Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #51

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Stars cannot form without heavier elements which has to come from supernova's.

The big bang theory can only account for H, He, and Li. And yet a star needs Carbon and Oxygen to cool themselves.

A gas could cannot produce the turbulence to produce a star.

It is worth noting, however, that no simulation even remotely approaches the actual ratio of driving to dissipation scale in molecular clouds, which is
the Reynolds number, Reynolds number ∼ E9, though it is possible to approach the ratio of driving to AD dissipation scale,since Reynolds number of AD is less than 300


page 33 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0867.pdf

There has to be a supernova close by to supply the turbulence needed.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #52

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 51 by EarthScienceguy]
Stars cannot form without heavier elements which has to come from supernova's.


Stars do not need heavier elements to form. They can make elements up to Fe via fusion, and higher molecular weight elements are made in supernovas.
The big bang theory can only account for H, He, and Li. And yet a star needs Carbon and Oxygen to cool themselves.


Stars can form without C and O, then make C and O via fusion. The first nuclear reactions are H > He.
A gas could cannot produce the turbulence to produce a star.


Sure it can. Molecular clouds are gigantic (or can be) ... many are light years in dimension and they are not perfectly uniform. Density variations cause gravitational fluctuations in space, which cause spatial movements of the gas at both large scales and small scales (just like pressure differences on Earth cause air to flow from one location to another ... ie. wind ... which is driven by several different sources for the pressure variations, such as Rossby waves impacting high altitude winds and surface effects causing local winds). Turbulence in giant molecular clouds can be generated without supernovae, due to the nonuniform nature of giant gas and dust clouds in space.
There has to be a supernova close by to supply the turbulence needed.


Not necessarily (see above).

But what point are you trying to make with all of this star formation dialog? Stars by the many billions actually do exist ... this is a fact. As a young earth creationist which you have claimed to be, there is virtually no explanation from modern physics that could possibly be compatible with a 6000 year old universe because stars take millions of years to form. So the only option you have to explain the existence of stars is that they were "created" by your favorite god. But instead of sticking with that, you are trying to cherry pick sentences from various sources to suggest that every detail of star formation is not yet known by science and suggesting that this somehow supports your argument that stars were therefore created on the whim of a god.

There are many open science problems not yet solved, or only partially solved, but that fact does not mean that the answer is god did it. Nothing you have put out in this thread supports your OP claims ... just more attempts to cherry pick information from science articles and misinterpret them to favor your religious viewpoint. You're not fooling anyone.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #53

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Stars cannot form without heavier elements which has to come from supernova's.
That's not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. The earliest stars are composed of Hydrogen and Helium, which you've conveniently affirmed, are accounted for without having to appeal to supernovas.
And yet a star needs Carbon and Oxygen to cool themselves.
Not technically true, but at least I know what you are referring to here. This is not a problem since Carbon and Oxygen are produced by the stars themselves as they burn.
A gas could cannot produce the turbulence to produce a star.
It doesn't need to "produce" any, because they are already turbulent, the early was very uniform, but not entirely uniform.
page 33 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0867.pdf

There has to be a supernova close by to supply the turbulence needed.
And what in that quote provided, gave you that impression?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #54

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bust Nak]
That's not true, I have no idea where you got this idea from. The earliest stars are composed of Hydrogen and Helium, which you've conveniently affirmed, are accounted for without having to appeal to supernovas.
Far from it. I never affirmed that population III stars were possible without supernovas. I have said this several times that population III stars are impossible.
Quote:
And yet a star needs Carbon and Oxygen to cool themselves.

Not technically true, but at least I know what you are referring to here. This is not a problem since Carbon and Oxygen are produced by the stars themselves as they burn.
As I discuss in the next section, CO (and to a lesser extent C+) are also the most important coolants in molecular clouds. Thus the chemistry of carbon is
nearly as important as that of hydrogen for understanding the behavior of the star-forming ISM


You just said that the only elements that were produced in stars were hydrogen and helium. The theory also says that lithium was also made during the big bang.

Carbon and oxygen could only exist in population II stars because there could not have been carbon an oxygen in population III stars.

Quote:
A gas could cannot produce the turbulence to produce a star.

It doesn't need to "produce" any, because they are already turbulent, the early was very uniform, but not entirely uniform.

