Can Solar Systems Form Naturally?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Can Solar Systems Form Naturally?

Post #1

Post by LiamOS »

The format of the debate will be the following:
-Shermana's argument.
-Aki's rebuttal.
-Shermana's rebuttal.
-Aki's second rebuttal.

-Aki's argument.
-Shermana's rebuttal.
-Aki's rebuttal.
-Shermana's second rebuttal.

-Closing arguments from both parties.



I now invite Shermana to proceed.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #2

Post by Shermana »

There are two theories about Solar Formation as it stands unless I'm mistaken or Aki has a third. The acceptance of new theories by non-established aspirants is permitted for case in point. We have agreed that all Sources are allowed if their facts are pertinent.

Aki will have to prove how a 15 million Celsius burning Sun was able to become that hot due to concentrated gas in the face of the ideal gas law, where gas tends to not concentrate.

1. "Gravitational Collapse" from the Shock Waves of a Supernova. (I render this one void because it ultimately requires a "Primary Star", just like how "Pre-existent Matter" requires an explanation).

Supernova hypothesis

According to the supernova hypothesis, gravitational collapse is caused by the explosion of a nearby star, which supposedly creates an enormous pressure wave which initiates fusion.

Problems with this model:

According to the Ideal Gas Law, there should be no such thing as a "Molecular Cloud" to begin with.

I'll let CreationWiki do the explaining, and let Aki rebut each point.

* Why did the enormous hydrogen gas cloud violate the gas law by coming to collect in space prior to the explosion when, as indicated above, hydrogen spreads in a vacuum?
* The gas cloud would have to have been very close to the nearby star in order to receive enough pressure to initiate fusion, and must have been an enormous cloud of gas in order to provide fuel for the new star. Why did the solar wind from the enormous nearby star not "blow away" the gas cloud during its multi-billion-year life cycle?
* The primary effect of explosions is to scatter nearby matter, rather than to concentrate and pressurize it. Why did the supernova not "blow away" the nearby gas cloud as would be expected in a massive explosion, but instead cause it to collapse and even spontaneously begin to rotate and develop planets?
* If stars originate spontaneously from fallout from explosions throughout a near-eternity of time, why do they appear almost exclusively in enormous galaxies with spiral-shaped arms or ellipses? From whence the artistic organizing principle?
* If every star originated from another supernova, and supernova remnants by their very nature last millions of years, then where are all the supernova remnants?
* If every star was caused by the death of a prior star, from whence the older star?
* The Milky Way experiences one supernova about every 25 years. Such remnants should last millions of years. Only approximately 200 supernova remnants are visible. That's consistent with 5000-7000 years of supernovae. It's totally inconsistent with millions of years. Where are all the supernovae? Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184.
* How could the delicate harmony of the Golden ratio in the planets develop if the sun and planets originated with a massive and chaotic explosion?

That last one is up to debate though whether there is a coincidential "Golden Ratio"....but maybe not so up to debate....oh wait, there looks like there is a golden ratio. Aki can either say this is incorrect, irreverent, or leave it to coincidence.

http://www.goldennumber.net/solarsys.htm

2. Self-"Gravitational Collapse". This implies that stars form their own Gravity. L1551 supposedly has "jets of gas flying out o fit", this would look more like a dying star than a forming one. Aki will have to explain why the Sun is stable to begin with, what condensed the Gas so tightly to allow the formation on its own, and possibly any evidence of this condensing the gas to such a level that allows fusion. Is the self-collapse model evidenced by any observed systems or is it based on theory alone?


With these factors in mind, can Aki prove that there is no outside force necessary to form stars?

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #3

Post by Shermana »

There are two theories about Solar Formation as it stands unless I'm mistaken or Aki has a third. The acceptance of new theories by non-established aspirants is permitted for case in point. We have agreed that all Sources are allowed if their facts are pertinent.

Aki will have to prove how a 15 million Celsius burning Sun was able to become that hot due to concentrated gas in the face of the ideal gas law, where gas tends to not concentrate. Also, he will have to prove why the gas is still so compact and condensed even at such extreme temperatures where gas tends to spread. In other words, the Sun should have not happened and is an anomaly in terms of temperature and gaseous movement.

The two forms of Gravitational Collapse theory are:

1. "Gravitational Collapse" from the Shock Waves of a Supernova.


