Contradictions in astronomy textbook

[LadyGemini]

I got out my astronomy book that I used all this year just to review so things so I'll be ready when school starts back. Upon doing so I ran into some things I had hi-lighted (and wrote small LOL out to the side or contradictions on certain pages. (Whether in the book or by scientific observation and reasoning.)

One of the LOL(/contradiction) I've run into says "Scientists try to form hypotheses that explain how nature works. If a hypothesis is contradicted by experiment or observations, it must be revised or discarded."

I just thought so you mean that if I said that I have a sample of E. Coli in a jar and I form a hypotheses that states "This E. Coli will eventually turn into Lactobacillus with just adaptation and time. That hypothesis would be discarded if it never happen?" and the answer is of course yes. "Then why do scientist still teach us that a single-celled micro bacterium turned into multi-celled bacterium and eventually formed all the life we see today if we've never actually observed a single-celled bacterium become a multi-celled bacterium?"

This LOL moment also lead to see the first huge contradiction (even though this section is before the part listed above) it states "There was no light for the first 400 million years, until gravity was able to pull some of the gas together to form the fist stars."

Well we've never observed gravity randomly in space all the gravity seem to be created because the star is already there. So doesn't that mean that you have already contradicted a hypothesis and that it needs to be revised or discarded?

I'm only on Chapter one now, I'll post more as I read on so stay tuned. ( And please don't have people come in here saying "You don't understand how science works." (or something to the effect.) I'm getting this straight from a text book so if you want to complain to someone call Michael A. Seeds or Dana E. Beckman...)

 

[ks777]

You don't understand how science works... lol, I'm kidding.

I think science is awesome at telling us why everything happens, and in a lot of cases how, but it can never say why.

When somethings a lie or untrue, there's always a contradiction. You can't blame them though, they're doing their best to explain Gods craftmenship of the universe... poor lost souls

Space is incredible! There's no way someone can look me in the eye and say everything around us and the laws that everything must obide by came from nothing but dust and chance.

I always failed science because as interesting as I find it, I could never believe anything that was being tought. My first science class at university my teacher trys telling everyone in the room, all complex living organisms with brains and common sense, that we, the sun and the earth, all came from space dust. After that I couldn't take anything she said seriously.

 

[laconicstudent]

oh nevermind.

 

[solarwave]

Hola Gemini,

Mind if I try to defend the science book?

Im really not massively bothered if you don't believe in evolution (physics im more interested in) so I'll leave that.

Gravity is created by all matter. The earth has gravity, it keeps you on it. You have gravity, but it is very very weak and atoms have very very very weak gravity.

So the gas that covered the whole universe all had gravity pulling on itself. Because the gass wasn't equally spread out it was pulled into clumps which became stars.

 

[ciaphas]

I just thought so you mean that if I said that I have a sample of E. Coli in a jar and I form a hypotheses that states "This E. Coli will eventually turn into Lactobacillus with just adaptation and time. That hypothesis would be discarded if it never happen?" and the answer is of course yes. "Then why do scientist still teach us that a single-celled micro bacterium turned into multi-celled bacterium and eventually formed all the life we see today if we've never actually observed a single-celled bacterium become a multi-celled bacterium?"

I think you've missed the point here. What the book is trying to put across is that if you could prove that a specific case wasn't going to happen, then you must discard the theory for that particular case. If proof is shown that a previous theory is wrong for all cases then it will be discarded completely.

For example; initially, common scientific consensus was that the sun rotated around the earth. This was proved to be false so the theory was discarded. What had seemed like a sensible explanation for the movement of the sun in the sky was shown to be wrong. Are you suggesting that we would have been better to have continued to believe a the former theory?

There is no case that a theory has conclusively been proven wrong but is still held to be right by general scientific consensus.

 

[LadyGemini]

Hola Gemini,

Mind if I try to defend the science book?

Im really not massively bothered if you don't believe in evolution (physics im more interested in) so I'll leave that.

Gravity is created by all matter. The earth has gravity, it keeps you on it. You have gravity, but it is very very weak and atoms have very very very weak gravity.

So the gas that covered the whole universe all had gravity pulling on itself. Because the gass wasn't equally spread out it was pulled into clumps which became stars.

Oh so you like physics? Ok try this one on for size Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.