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. Formally, for a system of size L, characteristic velocity V, and kinematic viscosity ν, the Reynolds number is
Re =LV/ν;

It is worth noting, however, that no simulation even remotely approaches the actual ratio of driving to dissipation scale in molecular clouds, which is
the Reynolds number, Re ∼ 109, though it is possible to approach the ratio of driving to AD dissipation scale, since ReAD . 300.


Where does the extra turbulence comes from if not from supernova's

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #55

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 52 by DrNoGods]
Stars do not need heavier elements to form. They can make elements up to Fe via fusion, and higher molecular weight elements are made in supernovas.
Supernova's are needed to produce Fe in naturalistic theories. Where did population III stars get these heavier elements from.
Quote:
The big bang theory can only account for H, He, and Li. And yet a star needs Carbon and Oxygen to cool themselves.


Stars can form without C and O, then make C and O via fusion. The first nuclear reactions are H > He.
To contract the gas cloud to make stars the gas cloud needs to cool to contract. CO is the coolant used.


Quote:
A gas could cannot produce the turbulence to produce a star.

Sure it can. Molecular clouds are gigantic (or can be) ... many are light years in dimension and they are not perfectly uniform. Density variations cause gravitational fluctuations in space, which cause spatial movements of the gas at both large scales and small scales (just like pressure differences on Earth cause air to flow from one location to another ... ie. wind ... which is driven by several different sources for the pressure variations, such as Rossby waves impacting high altitude winds and surface effects causing local winds). Turbulence in giant molecular clouds can be generated without supernovae, due to the nonuniform nature of giant gas and dust clouds in space.
Turbulence is directly rated to the size of the system. Re= LV/v.
Re = Reynolds number
L = to the system
V= velocity
v = kinematic velocity.

The RMS particle speed is comparable to the sound speed, so u ∼ 0.2 km s−1 in a molecular cloud. The mean free path λ ∼ 1/nσ, where n is the particle number density and σ is the cross section,31 typically ∼ 0.01 − 1 nm2 for a neutral particle like H2. At a density n ∼ 100 cm−2, this implies λ ∼ 1012 cm, so ν ∼ 1016 cm2 s−1 . Combining this viscosity with a length scale of 10 pc and a velocity scale of 1 km s−1 implies that the typical Reynolds number in molecular clouds is Re ∼ 109. Flows at such high Reynolds numbers are invariably turbulent.

It is worth noting, however, that no simulation even remotely approaches the actual ratio of driving to dissipation scale in molecular clouds, which is the Reynolds number, Re ∼ 109 , though it is possible to approach the ratio of driving to AD dissipation scale, since ReAD . 300


Quote:
There has to be a supernova close by to supply the turbulence needed.

But what point are you trying to make with all of this star formation dialog? Stars by the many billions actually do exist ... this is a fact. As a young earth creationist which you have claimed to be, there is virtually no explanation from modern physics that could possibly be compatible with a 6000 year old universe because stars take millions of years to form. So the only option you have to explain the existence of stars is that they were "created" by your favorite god. But instead of sticking with that, you are trying to cherry pick sentences from various sources to suggest that every detail of star formation is not yet known by science and suggesting that this somehow supports your argument that stars were therefore created on the whim of a god.

There are many open science problems not yet solved, or only partially solved, but that fact does not mean that the answer is god did it. Nothing you have put out in this thread supports your OP claims ... just more attempts to cherry pick information from science articles and misinterpret them to favor your religious viewpoint. You're not fooling anyone.
1. i believe you are the one who said that we have a working theory of star and planet formation.

2. It does because there it is really not possible to produce population III stars unless our understanding of the laws of physics totally change.

3. It does show that your faith is in some sort of anthropic god.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #56

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 55 by EarthScienceguy]
Supernova's are needed to produce Fe in naturalistic theories.


No ... supernovas are needed to produce elements heavier than Fe. Fe can be produced in stars (from Si fusion) before they go supernova.
To contract the gas cloud to make stars the gas cloud needs to cool to contract. CO is the coolant used.


Ever heard of gravity? This isn't a process where the ideal gas law applies throughout, and gas clouds can have regions where the density increases due to the effects of gravity. These increased density regions then pull more gas into them due to their increased gravity. During this process the temperature of the gas increases.
Turbulence is directly rated to the size of the system. Re= LV/v.


And many other things in the case of star formation. But what are you trying to argue here? That stars can't form from molecular gas clouds?
i believe you are the one who said that we have a working theory of star and planet formation.