2. Self-"Gravitational Collapse". This implies that stars form their own Gravity. L1551 supposedly has "jets of gas flying out", this would look more like a dying star than a forming one. Aki will have to explain why the Sun is stable to begin with, what condensed the Gas so tightly to allow the formation on its own, and possibly any evidence of this condensing the gas to such a level that allows fusion. Is the self-collapse model evidenced by any observed systems or is it based on theory alone? What can the observations about the "ignition" of gas clouds tell us specifically?


With these factors in mind, can Aki prove that there is no outside force necessary to form stars?


According to the Ideal Gas Law, there should be no such thing as these gas clouds to begin with, especially in the face of Solar Wind.

I'll let CreationWiki do the explaining, and let Aki rebut each point.

Supernova hypothesis

According to the supernova hypothesis, gravitational collapse is caused by the explosion of a nearby star, which supposedly creates an enormous pressure wave which initiates fusion.

* Why did the enormous hydrogen gas cloud violate the gas law by coming to collect in space prior to the explosion when, as indicated above, hydrogen spreads in a vacuum?
* The gas cloud would have to have been very close to the nearby star in order to receive enough pressure to initiate fusion, and must have been an enormous cloud of gas in order to provide fuel for the new star. Why did the solar wind from the enormous nearby star not "blow away" the gas cloud during its multi-billion-year life cycle?
* The primary effect of explosions is to scatter nearby matter, rather than to concentrate and pressurize it. Why did the supernova not "blow away" the nearby gas cloud as would be expected in a massive explosion, but instead cause it to collapse and even spontaneously begin to rotate and develop planets?
* If stars originate spontaneously from fallout from explosions throughout a near-eternity of time, why do they appear almost exclusively in enormous galaxies with spiral-shaped arms or ellipses? From whence the artistic organizing principle?
* If every star originated from another supernova, and supernova remnants by their very nature last millions of years, then where are all the supernova remnants?
* If every star was caused by the death of a prior star, from whence the older star?
* The Milky Way experiences one supernova about every 25 years. Such remnants should last millions of years. Only approximately 200 supernova remnants are visible. That's consistent with 5000-7000 years of supernovae. It's totally inconsistent with millions of years. Where are all the supernovae? Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184.
* How could the delicate harmony of the Golden ratio in the planets develop if the sun and planets originated with a massive and chaotic explosion?
That last one is up to debate though whether there is a coincidential "Golden Ratio"....but maybe not so up to debate....oh wait, there looks like there is a golden ratio. Aki can either say this is incorrect, irreverent, or leave it to coincidence.[/quote]
The illustration above shows the relative sizes of the Earth and the Moon to scale.

* Draw a radius of the Earth (1)
* Draw a line from the center point of the Earth to the center point of the Moon (square root of Phi)
* Draw a line to connect the two lines to form a Golden Triangle (Phi).

Using dimensions from Wikipedia and geometry's classic Pythagorean Theorem, this is expressed mathematically as follows:
Dimension
(km) Proportion
(Earth=1) Mathematical
Expression
Radius of the Earth 6,378.10 1.000 A
Radius of the Moon 1,735.97 0.272
Earth Radius + Moon Radius 8,114.07 1.272 B
Hypotenuse 10,320.77 1.618 (Φ) C
Hypotenuse / (Earth Radius + Moon Radius) 1.618 (Φ) A²+B²=C²

This geometric construction is the same as that which appears to have been used in the construction of the Great Pyramid of Egypt.
Source: Hidden Nature by Alick Bartholomew. Thanks to Sathimantha Malalasekera for bringing this to my attention.
Certain solar system orbital periods are related to phi

Certain planets of our solar system seem to exhibit a relationship to phi, as shown by the following table of the time it takes to orbit around the Sun:


Solar system
Mercury Venus Earth Jupiter Saturn
Power of Phi -3 -1 0 5 7
Decimal Result 0.24 0.62 1.0 11.1 29.0
Actual Period 0.24 0.62 1.0 11.9 29.5
Saturn reveals a phi relationship in several of its dimensions

The diameter of Saturn is in a phi relationship with the diameter of its rings, as illustrated by the green lines.

The inner ring division is in a phi relationship with the diameter of the rings outside the sphere of the planet, as illustrated by the blue lines.

The Cassini division in the rings of Saturn falls at the Golden Section of the width of the lighter outside section of the rings.

