Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[True_Blue]

For True Blue


This Hubble Space Telescope mosaic gives us a beautiful view of the fertile star-forming region "30 Doradus Nebula." High-energy ultraviolet radiation and intense pressures of stellar winds produced by stars in the cluster (the large blue blob left of center) trigger the collapse of parts of the gas and dust clouds, producing a new generation of stars. Supernova explosions might also trigger the collapse of interstellar clouds

CL, didn't you or Thaumatury come somewhat close to admitting earlier that a supernova is insufficient to cause the enormous compression of a gas cloud? How the heck is solar wind to accomplish what supernova cannot? I'm just not buying that "gravitational instability" stuff. If you've got a star, the solar wind will blow the gas away. If you got a planet, the gas will be loosely gravitationally attracted to it (like Jupiter) but not hypercompress it. If you've got a black hole, it just sucks in the gas and gets bigger. If you've got something in between a star and a planet, the heat of compression equilibrates with gravity, and a star would never form. I really, really like the theory of the massive "Deep" exploding, forming hot chunklets of matter spread all over the universe, with new stars forming from the detonation of vastly larger stars a la Canis Majoris. No exotic, incomprehensible theories required.

Your picture is gorgeous, but I see no swirling, cohesive hurricane-like disk or similar gravity-dominated structure.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You put in a very good effort, LW. This is very, very good evidence on the formation of planets, like Jupiter and Saturn.

I am sorry, this is my fault, I had assumed you had bothered to study stellar formation and how a disk forms. But now I can see that you have not bothered to study anything at all, you are making up things in your head that have no basis in God's creation then accusing the rest of us holding to a view that only exists in your mind.

You know you could quit making stuff up about what science says and just read what science says, there are plenty of good sources out there to help you with this.

This would keep you from having to make up stuff and lie about others belief and lie about God's creation... Just a thought... I cannot stop you from making stuff up about science and then lying to others, but I do recommend against such acts.

 

[Chalnoth]

CL, didn't you or Thaumatury come somewhat close to admitting earlier that a supernova is insufficient to cause the enormous compression of a gas cloud? How the heck is solar wind to accomplish what supernova cannot? I'm just not buying that "gravitational instability" stuff. If you've got a star, the solar wind will blow the gas away. If you got a planet, the gas will be loosely gravitationally attracted to it (like Jupiter) but not hypercompress it. If you've got a black hole, it just sucks in the gas and gets bigger. If you've got something in between a star and a planet, the heat of compression equilibrates with gravity, and a star would never form. I really, really like the theory of the massive "Deep" exploding, forming hot chunklets of matter spread all over the universe, with new stars forming from the detonation of vastly larger stars a la Canis Majoris. No exotic, incomprehensible theories required.

Your picture is gorgeous, but I see no swirling, cohesive hurricane-like disk or similar gravity-dominated structure.

I'm the one that said it. But I didn't say it was insufficient. I said it was unlikely to be a major factor. It's probably a factor, however: anything that affects the density of gas regions can lead to an instability that results in collapse to a star. A strong solar wind, for instance, could cause regions of gas far away from one another to collide, increasing their density.

All a star is is a gas giant (like Jupiter) that has so much mass that the pressure at its core is enough to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction. Do you somehow think that massive gas clouds don't collapse? There's no hypercompression going on. It's just that there's enough mass in a star to do this.

 

[True_Blue]

I'm the one that said it. But I didn't say it was insufficient. I said it was unlikely to be a major factor. It's probably a factor, however: anything that affects the density of gas regions can lead to an instability that results in collapse to a star. A strong solar wind, for instance, could cause regions of gas far away from one another to collide, increasing their density.

All a star is is a gas giant (like Jupiter) that has so much mass that the pressure at its core is enough to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction. Do you somehow think that massive gas clouds don't collapse? There's no hypercompression going on. It's just that there's enough mass in a star to do this.