Yes ... and it has nothing to do with a god creating either of them. It isn't at all clear what point you are trying to make by pasting random sentences from a review article on star formation and then talking about gods and creation events. Stars clearly exist, the process takes far longer than a young earth creationist thinks the universe has existed, and nothing you have posted provides an alternative to the present understanding of star formation processes,, or invalidates it in any way. So what point are you trying to make?
It does show that your faith is in some sort of anthropic god.


I don't have faith in any kinds of gods, anthropic or otherwise. Physics and chemistry are not religions requiring faith, and they do an infinitely better job of describing nature than your poor attempts at trying to defend creationism and pretend it is a correct description of anything in nature, or compatible with modern science. You've yet to score a single point towards that goal as far as I can tell.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #57

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 56 by DrNoGods]
No ... supernovas are needed to produce elements heavier than Fe. Fe can be produced in stars (from Si fusion) before they go supernova.
These elements would stay in the star without the star undergoing a supernova or nova and spreading them out into the cosmos. And all of the population III stars were large enough to go supernova at least that is what is theorized.

The problem is were did the population III stars get these heavy elements.

Stars observed in galaxies were originally divided into two populations by Walter Baade in the 1940s. Although a more refined means of classifying stellar populations has since been established (according to whether they are found in the thin disk, thick disk, halo or bulge of the galaxy), astronomers have continued to coarsely classify stars as either Population I (Pop I, metal-rich) or Population II (Pop II, metal-poor). However, even the most metal-poor Pop II stars have metallicities (commonly denoted [Z/H]) far above that of the gas left over from the Big Bang.

For this reason, astronomers have introduced a third class of star. Population III (Pop III) stars are composed entirely of primordial gas – hydrogen, helium and very small amounts of lithium and beryllium. This means that the gas from which Pop III stars formed had not been ‘recycled’ (incorporated into, and then expelled) from previous generations of stars, but was pristine material left over from the Big Bang. As such, these stars would have a [Z/H] ~ -10 and would constitute the very first generation of stars formed within a galaxy. These Pop III stars would then produce the metals observed in Pop II stars and initiate the gradual increase in metallicity across subsequent generations of stars.http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III




Quote:
To contract the gas cloud to make stars the gas cloud needs to cool to contract. CO is the coolant used.

Ever heard of gravity? This isn't a process where the ideal gas law applies throughout, and gas clouds can have regions where the density increases due to the effects of gravity. These increased density regions then pull more gas into them due to their increased gravity. During this process the temperature of the gas increases.
Ever heard of the gas laws as temperature increase pressure increases. The cloud needs to be cooled to condense.
Quote:
Turbulence is directly rated to the size of the system. Re= LV/v.


And many other things in the case of star formation. But what are you trying to argue here? That stars can't form from molecular gas clouds?
Yes I am, I am saying that there are many fundamental problems with star formation.

Quote:
i believe you are the one who said that we have a working theory of star and planet formation.


Yes ... and it has nothing to do with a god creating either of them. It isn't at all clear what point you are trying to make by pasting random sentences from a review article on star formation and then talking about gods and creation events. Stars clearly exist, the process takes far longer than a young earth creationist thinks the universe has existed, and nothing you have posted provides an alternative to the present understanding of star formation processes,, or invalidates it in any way. So what point are you trying to make?
The science of star formation is far from complete. Simply saying that a cloud of gas will contract. And from that contraction produce a star. When there are many force that would balance the feeble force of gravity, like magnetic forces and molecular repulsion forces that must be overcome.

To increase gravity dark matter is introduced into star formation.

Like I have said before. I have no problem with there being a mechanism for creating new stars. The science just does not bear evidence to that belief.


Quote:
It does show that your faith is in some sort of anthropic god.


I don't have faith in any kinds of gods, anthropic or otherwise. Physics and chemistry are not religions requiring faith, and they do an infinitely better job of describing nature than your poor attempts at trying to defend creationism and pretend it is a correct description of anything in nature, or compatible with modern science. You've yet to score a single point towards that goal as far as I can tell.
Whether you believe God exits or not does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. You believe in a universe in which I do not exist. I am simply a nightmare that you Boltzmann brain is having right now.

According to your physics there are no beings except DrNoGod's boltzmann brain.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #58

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 57 by EarthScienceguy]
Ever heard of the gas laws as temperature increase pressure increases. The cloud needs to be cooled to condense.


