Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 60 by Bust Nak]

Where are you getting this idea of "extra turbulence" from? The pre-existing turbulence from the big bang is enough for early star formation. You keep quoting from the same two article and paper, earlier I said it's not clear how your quote support your claims. Let me go further this time round, it's clear your quote does not support your claims.

Let me break this down for you real simple.

One article is an overview the other is a detailed account of the problems in star formation.

Problem one.

The article has a whole section on CO chemistry in stars and describes the importance of CO in stars.

Population III stars are the very first stars made in the universe. They are said to be made of only Hydrogen and Helium. How is that possible if stars need CO to form?

Problem two (similar to problem one)

There is a whole section on Hydrogen chemistry. One of the problems in hydrogen is making H2 from H in space and the need for dust to make this happen. Where did the dust come from in generation III stars.

Problem three

Turbulence

In addition to being supersonic and about trans Alfvenic, the motions within molecular clouds are also certainly turbulent. The transition to turbulence is an unsolved problem in physics, but is associated with the Reynolds number of the flow, which is the ratio of the size scale of the system to the dissipation scale.


This is only reading to page 31 of the 90 page document. There are many more problems in star formation.

To say that there are not any problems is not true. In fact there are many but one of the biggest is how did the first stars form.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 61 by EarthScienceguy]

We should probably just add ‘hydrogen’ to the list then.

I told you it’d just increase, didn’t I? Hasn’t taken very long at all.

[Bust Nak]

Population III stars are the very first stars made in the universe. They are said to be made of only Hydrogen and Helium. How is that possible if stars need CO to form?

Simple, stars do not need CO to form.

One of the problems in hydrogen is making H2 from H in space and the need for dust to make this happen. Where did the dust come from in generation III stars.

No where, stars do not need dust to form.

In addition to being supersonic and about trans Alfvenic, the motions within molecular clouds are also certainly turbulent. The transition to turbulence is an unsolved problem in physics, but is associated with the Reynolds number of the flow, which is the ratio of the size scale of the system to the dissipation scale.

It's that same old quote again, how are you reading stars require supernovas to form from that?

"Breaking this down for me real simple" doesn't help when it's still unclear how you got your interpretation from the text.

To say that there are not any problems is not true. In fact there are many but one of the biggest is how did the first stars form.

I have not said there are not any problems though, what I did say, is that star formation is possible without supernovas.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Simple, stars do not need CO to form.

Really that is not what this paper states: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

Hydrogen and helium are, by far, the most abundant elements in interstellar clouds. However, these elements are very poor coolants because they cannot be collisionally induced to emit photons at the low gas temperatures characteristic of molecular clouds. Two decades of theoretical studies have consistently predicted that a large fraction of the total cooling is borne by a few other atoms and molecules, notably gaseous water (HO), carbon monoxide (CO), molecular oxygen (O), and atomic carbon (C).

And it is not what this article states: Is molecular gas necessary for star formation?
Simon C. O. Glover and Paul C. Clark

Our simulations demonstrate that once a dense, gravitationally unstable cloud of gas has formed in the ISM, molecular cooling is not
required in order to convert this gas into stars. In the absence of
molecules, the cooling provided by the C+ fine-structure line at n
< 2 × 104 cm−3 and by dust at n > 2 × 104 cm−3 are sufficient to
allow stars to form. However, we cannot conclude solely from this
that molecular gas is an inessential component of the star formation
process. A skeptic could well argue that molecular cooling may be
required in order to form the dense cloud of gas that we take as the
initial conditions for our simulations, an assertion that our current
results can obviously do nothing to address.

So how many more articles do you need.

No where, stars do not need dust to form.

Look above

It's that same old quote again, how are you reading stars require supernovas to form from that?

"Breaking this down for me real simple" doesn't help when it's still unclear how you got your interpretation from the text.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... upernovae/

Supernovae add enriching elements to space clouds of dust and gas, further interstellar diversity, and produce a shock wave that compresses clouds of gas to aid new star formation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 62 by Diagoras]

We should probably just add ‘hydrogen’ to the list then.

I told you it’d just increase, didn’t I? Hasn’t taken very long at all.

Well yes there are all kinds of problems with star formation I just picked a few on the first 30 pages of the 90 written

[Bust Nak]

Really that is not what this paper states: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

It isn't? Again you quote and your quote, yet they still don't say what you want them to say. Gas cloud needs to cool, Hydrogen and Helium are bad coolant, the vast majority of cooling relies on molecules like CO, that does not amount to a claim that CO is required for star formation.

So how many more articles do you need.

Just one that says stars cannot form without supernova would do.

Look above

I am look, still doesn't say dust is require for star formation, let alone supernovas.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... upernovae/

Again, doesn't say Supernovas are required for star formations.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Supernovae add enriching elements to space clouds of dust and gas, further interstellar diversity, and produce a shock wave that compresses clouds of gas to aid new star formation.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 67 by EarthScienceguy]

Hmmm... strange that that wasn’t even a bit more convincing the second time round - despite the clever use of larger text.

As a suggestion, maybe you should use bold, red text in ALL CAPS to strengthen your argument. Maybe underlined and add multiple exclamation marks for emphasis, too.

The problem with just repeating parts of previous posts (Sheesh! He’s got me doing it now...) is that it adds absolutely nothing to a debate. But you know that anyway, so perhaps you’re just signalling that you’d like it to end.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 66 by Bust Nak]

I have yet to see any documentation of how star formation does occur especially population III stars.

How do you think population III stars form?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 68 by Diagoras]

Hmmm... strange that that wasn’t even a bit more convincing the second time round - despite the clever use of larger text.

As a suggestion, maybe you should use bold, red text in ALL CAPS to strengthen your argument. Maybe underlined and add multiple exclamation marks for emphasis, too.

The problem with just repeating parts of previous posts (Sheesh! He’s got me doing it now...) is that it adds absolutely nothing to a debate. But you know that anyway, so perhaps you’re just signalling that you’d like it to end.

I stated my position with evidence. Nobody else has even presented any evidence to the contrary or even evidence explaining how population III stars form.

If someone else wants to present evidence go ahead.