Aeronautical engineers like to talk about dynamic stability and dynamic instability. A glider is generally designed to be dynamically stable--if a gust of wind hits it, the glider self-corrects and re-orients itself. An X-29 with forward-swept wings is dynamically unstable for maneuverability. It takes constant adjustment by the pilot or the computer system to keep on a level course. It strikes me that a gas cloud will be dynamically stable and self-correcting. The molecules naturally want to spread themselves evenly across the entire universe. If placed in proximity with any dense object other than a black hole, the forces of repulsion I listed earlier will find an equilibrium with the gravitational force of attraction, and the gas cloud will be bounded and unchanging. Exogenous shocks like a supernova would disturb the equilibrium somewhat, but like a glider balance would be restored. I make this assumption because chemistry is always trying to find equilibrium.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Aeronautical engineers like to talk about dynamic stability and dynamic instability. A glider is generally designed to be dynamically stable--if a gust of wind hits it, the glider self-corrects and re-orients itself. An X-29 with forward-swept wings is dynamically unstable for maneuverability. It takes constant adjustment by the pilot or the computer system to keep on a level course. It strikes me that a gas cloud will be dynamically stable and self-correcting. The molecules naturally want to spread themselves evenly across the entire universe. If placed in proximity with any dense object other than a black hole, the forces of repulsion I listed earlier will find an equilibrium with the gravitational force of attraction, and the gas cloud will be bounded and unchanging. Exogenous shocks like a supernova would disturb the equilibrium somewhat, but like a glider balance would be restored. I make this assumption because chemistry is always trying to find equilibrium.

However, when we look at God's creation your ideas about how things should happen seem to be wrong. Your hurricane models and ideas about balance do not seem to be happening.

What then are we to do with your ideas since they seem to contradict the witness of creation?

 

[birdan]

Aeronautical engineers like to talk about dynamic stability and dynamic instability. A glider is generally designed to be dynamically stable--if a gust of wind hits it, the glider self-corrects and re-orients itself. An X-29 with forward-swept wings is dynamically unstable for maneuverability. It takes constant adjustment by the pilot or the computer system to keep on a level course. It strikes me that a gas cloud will be dynamically stable and self-correcting. The molecules naturally want to spread themselves evenly across the entire universe. If placed in proximity with any dense object other than a black hole, the forces of repulsion I listed earlier will find an equilibrium with the gravitational force of attraction, and the gas cloud will be bounded and unchanging. Exogenous shocks like a supernova would disturb the equilibrium somewhat, but like a glider balance would be restored. I make this assumption because chemistry is always trying to find equilibrium.

You seem to be under the impression that science is some story-telling contest, where the best tossed word salad wins. Actually, astronomers calculate attractive and repulsive forces, using mathematics, to determine what the outcome will be. So why don't you show your calculations to back up your word salad?

All the various phenomena that have been described to you (apparently to no avail) have mathematical models to back them up and describe their characteristics in detail. And these models are validated by observations, many of which have been shown to you. Until you can present some mathematical basis (like real scientists do) to your just-so stories, they will be just that: just-so stories that anyone can make up, vacuous and without any merit.

 

[Chalnoth]

Aeronautical engineers like to talk about dynamic stability and dynamic instability. A glider is generally designed to be dynamically stable--if a gust of wind hits it, the glider self-corrects and re-orients itself. An X-29 with forward-swept wings is dynamically unstable for maneuverability. It takes constant adjustment by the pilot or the computer system to keep on a level course. It strikes me that a gas cloud will be dynamically stable and self-correcting. The molecules naturally want to spread themselves evenly across the entire universe. If placed in proximity with any dense object other than a black hole, the forces of repulsion I listed earlier will find an equilibrium with the gravitational force of attraction, and the gas cloud will be bounded and unchanging. Exogenous shocks like a supernova would disturb the equilibrium somewhat, but like a glider balance would be restored. I make this assumption because chemistry is always trying to find equilibrium.

This is what the Jeans Instability is all about: once you have density contrasts above a certain amount, they become unstable to collapse, and do so.

 

[True_Blue]

You seem to be under the impression that science is some story-telling contest, where the best tossed word salad wins. Actually, astronomers calculate attractive and repulsive forces, using mathematics, to determine what the outcome will be. So why don't you show your calculations to back up your word salad?