Note: Phi grid showing Golden Ratio lines provided by PhiMatrix software.


A closer look at Saturn's rings reveals a darker inner ring which exhibits the same golden section proportion as the brighter outer ring.

Venus and Earth reveal a phi relationship

Venus and the Earth are linked in an unusual relationship involving phi. Start by letting Mercury represent the basic unit of orbital distance and period in the solar system:
Planet Distance
from
the sun
in km (000) Distance
where
Mercury
equals 1 Period
where
Mercury
equals 1
Mercury 57,910 1.0000 1.0000
Venus 108,200 1.8684 2.5490
Earth 149,600 2.5833 4.1521

Curiously enough we find:

Ö Period of Venus * Phi = Distance of the Earth

Ö 2.5490 * 1.6180339 = 1.5966 * 1.6180339 = 2.5833

In addition, Venus orbits the Sun in 224.695 days while Earth orbits the Sun in 365.242 days, creating a ratio of 8/13 (both Fibonacci numbers) or 0.615 (roughly phi.) Thus 5 conjunctions of Earth and Venus occur every 8 orbits of the Earth around the Sun and every 13 orbits of Venus.

Mercury, on the other hand, orbits the Sun in 87.968 Earth days, creating a conjunction with the Earth every 115.88 days. Thus there are 365.24/115.88 conjunctions in a year, or 22 conjunctions in 7 years, which is very close to Pi!

See more relationships at the Solar Geometry site.
Relative planetary distances average to Phi

The average of the mean orbital distances of each successive planet in relation to the one before it approximates phi:

Planet


Mean
distance
in million
kilometers
per NASA


Relative
mean
distance
where
Mercury=1

Mercury


57.91


1.00000

Venus


108.21


1.86859

Earth


149.60


1.38250

Mars


227.92


1.52353

Ceres


413.79


1.81552

Jupiter


778.57


1.88154

Saturn


1,433.53


1.84123

Uranus


2,872.46


2.00377

Neptune


4,495.06


1.56488

Pluto


5,869.66


1.30580

Total





16.18736

Average





1.61874

Phi





1.61803

Degree of variance


(0.00043)

Note: We sometimes forget about the asteroids when thinking of the planets in our solar system. Ceres, the largest asteroid, is nearly spherical, comprises over one-third the total mass of all the asteroids and is thus the best of these minor planets to represent the asteroid belt. (Insight on mean orbital distances contributed by Robert Bartlett.)

2005 unveiled the discovery of a 10th planet called 2003UB313. It was found at a distance of 97 times that of the Earth from the Sun. Its ratio to Pluto would thus be 2.47224, much higher than any previous planet to planet orbital distance ratio. Could it be that this is actually the 11th planet and the 10th planet will be found at an orbit whose ratio is 1.52793 times that of Pluto, preserving the phi average? Time will only tell, but if it happens remember that you heard it here first.
The shape of the Universe itself is a dodecahedron based on Phi

New findings in 2003 based on the study of data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) on cosmic background radiation reveal that the universe is finite and shaped like a dodecahedron, a geometric shape based on pentagons, which are based on phi.
http://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/22-1/lombardi.pdf I cannot copy and paste directly from this PDF however.



I state my case that there is no real evidence of how exactly the star formed, but there is evidence that the star couldn't have formed by its own forces.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #4

Post by LiamOS »

Here is my first rebuttal of Shermana's argument:

Shermana wrote:The two forms of Gravitational Collapse theory are:

1. "Gravitational Collapse" from the Shock Waves of a Supernova.

2. Self-"Gravitational Collapse".
Essentially, yes.

In the case of large, stable gas cloud, we can categorise the cause of the collapse under two categories:
-Self-induced collapse, such as would occur from a notable exception to the cloud's uniformity.
-Externally-induced collapse, such as might be caused by local supernovae, collisions with other clouds, etc.
Shermana wrote:This implies that stars form their own Gravity.
Well, yes.
Stars, being massive bodies, attract other bodies and self-attract gravitationally.
Shermana wrote:L1551 supposedly has "jets of gas flying out", this would look more like a dying star than a forming one.
To which object are you referring? L1551 has many protostars in it.






