Bible Jorge?
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-20-2014, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
19 responses
87 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
18 responses
68 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
1 response
18 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by shunyadragon, 09-13-2021, 09:25 PM
11 responses
60 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by lee_merrill, 09-06-2021, 09:40 PM
19 responses
107 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X