So one your saying that there's absolute pressure and absolute volume of gas inside of a closed system with heat constantly applied in space? Sorry but even if there was enough gravity to begin to pull dust in radomly it still couldn't create enough pressure or heat to form a star. Thats basic physics for you.

 

[LadyGemini]

I think you've missed the point here. What the book is trying to put across is that if you could prove that a specific case wasn't going to happen, then you must discard the theory for that particular case. If proof is shown that a previous theory is wrong for all cases then it will be discarded completely.

For example; initially, common scientific consensus was that the sun rotated around the earth. This was proved to be false so the theory was discarded. What had seemed like a sensible explanation for the movement of the sun in the sky was shown to be wrong. Are you suggesting that we would have been better to have continued to believe a the former theory?

There is no case that a theory has conclusively been proven wrong but is still held to be right by general scientific consensus.

I think you missed the point here, you're example didn't have the same principles that mine did. You used an example were we could prove that the Earth rotated around the sun because of how gravity works. We observe the gravity and make scientific conclusions from that.
I used an example of something that can never be proven true because it can never be observed. No one has ever observed single-celled bacterium becoming anything other than that, yet the theory has not been revised or discarded. Therefore you could never discard my theory that E. Coli could become Lactobacillus, because then you would contradict the "science" behind evolution.

 

[ciaphas]

Oh so you like physics? Ok try this one on for size Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.

So one your saying that there's absolute pressure and absolute volume of gas inside of a closed system with heat constantly applied in space? Sorry but even if there was enough gravity to begin to pull dust in radomly it still couldn't create enough pressure or heat to form a star. Thats basic physics for you.

Right, I'm no biologist so can't really discuss your E.coli example. But as an engineering student and physicist I feel qualified to answer Boyle's law questions.

Firstly, you aren't describing Boyle's law if you bring heat into the equation. That is the perfect gas law or the ideal gas law (feel free to look them up), which states that pV=nRT. All Boyle's law states is that for an ideal gas at a constant temperature in a closed system, pV is constant.

Secondly, you talk about "enough" gravity. Have you studied physics? More specifically star cycles? With nothing to impede motion in space particles of matter with slowly draw together, the more matter that joins, the harder it will pull matter in. As this starts to get larger, the force of the outer layers being attracted towards the large mass at the centre (the same as ypulls you towards the earth) exerts a large pressure on the centre.

Although the matter in the centre is by no means an ideal fluid, let alone an ideal gas, actions cannot be accurately predicted by the ideal gas law. It is still safe to say that increasing the pressure acting on an already highly pressurised and largely uncompressible fluid will cause it to increase in temperature. Eventually the heat and pressure can approach those at which nuclear fusion takes place, adding a further source of heat.

If you had a different issue with the formation of stars, please clarify it and I will address it for you. Science has a very thorough understanding of that particular subject.

 

[ciaphas]

Ooh, on second reading of your post you started a little on evolution. Although my knowlege of the specifics is a little hazy, scientists have a very thorough knowlege of the subject and my grasp of the principles is good enough for me to take a few questions on the subject if you need things clarifying. Although please ensure that they are specifically about evolution or basic abiogenesis because, as i previously mentioned, my knowlege of biology is a little patchy.

 

[solarwave]

Oh so you like physics? Ok try this one on for size Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.

So one your saying that there's absolute pressure and absolute volume of gas inside of a closed system with heat constantly applied in space? Sorry but even if there was enough gravity to begin to pull dust in radomly it still couldn't create enough pressure or heat to form a star. Thats basic physics for you.

There seems to be alot more science based threads going around in the recent months here lol.

To be honest Im not sure what your saying about with the Boyle's law and how it relates to star formation. Can you reword it because I don't understand sorry.

Why couldn't gravity cause enough pressue on gas to make it a star? Fusion is caused by the high speed collisions of hydrogen gas. This speed it cause by heat which by alot of gas having a lot of force put on it by gravity. The more gas, the more gravity, the more pressure and so more heat.

 

[LadyGemini]

Right, I'm no biologist so can't really discuss your E.coli example. But as an engineering student and physicist I feel qualified to answer Boyle's law questions.

Firstly, you aren't describing Boyle's law if you bring heat into the equation. That is the perfect gas law or the ideal gas law (feel free to look them up), which states that pV=nRT. All Boyle's law states is that for an ideal gas at a constant temperature in a closed system, pV is constant.

