The Cambrian problem

[klutedavid]

Evidence is a set of verifiable facts that are independent of the claimant. Evidence is also able to differentiate between two opposing claims.

Hello Loudmouth.

We are not really in a position to decide what the evidence truly is, that would
require a perfect set of knowledge on our behalf. We assume all things because
we do not know, we do not assume because we know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Loudmouth.

We are not really in a position to decide what the evidence truly is, that would
require a perfect set of knowledge on our behalf.

You don't have to have a perfect set of knowledge in order to verify facts. You don't have to have a perfect set of knowledge to propose testable hypotheses.

We assume all things because
we do not know, we do not assume because we know.

We don't assume all things. We also observe them and measure them so we don't have to assume.

 

[klutedavid]

You don't have to have a perfect set of knowledge in order to verify facts. You don't have to have a perfect set of knowledge to propose testable hypotheses.



We don't assume all things. We also observe them and measure them so we don't have to assume.

Hello Loudmouth.

That is the opinion of an empiricist.

Your overstepping the mark Loudmouth, you are not qualified in any way
to decide, what even knowledge itself may comprise. Claim after claim,
this is a very fashionable trend these days.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Loudmouth.

That is the opinion of an empiricist.

Your overstepping the mark Loudmouth, you are not qualified in any way
to decide, what even knowledge itself may comprise. Claim after claim,
this is a very fashionable trend these days.

It isn't opinion. It is how you get through every day, minute to minute. You use empiricism all day long, every day, every week, all year long. This is how the rest of the human race defines evidence. This is what we mean when we say "evidence".

All you are demonstrating is that you have to blind yourself to reality in order to hold on to your religious beliefs.

 

[klutedavid]

It isn't opinion. It is how you get through every day, minute to minute. You use empiricism all day long, every day, every week, all year long. This is how the rest of the human race defines evidence. This is what we mean when we say "evidence".

All you are demonstrating is that you have to blind yourself to reality in order to hold on to your religious beliefs.

Hello Loudmouth.

There is a difference between an everyday assumption that the sun will rise.

And the assumption or belief, that through the mechanism of observation,
one will unlock the so called secrets of the cosmos. As I said before Loudmouth,
do not put your trust in the observational criteria, you will end up with a paradox.

 

[Gracchus]

There is a difference between an everyday assumption that the sun will rise. And the assumption or belief, that through the mechanism of observation, one will unlock the so called secrets of the cosmos. As I said before Loudmouth, do not put your trust in the observational criteria, you will end up with a paradox.

When one arrives at a paradox, one can examine the premises, examine the logical rules of inference, and try to resolve the paradox, OR, one can say, "God works in mysterious ways." and just forget about it.
How will we unlock the (so-called?) secrets of the cosmos but by observation and reason? If God spoke the universe, reality, into existence, ought we not trust and study the creation rather than what primitive men wrote about it?

 

[pat34lee]

Okay, that math is only part of it. What happens to a gas when it is compressed?

The only way to compress a gas and raise the pressure is to
capture it. This can be as small as a balloon or as large as a
planet's atmosphere.

In a constant volume, raise the pressure and the temperature
will go up. As the temperature rises, the gas becomes more
active. IOW, the atoms move faster and remain further apart.

 

[pat34lee]

I think you were supposed to post math that supported your claim, not cut and paste random equations.

Those are not random equations. Every one supports my assertion.

 

[pat34lee]

Since we can see the process happening out in space, the answer is yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

First, the question was not answerable by yes or no.

Stellar evolution and star formation are theories.
Not very good theories at that.

 

[pat34lee]

Where is the mathematical formula showing that the heat caused by compression will counteract the force of gravity to the point that stars won't form?

You would have to calculate the pressure and temp required to
form a star, then prove that gravity is strong enough a force to
hold gases together long enough to hit them.

If we can't make gases clump together under earth's gravity, how
do you think it is possible in space with just gas attracting gas?

 

[klutedavid]

When one arrives at a paradox, one can examine the premises, examine the logical rules of inference, and try to resolve the paradox, OR, one can say, "God works in mysterious ways." and just forget about it.
How will we unlock the (so-called?) secrets of the cosmos but by observation and reason? If God spoke the universe, reality, into existence, ought we not trust and study the creation rather than what primitive men wrote about it?