You're trying to apply the ideal gas law to a situation where it does not apply (which was my point). The scales involved in star formation, and all the other things going on (gravity, turbulence, radiation effects, etc.) mean you can't simply use the ideal gas law and claim that gas can't condense unless it is cooled. Condensation is generally accompanied by a decrease in vapor pressure of the condensing gas, such as when water droplets form on the outside of a cold drink (this removes H2O from the adjacent air as it condenses onto the walls of the container into liquid form).

Star formation is far more complex than the simple ideal gas law can describe, and condensation is really the wrong word. Contraction is more descriptive, and as the gas contracts under gravity the temperature increases. The ideal gas law does not consider self-gravity (the cause of the contraction) and so cannot describe star formation. You are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
Yes I am, I am saying that there are many fundamental problems with star formation.


So what's your point? If physics has yet to solve every detail of a problem that does not mean a god is responsible. This is how people thought 2000+ years ago when some of these religions were concocted, and you're trying to do it here. Stars exist, and they form via processes that are compatible with known physics. You have no alternative explanation (as usual), and are just grasping at straws to try and find some reason to discredit science so that you can then default to the god did it explanation. That process no longer works.
You believe in a universe in which I do not exist. I am simply a nightmare that you Boltzmann brain is having right now.


Where did you get that utter nonsense from? I've never made any claim that living things can't exist in this universe, and modern science certainly says no such thing. Start 4.6 billion years ago when the Earth formed, then read up on what science says happens from that point forward on this planet. This is what is relevant to life on Earth ... not what you happen to think about origins of the universe or any unsolved physics related to that.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #59

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]
You're trying to apply the ideal gas law to a situation where it does not apply (which was my point). The scales involved in star formation, and all the other things going on (gravity, turbulence, radiation effects, etc.) mean you can't simply use the ideal gas law and claim that gas can't condense unless it is cooled. Condensation is generally accompanied by a decrease in vapor pressure of the condensing gas, such as when water droplets form on the outside of a cold drink (this removes H2O from the adjacent air as it condenses onto the walls of the container into liquid form).

Star formation is far more complex than the simple ideal gas law can describe, and condensation is really the wrong word. Contraction is more descriptive, and as the gas contracts under gravity the temperature increases. The ideal gas law does not consider self-gravity (the cause of the contraction) and so cannot describe star formation. You are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
Did I say condense? Yes, contract is a much better word. I have no idea why I used the world condense.

Gravity is simply like a piston in an diesel engine. As the piston decreases the volume of the gas in the cylinder. Temperature and pressure increase. In fact there is a point in which the piston would no longer be able to compress the gas. The particles in the gas cloud are moving at supersonic speed according to the article I have been quoting. Those particles have to be slowed down (or cooled down).

Quote:
Yes I am, I am saying that there are many fundamental problems with star formation.

So what's your point? If physics has yet to solve every detail of a problem that does not mean a god is responsible. This is how people thought 2000+ years ago when some of these religions were concocted, and you're trying to do it here. Stars exist, and they form via processes that are compatible with known physics. You have no alternative explanation (as usual), and are just grasping at straws to try and find some reason to discredit science so that you can then default to the god did it explanation. That process no longer works.
No, we have gotten much more sophisticated haven't we. Nowadays we just say it has to be that way. All of our sophistication has led us to the anthropic god.
Quote:
You believe in a universe in which I do not exist. I am simply a nightmare that you Boltzmann brain is having right now.


Where did you get that utter nonsense from? I've never made any claim that living things can't exist in this universe, and modern science certainly says no such thing. Start 4.6 billion years ago when the Earth formed, then read up on what science says happens from that point forward on this planet. This is what is relevant to life on Earth ... not what you happen to think about origins of the universe or any unsolved physics related to that.
That is not actually unsolved physics. That is the solve physics as we know physics. You only say it is unsolved because you do not like the outcome.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Post #60

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Far from it. I never affirmed that population III stars were possible without supernovas...
I was referring to this: "The big bang theory can only account for H, He..." as an affirmation that Hydrogen and Helium are accounted for without having to appeal to supernovas.
You just said that the only elements that were produced in stars were hydrogen and helium...
Please read more carefully. I said the very opposite, and I said "Carbon and Oxygen are produced by the stars themselves as they burn." I did say they were composed of Hydrogen and Helium though, is that what you were thinking of?
Where does the extra turbulence comes from if not from supernova's
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.

Post Reply