Secondly, you talk about "enough" gravity. Have you studied physics? More specifically star cycles? With nothing to impede motion in space particles of matter with slowly draw together, the more matter that joins, the harder it will pull matter in. As this starts to get larger, the force of the outer layers being attracted towards the large mass at the centre (the same as ypulls you towards the earth) exerts a large pressure on the centre.

Although the matter in the centre is by no means an ideal fluid, let alone an ideal gas, actions cannot be accurately predicted by the ideal gas law. It is still safe to say that increasing the pressure acting on an already highly pressurised and largely uncompressible fluid will cause it to increase in temperature. Eventually the heat and pressure can approach those at which nuclear fusion takes place, adding a further source of heat.

If you had a different issue with the formation of stars, please clarify it and I will address it for you. Science has a very thorough understanding of that particular subject.

Ok first of all you do relize that for pV to be constant it has to be applied at the same time. The Ideal gas model tends to fail at lower temperatures or higher pressures, when intermolecular forces and molecular size become important. At some point of low temperature and high pressure, real gases would have to undergo a phase transition, such as to a liquid or a solid. The model of an ideal gas, however, does not describe or allow phase transitions.

Secondly I don't completly agree with star cycle charts seeing as how I don't think stars can form again once they blow up. Even if all of the particals of matter did manage meet in one place it would be impossible to prove that anything would happen to it. And even more so highly unlikely that anything would seeing as how you need pressure, gas, and heat to all be applied constantly through out the process.

If I have said anything out of line pleas straighten me up.

 

[ciaphas]

I'm just going to seperate this out because it's not very clearly worded, that way you can clarify the bits that I miss.

Ok first of all you do relize that for pV to be constant it has to be applied at the same time.

Ok, are you talking about Boyle's law again? I already tried to cover why that wasn't appropriate. This sentence is also on of the one's that doesn't really make sense. What has to be applied at the same time? In both the perfect gas equation and Boyle's law it is possible to change only on variable in which case "the same time" has nothing to do with it. One variable changes and others compensate.

The Ideal gas model tends to fail at lower temperatures or higher pressures, when intermolecular forces and molecular size become important. At some point of low temperature and high pressure, real gases would have to undergo a phase transition, such as to a liquid or a solid. The model of an ideal gas, however, does not describe or allow phase transitions.

The ideal gas model fails in an awful lot of cases, it is a model which allows you to simplify the maths for a set of cases. I'm not sure of the relevance this has to your point though. I had tried already told you that the gas equations in question were subject to it being a perfect gas and I thought I made it clear that the matter involved in the production of a star couldn't be modelled as an ideal gas. If you want it taken a little further, a star is made of plasma, which is not even a gas. It is a fourth state of matter.

Secondly I don't completly agree with star cycle charts seeing as how I don't think stars can form again once they blow up. Even if all of the particals of matter did manage meet in one place it would be impossible to prove that anything would happen to it. And even more so highly unlikely that anything would seeing as how you need pressure, gas, and heat to all be applied constantly through out the process.

I think the main reason that you're disagreeing with the star cycle charts at the moment is because you seem to believe that they "Blow up". A star starts to expand when the nuclear forces at its core exceed the gravitational attraction of the matter in the star. Firstly you need to know that the fusion that occurs in the star requires immense heat and pressure. When the star expands the pressure is reduced and the fusion reaction lessens. This reduces the outward pressure which was a result of the reaction in the core.

Nothing has exploded at all. The star just expanded! It is important to remember that as the outward pressure is reduced there is still an awful lot of mass around, as gravity becomes the predominant force again the star shrinks. This is the basis for star cycles.

If you could clarify your issues with these points before you start bringing up new ones it would be easier to see where you're going with this

 

[solarwave]

I see I dont deserve a reply

 

[driewerf]

One of the LOL(/contradiction) I've run into says "Scientists try to form hypotheses that explain how nature works. If a hypothesis is contradicted by experiment or observations, it must be revised or discarded."