All the various phenomena that have been described to you (apparently to no avail) have mathematical models to back them up and describe their characteristics in detail. And these models are validated by observations, many of which have been shown to you. Until you can present some mathematical basis (like real scientists do) to your just-so stories, they will be just that: just-so stories that anyone can make up, vacuous and without any merit.

In a different thread, I have been using a simple mathematical model on abiogenesis. I wish you could have made this post on the abiogenesis thread, because you made my point for me. Mathematical models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. The assumptions are subject to question and critique. A mathematical model is improved in terms of both assumptions and math if data exists. But on the star-from-gas-cloud theory, there is no data. The only "data", if it can be called that, are the pretty pictures that have been posted earlier, which shows gas clouds in the general neighborhood of stars, and even the pictures don't indicate what the theorists would hope. No hurricane-like swirling of gas into a baby star. So the data of the pictures are on my side, not theirs. Moreover, my methodology in this thread is to go back to "first principles," and compare those first principles to the highly complex mathematical models that seek to contravene those first principles. In other fields that I do understand better than astrophysics, like economics, for example, I've noticed that complexity is used to obfuscate and justify ideas I believe are incorrect (like communism, for example). Perhaps a reader of this thread who has had formal training in astrophysics (I've had astronautical engineering, but not astrophysics) will take the first principles I've enunciated and compare them with the complex models that he does understand. Moreover, the simple solutions in science and life often tend to be the better ones, and the Bible's framework is very simple, makes sense, does not violate first principles, and fits the data nicely.

 

[True_Blue]

This is what the Jeans Instability is all about: once you have density contrasts above a certain amount, they become unstable to collapse, and do so.

Chalnoth, I think I'm willing to concede that it is "possible" that Jeans Instability is not invalid. I can't provide a good enough argument to say definitively that gas clouds are always "dynamically stable" using the analogy I drew above. While I still like my explanation better, I no longer believe my arguments are compelling enough to warrant use it in a theological debate. To be used with respect to the theism/atheism debate, by my personal standards, the argument has to be greater than 99% compelling, and I don't think I can make the argument to that high standard.

I appreciate your thoughts and spirited debate, Chalnoth!

 

[Chalnoth]

True_Blue, your claim that there is no data is hopelessly naive. No, we aren't going to ever be able to actually witness the formation of a star from start to finish. But what we can see are a large number of formations of stars at different stages. We can, then, construct models of star formation using physics here on Earth (mostly basic Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics...things only get squirrely when the nuclear reactions turn on). From these models, we make specific predictions of what sorts of things we should see out there. For example, we can predict where we should see star formation occurring, such as in colliding gas clouds.

Here's the main point: scientists don't give up so easily. Just because we can't obtain as much evidence as we would like doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and claim that we can't know what's going on. We use the very powerful tools at our disposal to extrapolate from what evidence we are capable of obtaining. For example, we use knowledge of physics from experiments here on Earth to develop computer models of what we should see in stars. If those models differ from the observations (and they often do, albeit slightly), we can then use those discrepancies to try to uncover places where our models have fallen short. By continuing this feedback process between observations and models, we are able to learn quite a lot about stars, how they form, how they evolve, and how they die.

 

[Naraoia]

In a different thread, I have been using a simple mathematical model on abiogenesis.

A simple mathematical model of coin flips, that is. It had nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis.

I wish you could have made this post on the abiogenesis thread, because you made my point for me.

Model all you like, what ultimately decides if you are right is how the system actually behaves. Do you need a detailed mathematical description of gravity to believe that objects fall? (And no, this is not about star formation. This is about that abomination that's the abiogenesis thread.)

Mathematical models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them.

QFT. And bolded. I don't know if you catch the reference.

Moreover, the simple solutions in science and life often tend to be the better ones, and the Bible's framework is very simple, makes sense, does not violate first principles, and fits the data nicely.

Very simple? As in an infinitely complex entity... just being?

I'm also curious about your "first principles". Saying it doesn't violate first principles is just a lot of fluff if people have no idea what those first principles are. (I'm smelling your thwarted version of the second law here but I'd rather go with the data.)

 

[UncleHermit]

I bet that was UH's point. Models of the early universe do not posit the existence of matter-as-we-know-it until at least Planck Time.