Shermana wrote:According to the Ideal Gas Law, there should be no such thing as these gas clouds to begin with, especially in the face of Solar Wind.
The ideal gas law states that the relationship between the product of pressure and volume and the product of absolute temperature and number of particles is linear:
PV = kNT
For an arbitrary cloud in a vacuum, the cloud will self-gravitate to a small degree, causing a contraction. This contraction will be resisted by gas due it its temperature(Essentially the kinetic energy of the particles) and this can result in an equilibrium.
Stellar winds do have effects on such clouds, but the interstellar medium damps this in most cases.
Would you care to expand on how you use the Ideal Gas Law to draw the conclusion that interstellar clouds should not exist?





I shall now address Shermana's CreationWiki article.
Point One:
Shermana wrote: Why did the enormous hydrogen gas cloud violate the gas law by coming to collect in space prior to the explosion when, as indicated above, hydrogen spreads in a vacuum?
It didn't. The Ideal Gas Law almost certainly held for the cloud at all points where it was not arbitrarily diffuse. The reason it collected was gravitational interaction, which the gaseous pressure will only counteract to a degree.

Point Two:
Shermana wrote:The gas cloud would have to have been very close to the nearby star in order to receive enough pressure to initiate fusion, and must have been an enormous cloud of gas in order to provide fuel for the new star. Why did the solar wind from the enormous nearby star not "blow away" the gas cloud during its multi-billion-year life cycle?
This only concerns itself with a very specific instance of the initiation of collapse.
The cloud would not have to be very close, as only tiny fraction of the pressure from a supernova would be required to contract a point of the cloud sufficiently.
This point doesn't really have any substance behind it.

Point Three:
Shermana wrote:The primary effect of explosions is to scatter nearby matter, rather than to concentrate and pressurize it.
This is true locally. At interstellar distances, this does not hold, since all trajectories from the point can be treated as parallel.
Shermana wrote:Why did the supernova not "blow away" the nearby gas cloud as would be expected in a massive explosion
As stated above.
Shermana wrote:but instead cause it to collapse and even spontaneously begin to rotate and develop planets?
The collapse is gravitational and can be induced by the supernova causing the cloud to be non-uniform.
The underlined section displays a massive ignorance of basic physics, namely angular momentum and its conservation. Angular momentum about a particular origin is defined as the cross product of the displacement and momentum vectors (J = r x m·v), and is conserved in non-relativistic cases(I don't know if it's conserved relativistically; I've not checked.) In the case of a gas cloud, there will almost certainly be a (Small, but non-zero) angular momentum about the particular point where collapse begins to occur. As such, during collapse, a disk will begin to form and rotate rapidly(Since rt<<r0). The formation of planets occurs in a vaguely similar fashion.

Point Four:
Shermana wrote:If stars originate spontaneously from fallout from explosions throughout a near-eternity of time
They might on occasion, but this is far from the only way.
Shermana wrote:why do they appear almost exclusively in enormous galaxies with spiral-shaped arms or ellipses?
Since gravity attracts them together and their angular momentum is conserved.

Point Five:
Shermana wrote:If every star originated from another supernova [...]
They didn't.
Shermana wrote:and supernova remnants by their very nature last millions of years, then where are all the supernova remnants?
This is already moot, but I must concede that we do not observe the amount of SNRs that we would expect. Considering their time spent emitting in the higher energies, average distances and the ISM, it's not all that surprising, though.

Point Six:
Shermana wrote:* If every star was caused by the death of a prior star, from whence the older star?
Not every star did, so this point is moot.

Point Seven:
Shermana wrote:* The Milky Way experiences one supernova about every 25 years. Such remnants should last millions of years. Only approximately 200 supernova remnants are visible. That's consistent with 5000-7000 years of supernovae. It's totally inconsistent with millions of years. Where are all the supernovae?
First of all, the frequency is roughly correct, but for the entire galaxy. We can only ever hope to see any SNRs on our side of the galaxy, and many of those will occur in areas in which we cannot detect them through the ISM, etc.
Attempting to date the galaxy like this is not viable.



Shermana wrote:That last one is up to debate though whether there is a coincidential "Golden Ratio"....but maybe not so up to debate....oh wait, there looks like there is a golden ratio. Aki can either say this is incorrect, irreverent, or leave it to coincidence.

http://www.goldennumber.net/solarsys.htm
These examples are extremely arbitrary. Considering the amount of ratios that are not phi, these examples can be considered statistically insignificant, and their apparent meaning is almost certainly derived from a sort of confirmation bias.
Your source also states "The shape of the Universe itself is a dodecahedron based on Phi" with no supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence to contradict it.
Finally, your source only concerns itself with positive examples and does not give any associated uncertainties, making its scientific merit null.