I just thought so you mean that if I said that I have a sample of E. Coli in a jar and I form a hypotheses that states "This E. Coli will eventually turn into Lactobacillus with just adaptation and time. That hypothesis would be discarded if it never happen?" and the answer is of course yes. "Then why do scientist still teach us that a single-celled micro bacterium turned into multi-celled bacterium and eventually formed all the life we see today if we've never actually observed a single-celled bacterium become a multi-celled bacterium?"
...
( And please don't have people come in here saying "You don't understand how science works." (or something to the effect.) I'm getting this straight from a text book so if you want to complain to someone call Michael A. Seeds or Dana E. Beckman...)

First; i don't think any theory is so precise it can predict that E Colli can turn into Lactobacillus. You should need a very specific serie ofenvironmental pressures to select those mutations that produce Lactobacillus. Quiet a job.
What the Theory of Evolution predicts, and what has been observed is that under changing enviromental pressures populations will adapt. Their genetic pool will change so that the organisms with the better genetic make up will survive and pass their features to their ofspring.
Speaking of E. Coli adaptation has been observed in a very famous case:
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And unicellular organisms have been seen turning into multicellular organisms too.

Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system

Ecological and evolutionary dynamics can occur on similar timescales1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. However, theoretical predictions of how rapid evolution can affect ecological dynamics8 are inconclusive and often depend on untested model assumptions8. Here we report that rapid prey evolution in response to oscillating predator density affects predator–prey (rotifer–algal) cycles in laboratory microcosms. Our experiments tested explicit predictions from a model for our system that allows prey evolution9. We verified the predicted existence of an evolutionary tradeoff between algal competitive ability and defence against consumption, and examined its effects on cycle dynamics by manipulating the evolutionary potential of the prey population. Single-clone algal cultures (lacking genetic variability) produced short cycle periods and typical quarter-period phase lags between prey and predator densities, whereas multi-clonal (genetically variable) algal cultures produced long cycles with prey and predator densities nearly out of phase, exactly as predicted. These results confirm that prey evolution can substantially alter predator–prey dynamics, and therefore that attempts to understand population oscillations in nature10, 11 cannot neglect potential effects from ongoing rapid evolution.

from: Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator-prey system : Abstract : Nature

Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

(my emphasis)
SpringerLink - Journal Article

 

[WhereIsReligion]

"Poor lost souls"
AHHH THE ARROGANCE!
Anyways abiogenesis is still a major field of research. BTW the bible does contradict itself so by ks77's logic the bible is untrue.
It's clear Religion can cloud thought, not always but a lot of the times by hearing something that contradicts your belief you automatically discard it. Research it. Question everything including your own belief.

 

[Girder of Loins]

BTW the bible does contradict itself so by ks77's logic the bible is untrue.

Where doe sit contradict itself?

It's clear Religion can cloud thought, not always but a lot of the times by hearing something that contradicts your belief you automatically discard it. Research it. Question everything including your own belief.

Galileo believed the earthw as the center until he proved otherwise. Don't think we just throw stuff out because it contradicts the Bible. I'm very into science, and I hold it just under the Bible in truth. If there is proof that the Bible is not real, I mean solid evidence that it is not true, then I would discard my belief. But I have not found anything like that, and have only found that it is supported by science. Not contradicted by it.

 

[WhereIsReligion]

Where doe sit contradict itself?



Galileo believed the earthw as the center until he proved otherwise. Don't think we just throw stuff out because it contradicts the Bible. I'm very into science, and I hold it just under the Bible in truth. If there is proof that the Bible is not real, I mean solid evidence that it is not true, then I would discard my belief. But I have not found anything like that, and have only found that it is supported by science. Not contradicted by it.

Well, one of the ten commandments is not to kill yet the bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath. Jesus says to take an eye for an eye yet at the crucifiction says not to avenge. Peter says "Lord where are you going" John says the same, then a few verses later says "how come you do not ask where I'm going"
Really? The bible says we are made from dirt but we are 70% water.
Says we are gods image but, then why do we have a 96% similarities with monkeys? Why do we have poorer eyesight than owls and have no night vision if we are the top of the food chain. And secondly, why would an all loving god put down forbidden fruit if he knew they would eat it, then punish everyone? And as a bit of comic relief, If we are god's image, how come we aren't invisible?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Well, one of the ten commandments is not to kill yet the bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath.

The Bible says do not murder, or to kill without a just cause. It never says you can't kill.

Jesus says to take an eye for an eye yet at the crucifiction says not to avenge.