Hello Gracchus.

Perhaps there are no secrets to the cosmos, or better, no secrets that
actually contribute anything to the fundamental questions.

Why study the creation?

Who listens to chattering monkeys?

 

[pat34lee]

Who listens to chattering monkeys?

Jane Goodall

 

[sfs]

Those are not random equations. Every one supports my assertion.

Until you show how they support your assertion, they're just random equations.

 

[sfs]

You would have to calculate the pressure and temp required to
form a star, then prove that gravity is strong enough a force to
hold gases together long enough to hit them.

Or you could read Jeans' 1902 paper that made that calculation. You can find a simple version of the calculation here.

If we can't make gases clump together under earth's gravity, how
do you think it is possible in space with just gas attracting gas?

Because a collapsing gas cloud is much more massive than the Earth. As you consider larger and larger volumes of dust/gas, the volume enclosed goes up by the cube of the radius from the center. The gravitational force felt on the boundary of the region as a result of a given mass drops only as the square of the radius, however. For a cloud with uniform density, therefore, the net gravitational force on particles at the edge of the region increases linearly with the radius. As a result, any sufficiently large region is unstable and will undergo collapse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only way to compress a gas and raise the pressure is to
capture it. This can be as small as a balloon or as large as a
planet's atmosphere.

In a constant volume, raise the pressure and the temperature
will go up. As the temperature rises, the gas becomes more
active. IOW, the atoms move faster and remain further apart.

Incorrect. I gave you a hint but you ignored it. You already admitted that a gas under gravitational collapse would get hotter. If an object at a higher temperature than its surroundings it will emit radiation. As it radiates off excessive heat, which is easy to do when the temperature of space is just a few degrees above absolute zero the pressure will drop, the gas will compress and heat up, and compress even more since the gravitational force is even higher. All it takes for a star to compress under gravity is a lot of gas. Any experiment that you are familiar with was done with a pitiful small sample of gas. An immeasurably small percentage of our atmosphere. Even if you had our entire atmosphere to play with that would still be far too small of a mass of gas.

To be able to make your claim you need to show what happens when you get a ball of gas as massive as our Sun. Until then your experiments with small containers of gas are laughably insufficient to prove that stars cannot form on their own.

 

[klutedavid]

Jane Goodall

Hello Pat.

When asked if she believed in God, Goodall said in September 2010: "I don't have any
idea of who or what God is. But I do believe in some great spiritual power".
(wikipedia)

 

[sfs]

Here is a page that calculates both the Jeans mass/radius and the amount of energy that must be radiated away as the cloud collapses.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello Loudmouth.

We are not really in a position to decide what the evidence truly is, that would
require a perfect set of knowledge on our behalf. We assume all things because
we do not know, we do not assume because we know.

Do you think when science made discoveries, such as the following, they relied on observing evidence, or it was all just willy nilly and assumptions:

-the technology that allows you to post on this site and use a computer
-the technology that allows you to drive a car
-the technology that allows you to have electricity in your home and all those ampliances that run on the same
-the technology to heat and cool your home
-all the medical advancements, to control disease and prevent disease

I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Bhsmte.

This is not a one way street as far as technology is concerned.

Facebook and Twitter have created a generation obsessed with themselves, who have short
attention spans and a childlike desire for constant feedback on their lives, a top scientist believes.
(dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech)

Cars make people fat (obesity) and lazy, cars also greatly contribute to CO2 emissions.

Computers are widely monitored by Governments, companies and criminal organizations.
We have lost our privacy, some have even lost their identities.

Technology does not answer the fundamental questions, technology is a distraction.

You will need to decide what the fundamental questions are, that mankind needs to
answer.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello Bhsmte.

This is not a one way street as far as technology is concerned.

Facebook and Twitter have created a generation obsessed with themselves, who have short
attention spans and a childlike desire for constant feedback on their lives, a top scientist believes.
(dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech)

Cars make people fat (obesity) and lazy, cars also greatly contribute to CO2 emissions.

Computers are widely monitored by Governments, companies and criminal organizations.
We have lost our privacy, some have even lost their identities.

Technology does not answer the fundamental questions, technology is a distraction.

You will need to decide what the fundamental questions are, that mankind needs to
answer.

Don't see how this relates to the importance of evidence, in scientific advancement.