I now invite Shermana to rebut my post.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #5

Post by Shermana »

By L1551 I meant the system itself is shooting out Jets of gas, indicating that there's a Dying star, not a forming one.



Indeed there may be some way (in theory) that Stars can form by a natural chain of events, and it remains in theory. Does Dark Matter play a role in this initial gravitational attraction? Was it Hot or Cold? Was it initially a Lyman Alpha Forest? http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980224.html? From whence the Dark Matter? Does Aki's answer sufficiently explain how a 15 million degree Celcius Ball of burning hydrogen can stay together? Is it true that Solar Wind would really not have had much an effect?

A simulation of Solar Wind on Magnetic-fieldless Mars.

According to this, it would take thousands of years of cooling before Neutral Hydrogen and Helium could be produced....how could this happen with Population III stars exactly? Assuming this star forms on its own to insane temperatures before it even cools enough to allow formation of neutral elements, what cools it to sufficiently allow formation of elements from within? And supposedly there was obscene numbers of these obscenely sized "Population III" stars, but the excuse for not seeing any of them or their remnants is that they're either too distant (for now) or that they all burned up (or, a more plausible argument, their remnants resemble Population II stars because of time and absorption from other stars). Nonetheless, the supposed "First Population star" remains a challenge for Astronomy to prove any evidence of. I'll let this site explain some problems with the Population III model:

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSA ... /carr.html
FORMATION OF POPULATION III STARS

In the most conservative cosmological scenario, the first stars form in the process of galaxy formation: As each protogalaxy cools and collapses, it fragments first into a spheroidal distribution of Population II stars, and then - if there is any gas left over - into a rotationally supported disk of Population I stars. The problem with this picture is that, in both of the standard scenarios for the origin of cosmological structure, the first bound objects would be much smaller than galaxies. For example, in the hierarchical clustering scenario the first bound clouds have a mass of about 106 Msmsun and bind at a redshift of order 100. Larger bound objects - like galaxies and clusters of galaxies - would then build up through a process of gravitational clustering. A currently popular version of this model is the ``cold dark matter matter'' scenario, in which the density of the universe is dominated by some cold elementary particle like the photino or axion. In the pancake scenario, the first objects to appear are of cluster or supercluster scale and they form at a rather low redshift. This applies, for example, in the ``hot dark matter'' picture, in which the universe's mass is dominated by hot particles like neutrinos with nonzero rest mass. However, one still expects these pancakes to fragment into clouds of mass 108 Msmsun and these clouds must then cluster in order to form galaxies. In both scenarios, therefore, an appreciable fraction of the universe must go into subgalactic clouds before galaxies themselves form.

The question then arises of what happens to these clouds. In some circumstances, one expects them to be disrupted by collisions with other clouds because their cooling time is too long for them to collapse before coalescing. However, there is usually some subgalactic mass range in which the clouds survive. In this case, they could face various possible fates. They might just fragment into ordinary stars and form objects like globular clusters. On the other hand, the conditions of star formation could have been very different at early times and several alternatives have been suggested.

1.

The first stars could have been smaller than at present because of the enhanced formation of molecular hydrogen at early epochs.

2.

They could have been larger than at present because the lack of metals or the effects of the microwave background would increase the fragment mass.

3.

There may have been a mixture of small and large stars; for example, angular momentum effects could lead to a disk of small stars around a central very massive star, or massive stars could form in the core of the cloud and low-mass stars in the outer regions.

4.

The first clouds may not fragment at all, but might collapse directly to supermassive black holes or remain in purely gaseous form and become Lyman-alphaclouds.

This indicates that, although there is clearly considerable uncertainty as to the fate of the first clouds, they could well fragment into stars that are very different from the ones forming today. They certainly need to be very different if they are to produce much dark matter. Note that the appellation Population III is sometimes assigned to the first clouds rather than the first stars. However, in this case, all the stars which they spawn must also be called Population III, and this can lead to semantic confusion if the clouds fragment bimodally. It is therefore more sensible to reserve the term Population III for the stars.