And where exactly will I find this verse where Jesus says "take an eye for an eye"? I remember Moses saying that, not Jesus.

Peter says "Lord where are you going" John says the same, then a few verses later says "how come you do not ask where I'm going"

I think I remember this one, we talked about it in my Bible class. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the Greek-English translation. The original Greek for Peter and John's question was a different "going" than Jesus' response "going".

Really?

Yeah, really.

The bible says we are made from dirt but we are 70% water.

The Bible says dust of the earth, and water is in the earth, so would it not stand to reason that water would then be drawn up into man? Plus, their science wasn't as technical as we are today. So they got the basic element down, matter, and wrote it down. God doesn't show man the future in its purest form, He shows them the future the way they can understand. Same with revelations of the past. They didn't know what DNA was, they didn't even have a word for it, so God revealed it to Moses that it was dust or dirt. Not a contradiction, a misunderstanding of reality.

[Says we are gods image but, then why do we have a 96% similarities with monkeys? Why do we have poorer eyesight than owls and have no night vision if we are the top of the food chain.[/quote]

God din't make us perfect. He made us so we could worship Him with our hearts. That is what separates us from monkeys and such, is the ablity to worship God freely, have free will, and have a soul, not genetic makeup.

And secondly, why would an all loving god put down forbidden fruit if he knew they would eat it, then punish everyone?

He is all loving, so He decided that in order to be loving, He couldn't control every aspect of our lives, so He gave us free will. But what is free will without choice? So He gave mankind a choice, and thus, free will. He also clearly established the punishment, so Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions.

And as a bit of comic relief, If we are god's image, how come we aren't invisible?

I feel like giving a real answer to this, but I did chortle at it. The reason we are not invisible is two reasons:

1. God is metaphysical(thus invisible to physical eyes), and we are physical(visible to physical eyes).

2. "Made in God's image" means our souls have been given aspects of God's likeness, not our genetic makeup. We don't physically look like God, but we do in our characteristics like free will, inspiration, order, love, justice, morality, ethics, expressions, etc...

Hope that answers some questions.

 

[WhereIsReligion]

The Bible says do not murder, or to kill without a just cause. It never says you can't kill.
So, it the neighbor being killed is just?

And where exactly will I find this verse where Jesus says "take an eye for an eye"? I remember Moses saying that, not Jesus.


I think I remember this one, we talked about it in my Bible class. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the Greek-English translation. The original Greek for Peter and John's question was a different "going" than Jesus' response "going".



Yeah, really.



The Bible says dust of the earth, and water is in the earth, so would it not stand to reason that water would then be drawn up into man? Plus, their science wasn't as technical as we are today. So they got the basic element down, matter, and wrote it down. God doesn't show man the future in its purest form, He shows them the future the way they can understand. Same with revelations of the past. They didn't know what DNA was, they didn't even have a word for it, so God revealed it to Moses that it was dust or dirt. Not a contradiction, a misunderstanding of reality.

[Says we are gods image but, then why do we have a 96% similarities with monkeys? Why do we have poorer eyesight than owls and have no night vision if we are the top of the food chain.

God din't make us perfect. He made us so we could worship Him with our hearts. That is what separates us from monkeys and such, is the ablity to worship God freely, have free will, and have a soul, not genetic makeup.


He is all loving, so He decided that in order to be loving, He couldn't control every aspect of our lives, so He gave us free will. But what is free will without choice? So He gave mankind a choice, and thus, free will. He also clearly established the punishment, so Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions.



I feel like giving a real answer to this, but I did chortle at it. The reason we are not invisible is two reasons:

1. God is metaphysical(thus invisible to physical eyes), and we are physical(visible to physical eyes).

2. "Made in God's image" means our souls have been given aspects of God's likeness, not our genetic makeup. We don't physically look like God, but we do in our characteristics like free will, inspiration, order, love, justice, morality, ethics, expressions, etc...

Hope that answers some questions.[/QUOTE]

SO murder is justifiable? And you didn't explain the DNA question.

 

[Girder of Loins]

SO murder is justifiable? And you didn't explain the DNA question.

Murder is not justifiable. Murder is killing without a just cause. It is unjustified killing. Therefore murder is not justified, and therefore unjustifiable.

I am not sure what the "DNA question" is.