What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

The difference is enormous. For one thing there is a flaming great nuclear source spewing out UV rays a mere 93 million miles away. Do you have any idea how many orders of magnitude more that is than what would be experienced within a GMC? I suggest you do a rough calculation then come back to concede how foolish your remark was.

There is nothing wrong in being ignorant of a subject. There is something wrong about making pronouncements based on that ignorance!

So, how strong is the cosmic radiation outside the solar system? How long could an organic molecule last under that kind of radiation?

 

[Astrophile]

You are kidding? How were any "silicate molecules" formed in space?

Silicate grains form in the circumstellar shells and stellar winds of cool giant and supergiant stars, not in interstellar space.

For example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.2113070117/abstract describes how sub-micron magnesium silicate grains condense in circumstellar shells around late-type stars at T ~ 750-1000 K.

S. Ragland et al. (1997, Astron. and Astrophys., 319, 260-266 - http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1997A&A...319..260R - describe the 9.7-micron emission feature in the M1 supergiant TV Geminorum. Ragland et al. say (p. 262), 'It is known from early broad band IR observations that onset of silicate excess in oxygen rich stars is seen for all stars later than M6 III, M5 II, M1 Iab, K3 Ia and G0 Ia-0 (Merrill & Stein, 1976).'

 

[juvenissun]

Silicate grains form in the circumstellar shells and stellar winds of cool giant and supergiant stars, not in interstellar space.

For example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.2113070117/abstract describes how sub-micron magnesium silicate grains condense in circumstellar shells around late-type stars at T ~ 750-1000 K.

S. Ragland et al. (1997, Astron. and Astrophys., 319, 260-266 - http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1997A&A...319..260R - describe the 9.7-micron emission feature in the M1 supergiant TV Geminorum. Ragland et al. say (p. 262), 'It is known from early broad band IR observations that onset of silicate excess in oxygen rich stars is seen for all stars later than M6 III, M5 II, M1 Iab, K3 Ia and G0 Ia-0 (Merrill & Stein, 1976).'

OK, it is not newly formed. It is fragmental pieces from an exploding star. Accepted.

So these pieces gathered around a newly formed organic molecules and protect it from being dissociated. How much time is needed to do this before the protection began to be effective? Could the poor organic molecular sustain itself in that much time?

 

[Ophiolite]

OK, it is not newly formed. It is fragmental pieces from an exploding star. Accepted.

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I ask sincerely, for it would explain a lot.

Astrophile state very clearly: "Silicate grains form in the circumstellar shells and stellar winds of cool giant and supergiant stars, not in interstellar space."

No mention of exploding stars! Please learn to read.Even better - learn to understand what you have read.

 

[Hieronymus]

All of these issues have been considered in immense detail by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists.

Yes, and they all look at it through naturalistic glasses, as that's what popular science stands for.

 

[Hieronymus]

The dense cloud eventually formed the star.

Rather unlikely, but it's the only naturalistic view.
We can't have a reason for anything to exist.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I ask sincerely, for it would explain a lot.

Astrophile state very clearly: "Silicate grains form in the circumstellar shells and stellar winds of cool giant and supergiant stars, not in interstellar space."

No mention of exploding stars! Please learn to read.Even better - learn to understand what you have read.

Sorry, I might misinterpret the terms. What is circumstellar shells? What is a cool supergiant stars? I do have an image of star explosion given by these terms.

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry, I might misinterpret the terms. What is circumstellar shells? What is a cool supergiant stars? I do have an image of star explosion given by these terms.

Hey juv, don't you find it at all bizarre that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject material, yet seem quite insistent that the experts who have spent much of their lives studying this subject must be wrong? Isn't that kind of arrogant on your part?

 

[juvenissun]

Hey juv, don't you find it at all bizarre that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject material, yet seem quite insistent that the experts who have spent much of their lives studying this subject must be wrong? Isn't that kind of arrogant on your part?

Not at all. I asked question most of the time. The problem is I did not get back good answers, but trash comments.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, and they all look at it through naturalistic glasses, as that's what popular science stands for.

Science has been following a system of methodological naturalism for some considerable time because it has proved immensely effective at generating interesting, accurate and meaningful insights. While you seem perfectly happy to accept the fruits of this approach when it generates - for example, Einstein's Nobel prize winning observations from 1905 - you balk at it when it conflicts with your beliefs. Good to know.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not at all. I asked question most of the time. The problem is I did not get back good answers, but trash comments.

The problem may be that your manner of asking the questions comes across as a rhetorical technique in which you you do not mean them as sincere questions, but as an attack on an imagined weakness of what you have been told - but do not believe. If they are indeed sincere I apologise for having misunderstood your intent and responded in kind.