It is not necessarily required that Population III stars be pregalactic. Some of the arguments for their having a different initial mass function (IMF) would also apply if they formed protogalactically, and this gives rise to a less radical hypothesis, in which the Population III objects form during the first phases of protogalactic collapse. In this case, the Population III stars or their remnants would be confined to galaxies, whereas they would be spread throughout space in the pregalactic case.

POPULATION III AS THE FIRST METAL PRODUCERS

Since heavy elements can only be generated through stellar nucleosynthesis, the existence of stars of type (1) is inevitable. However, the stars warrant a special name only if they are qualitatively different from ordinary Population II stars. For example, it would not be justified if the first metal-producing stars were merely the ones at the high-mass end of the Population II mass spectrum. For in this case they would generate the first metals simply because they evolve fastest. The introduction of a new term would only be warranted if the first metal-producing stars formed at a distinct epoch or if the IMF of the first stars was bimodal (i.e., with a distinct population of high-and low-mass stars forming in different locations).

If one studies the abundances of metal-poor stars in our own galaxy, there is no compelling reason for supposing the first stars were distinct from Population II. For example, field halo stars with Z < 0.1 Zsmsun have enhancements in the ratios of O, Mg Si, and Ca to Fe by a factor of 3 relative to the Sun, but this is naturally explained by the fact that these elements are preferentially produced by the sort of massive stars which would complete their evolution on the time scale (108 yr) associated with the formation of the galactic halo. Thus, abundance data itself does not require the existence of Population III stars.

The best evidence for a distinct population of stars would be a lower cutoff in the metallicity distribution of Population II stars. If the first stars had the same IMF as today, with a lower cutoff at about 0.1 Msmsun, one might expect stars smaller than 0.8 Msmsun (whose lifetime exceeds the age of the Universe) to display arbitrarily low metallicity. At one time, it seemed there was a metallicity Zmin of order 10-5 below which no stars were found. If this were true, it would suggest that the first stars had an IMF with a lower cutoff above 0.8 Msmsun. For only then could they produce the minimum enrichment Zmin without surviving until the present epoch. This would imply that the first stars had a different IMF from ordinary Population II stars. Unfortunately, the evidence for such a cutoff is now in dispute: The Z distribution for Population II stars extends well below 10-5 and there exists one object with Z = 6 x 10-7. In any case, the number of low-Z objects is not necessarily incompatible with the assumption that the IMF has always been the same; so the first stars may not have been qualitatively different from Population II stars. Thus the introduction of the term Population III may be unnecessary in this context.
The rest of that article may have some interesting implications for dark matter production though. What's that last sentence all about?
CONCLUSION

We have seen that one must distinguish between metal producing and dark-matter-producing Population III stars. The first must exist, but only warrant a special name if there is a lower cutoff in the metallicity distribution of Population II stars, and it is not clear that this is the case. The second may not exist, but, if they do, they certainly warrant a separate name. They would have to be either jupiters or black holes. The detection of microwave distortions would favor the black holes option, but the claim that cooling flows make low-mass stars may favor the jupiter option. In principle, both kinds of Population III stars could derive from a single mass spectrum, but that would require the IMF to be finely tuned.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm

This article, mentioned on that site, suggests that early (Massive) Stars spun 5x faster than the ones today in order to create Ytrium, but then gives their attribution possibly to "later stars".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ishes.html




Nonetheless, I will accept for the thread's sake here the possibility that a Supernova shockwave can make a gas cloud compress and collapse. Those Supernova Shockwaves can have millions of times more explosive force than the Sun ever produces altogether. Whether it will achieve 15 million degrees on its own and remain Stable on its own forces is still up to debate. Assuming a Supernova-powered Gas Cloud is shocked into a star, I don't think the evidence is sufficient that the Gas would become compressed into a self-powered fire.



However, regarding where original Stars (pre-Supernova, or "Population III")initially came from, the only possible way an "original" star may have formed is from gargantuan gas clouds colliding with other gargantuan gas clouds shortly after the Big Bang, and in some theoretical fashion compressing to such a level as to start ignition and gravitation, (perhaps Dark Matter is at play here) since they could not have had any initial Supernova blast to compress the Gas, the theory that Stars form on their own relies purely on Gas collisions, and non-Metallic gas collisions at that.