Yeah, that's what I remember reading...somewhere.
Obviously, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to have a really meaningful discussion about it, so I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut
This is an interesting thread, though.

 

[birdan]

In a different thread, I have been using a simple mathematical model on abiogenesis. I wish you could have made this post on the abiogenesis thread, because you made my point for me. Mathematical models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. The assumptions are subject to question and critique. A mathematical model is improved in terms of both assumptions and math if data exists.

Yes, I've been reading that thread, and after hundreds of posts you still don't understand why combinatorics is not applicable to chemical reactions, even though it has been explained to you in every imaginable way.

I agree that mathematical models rely on the assumptions they are built on. If an assumption turns out to be invalid, the model is invalid. You have failed to see that on the other thread, just as you fail to see it here. At least you're consistent.

 

[True_Blue]

I'm also curious about your "first principles". Saying it doesn't violate first principles is just a lot of fluff if people have no idea what those first principles are. (I'm smelling your thwarted version of the second law here but I'd rather go with the data.)

I'm sorry, which data are you referring to? I see no data at all on abiogenesis, and no data on star formation. I can excuse the lack of data on star formation because the theory itself, at least my take on the theory, requires gas clouds to suddenly implode on themselves, leaving no evidence behind (like a hurricane-like swirl pattern). While I don't think a single star has ever formed that way, I don't think it's strictly speaking impossible. But to expect simple compounds to essentially implode in the same way, forming DNA, cell membrane, etc, as part of a living, moving organism is utterly impossible under any reasonable assumptions. Chemical laws don't get you there, unless you're Hindu and believe a mystical yet nevertheless non-personal force makes chemistry "want" to form life.

 

[rhaegar]

I suppose you also believe that evolution means that humans suddenly form out of jars of peanut butter?

 

[True_Blue]

I suppose you also believe that evolution means that humans suddenly form out of jars of peanut butter?

The model I have presented here is applicable to the first cell, not people. Against the evolution of people, there are dozens of compelling arguments. Here are a few from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis.

Barrow and Tipler [28] review the consensus among such biologists that the evolutionary path from primitive Cambrian chordates, e.g. Pikaia, to Homo sapiens was a highly improbable event. For example, the large brains of humans have marked adaptive disadvantages, requiring as they do an expensive metabolism, a long gestation period, and a childhood lasting more than 25% of the average total life span. Other improbable features of humans include:

* Being the only extant bipedal land (non-avian) vertebrate. Combined with an unusual eye-hand coordination, this permits dextrous manipulations of the physical environment with the hands;
* A vocal apparatus far more expressive than that of any other mammal, enabling speech. Speech makes it possible for humans to interact cooperatively, to share knowledge, and to acquire a culture;
* The capability of formulating abstractions to a degree permitting the invention of mathematics, and the discovery of science and technology. Keep in mind how recently humans acquired anything like their current scientific and technological sophistication.

There are lots of other processes that work against human evolution, and this only scratches the surface of the problems evolutionists face.

 

[rhaegar]

The model I have presented here is applicable to the first cell, not people.

Yet it isnt applicable to the first cell. Chemistry doesnt work that way. Your saying that gaseous H2 and O2 cant form water ice because the randomly moving gas particles dont instantaneously stop moving, break up and recombine to H2O with the angle subteneded by the hydrogen atoms to be perfectly 104 degrees*, and then have the water molecules to align itself into a hexagonal pattern to form ice crystals.

 

[True_Blue]

Yet it isnt applicable to the first cell. Chemistry doesnt work that way. Your saying that gaseous H2 and O2 cant form water ice because the randomly moving gas particles dont instantaneously stop moving, break up and recombine to H2O with the angle subteneded by the hydrogen atoms to be perfectly 104 degrees*, and then have the water molecules to align itself into a hexagonal pattern to form ice crystals.

The formation of simple molecules and crystals is the extent of the complexity of natural chemistry.

 

[Chalnoth]

The formation of simple molecules and crystals is the extent of the complexity of natural chemistry.

Then why do we find amino acids and nucleotides on asteroids?

 

[Vene]

Then why do we find amino acids and nucleotides on asteroids?

Oh, I know. They are the remains of the angels that sided with Lucifer. Yep, that's it.