All stars eject material in a variety of ways. You are aware, I imagine, of the Aurora Borealis - the Northern lights and their southern equivalent. These are cause by ionised particles, ejected by the sun, interacting with the Earth's magnetosphere. Such eruptions of particles occur periodically, but the sun also is continually pushing out particles in all directions - the solar wind. This is the kind of mechanism being referred to. I would be happy to answer further specific questions if you are asking them as genuine questions.

And I do echo The Cadet's observation: given your profound ignorance in this field I would have expected a less assertive expression of opinion. Ignorance is not a bad thing. Posturing based on ignorance is a bad thing. I accept that this is not what you were doing, but advise you that it has been coming across that way - at least to me.

 

[juvenissun]

All stars eject material in a variety of ways. You are aware, I imagine, of the Aurora Borealis - the Northern lights and their southern equivalent. These are cause by ionised particles, ejected by the sun, interacting with the Earth's magnetosphere. Such eruptions of particles occur periodically, but the sun also is continually pushing out particles in all directions - the solar wind. This is the kind of mechanism being referred to. I would be happy to answer further specific questions if you are asking them as genuine questions.

I doubt there are enough silicon ions in the stellar wind to serve as protecting silicate molecular particles to the organic molecules.

 

[Ophiolite]

I doubt there are enough silicon ions in the stellar wind to serve as protecting silicate molecular particles to the organic molecules.

You see, that's the problem. We have told you that there is enough material to generate enough silicates to provide the protection. That's been determined by experts through careful observation and experimentation. The understanding has been built up over decades of meticulous research by many scientists. I am unaware of any researcher working in the field who would dispute this.

Yet rather than asking us to clarify how this is known, or perhaps to provide a citation of a research paper that discusses the matter, instead you state - very clearly - "I doubt this." I'm sorry, but you lack the knowledge, or the authority to doubt it.

For my part I now find it difficult to accept your claim that you are 'asking questions most of the time'. However, I shall discard my doubts and continue to accept that you are sincere. Now do you want to ask some questions that will help you resolve your doubts?

 

[juvenissun]

You see, that's the problem. We have told you that there is enough material to generate enough silicates to provide the protection. That's been determined by experts through careful observation and experimentation. The understanding has been built up over decades of meticulous research by many scientists. I am unaware of any researcher working in the field who would dispute this.

Yet rather than asking us to clarify how this is known, or perhaps to provide a citation of a research paper that discusses the matter, instead you state - very clearly - "I doubt this." I'm sorry, but you lack the knowledge, or the authority to doubt it.

For my part I now find it difficult to accept your claim that you are 'asking questions most of the time'. However, I shall discard my doubts and continue to accept that you are sincere. Now do you want to ask some questions that will help you resolve your doubts?

I certainly have reasons to cast the doubt. Why do you criticize me before asking me for the reason?

 

[Ophiolite]

I certainly have reasons to cast the doubt. Why do you criticize me before asking me for the reason?

If you have reasons to cast doubt on very well researched observations, or hypotheses, the appropriate behaviour is to clearly state the reasons for those doubts and to justify such reasons as you give. It should not be necessary to ask you for the reasons. To simply state that you doubt the soundly validated work of numerous scientists is petty and verges on being rude. It is reminiscent of that breed of poster who tries to trap their "opponent" through a series of 'rigged' questions, or assertions. Again, I give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do hope your next post restores my confidence in you.

 

[Ophiolite]

I certainly have reasons to cast the doubt. Why do you criticize me before asking me for the reason?

I responded to this post within ten minutes. You have had since Monday to reply. In the meantime you have been active on other threads.

I am sure you would not wish to give the impression that you are avoiding awkward questions. I am confident you just overlooked making a reply. I look forward to reading it later today.

 

[juvenissun]

I responded to this post within ten minutes. You have had since Monday to reply. In the meantime you have been active on other threads.

I am sure you would not wish to give the impression that you are avoiding awkward questions. I am confident you just overlooked making a reply. I look forward to reading it later today.

I lost the interest of it.
If you have question, I will answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

Given that we have told you that there is enough material to generate enough silicates to provide the protection; that this has been determined by experts through careful observation and experimentation; that the understanding has been built up over decades of meticulous research by many scientists; that I am unaware of any researcher working in the field who would dispute this; given all this, what doubts do you have and what justification do you have for those doubts?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved to Creation and Evolution from its parent forum, Physical and Life Sciences. Please continue your discussion here.
​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[steve78]

For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

.

What we are not being told is that we are not alone in the universe.