I present a paper by Japanese researchers (and a Reasonstobelieve critique, they are old-earth creationist as opposed to Young Earth) on theoretical models of "Population III.1" and "III.2" stars, supposedly the earliest conceiveable ones, that involve nothing but Molecular Hydrogen. Supposedly these would make the Sun look tiny, but have a shelf life of a small fraction of the Sun's before becoming Black Holes. The issue of how any cooling would take place before Metals are created by a prior sun is possibly explained with that of DH (Deuterium or Heavy Hydrogen combined with Light Hydrogen ). But this is a major issue. Cooling. Here is an article which critiques the idea of Population III.2 stars. (I.e. saying they are no different than population III.1)

journals.cambridge.org/article_S1743921308024526

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/706/2/1184
http://www.reasons.org/controversial-to ... irst-stars
For a star to form, gravitational collapse must overcome thermal expansion within a particular gas cloud. Therefore, two circumstances must occur: (1) the mass of the gas must be sufficient to generate a strong gravitational impulse, and (2) some mechanism independent of dust must exist to cool the gas.
The challenge confronting big bang theorists is how to get primordial gas clouds, without the benefit of metals to form dust, to cool sufficiently so that they can condense to form stars. Heat tends to disperse the gas. For a star to form, gravitational collapse must overcome thermal expansion within a particular gas cloud. Therefore, two circumstances must occur: (1) the mass of the gas must be sufficient to generate a strong gravitational impulse, and (2) some mechanism independent of dust must exist to cool the gas.

Previous calculations of protostar evolution showed that in the zero-metallicity environment the only significant cooling factor is the presence of molecular hydrogen (H2), which will permit nothing other than extremely massive stars to form. However, these calculations stopped at the onset of nuclear fusion of hydrogen within the stars. Ohkubo’s team demonstrated that extremely massive population III stars continued accreting mass long after the commencement of nuclear fusion of hydrogen. They showed that the universe’s very first stars eventually would manifest masses between 300–1,000 times the mass of the Sun. They called these stars population III.1 stars.

HOWEVER, unless I'm mistaken...this paper says that HD cooling would not be "important" in high-mass halos, since it required a large percentage of the gas to be at a low enough temperature to begin with. When did this "line get crossed" and how? Why was HD formed instead of H2? Is it fair to say that there would be no ionization without the Supernova Shock Wave?

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/685 ... .text.html
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have implemented a minimal chemical network for tracking the formation of HD in the Enzo cosmological hydrodynamics code. We have verified the network using both equilibrium and nonequilibrium tests and then applied this to the formation of primordial stars in high-redshift halos with cosmological initial conditions. We examined a range of halos under two different assumptions for the initial electron fraction. In the first case, the halos were unperturbed, with an initial electron fraction as predicted by standard cosmological evolution in the absence of ionizing backgrounds. As in previous work, the first collapsed objects form in 105-106 Modot halos at z\sim 15 . In the second case, we ionized the halos at z=20 to investigate the impact of free electrons on the collapse. Although this simple "flash" ionization is not a realistic description of, say, a nearby photoionizing source, it does allow us to investigate the impact of HD cooling in the presence of a source of free electrons. Our primary results are as follows.
1.
For Population III.1 star formation in high-mass halos (roughly 106 Modot and above), HD cooling is unimportant. However, for the lower mass halos in our sample there was a factor of 10-100 increase in the HD fraction (compared to the high-mass halos). This, is turn, caused HD cooling to dominate H2 cooling over the density range 104-107 cm–3 (corresponding approximately to 10–2-1 pc, in radii). The HD cooling permitted gas to reach nearly down to the CMB temperature.
2.
We found that in order for HD cooling to be important, a sufficient amount of gas needed to be at a low enough temperature and a sufficiently high density for HD to form preferentially over H2. However, once this critical line was crossed, rapid HD fractionation coupled with runaway cooling quickly led HD to dominate the cooling rate. This requirement for lower temperatures helps to explain why low-mass halos formed HD preferentially over high-mass halos.
3.
For the ionized case (Population III.2), HD cooling was important in all halos examined regardless of mass. HD cooling was efficient enough for gas to reach the CMB temperature over an even larger range of radii.
4.
In all cases, once the density increased above the HD critical density (around 105-106 cm–3), the temperature began to rise again and invariably increased by about ~500 K, leading to the suppression of HD relative to H2. This means that the interior solution (r< 10^{-2} pc) relies only on H2 cooling and so looks quite similar to the no-HD case. In addition, no sign of fragmentation was found.
5.
Despite the fact that HD cooling led to lower temperatures (often down to the CMB temperature), we found that the impact on the predicted mass accretion rates was relatively mild. It was largest for the unperturbed case, where the low-mass halos were predicted to form stars a factor of 6 times lower than the no-HD case (from ~300 to ~50 Modot, assuming an accretion time of 105 yr; see § 4 for a discussion of the uncertainties in accretion mass estimates). For the ionized case, the predicted accretion rates were nearly identical with and without HD, leading to at most a factor of 2 reduction in the mass of the predicted stars forming out of ionized regions (from ~100 to ~50 Modot).

These results have a number of interesting implications. First, they suggest a way for at least some relatively lower mass stars to form in primordial (or near primordial) halos, as some interpretations of the observed extremely low metallicity halo stars have required (Tumlinson 2007; Komiya et al. 2007). However, they also indicate that HD cooling by itself will not form substantially lower mass stars (e.g., by a factor of 10) as some previous analytic work has suggested. In particular, we have not found any sign of a new class of Population III.2 objects (at least for the initial conditions surveyed).
Our work suggest two avenues of future research. The first is a more careful and systematic investigation of the conditions for HD cooling in "unperturbed" halos. While our results indicate that HD cooling is more important in low-mass halos, it is not clear how this depends on merger histories or stochastic effects. More work is required to find the fraction of halos which form via the HD channel for a complete sample of halos. In the ionized case, our methodology for introducing free electrons was deliberately simple. It would be useful to examine more realistic ionization modalities (e.g., Wise & Abel 2007; Yoshida et al. 2007a).
And I'd like further elaboration on how a Gas cloud can have its own gravity.

As for the Golden ratio, I gave two more articles at the end instead of that site, but they are more of an 'extra' in argument terms and agree that it is totally Speculative and relative.


http://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/22-1/lombardi.pdf


Among other things, I think unless the Population III (.1 and .2) star can be shown more than just Hypothetical as the result of pure Hydrogen and Helium gas clouds colliding (with their own "Gravity"), its more than a question of chicken or egg. I will agree though that there are some fair hypothesis to the issue as outlined above, but they show some inconsistencies. And then the issue of Population II stars is up to question as well. How did the MASSIVE population III stars manage to cool to form neutral elements, and does HD explain it?

Assigning the phenemenon to "natural" without an outside force to keep the Gas in formation and Spinning, if not ignire it altogether, I invoke Newton's belief along the lines that "Gravity is in the Hands of the Creator Himself". This ultimately assumes that an order will arise from Disorder to begin with.


As for the Supernovae, I'd imagine that we'd see more than just a fraction of a percentage of the supposed millions that should exist by now, I don't believe that 99.999% of the SNR only exist outside of the "Earth's side of the Galaxy, or that the ISM would block them all. I'd imagine we'd see at least 100x at least but that I'll leave to conjecture.

Thus, I state that the idea that his rebuttal saying that Stars can perfectly form on their own relies on more theory than evidence, especially regarding the cooling, and nonetheless requires an "original star" which was able to form on its own. It is logical to assume that more detailed study on how the first star formed is necessary before one can claim that all natural forces were involved. The very existence of "Population III" stars is itself filled with Speculation and contested theory.



And as for L1551, that is an issue of whether "Protostars "truly are "Protostars", and I encourage Aki to demonstrate any stars that are newer than the ones seen now.

I invite Aki to show evidence how the Population III stars were able to form and cool and whether there is evidence of them.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #6

Post by Shermana »

As well, I'd like to know Aki's opinion on the Helioseismology Article on Creationwiki, indicating that the Sun's age in comparison to ratios in the ISM, would be 6,000-12,000 years

http://creationwiki.org/Helioseismology
Helioseismology is the study of solar vibrations or oscillations. It is impossible to land seismometers on the surface of the sun because the temperature would melt any instrument fabricated on earth, and the "surface" is glowing gas, not a firm soil like the surface of the moon or of mars. In 1960, studies of the doppler shift of spectroscopic lines from the sun showed it was possible to determine how the photosphere of the sun was vibrating. Most oscillations had a period of about 5 minutes, but a few were sometimes noticed that had a much longer period of 160 minutes, or 2 hours and 40 minutes.[1] The longer period oscillations are difficult to explain by the standard model of the sun which Astronomers use.


S43.gif

Standard Solar Model.

The Standard Solar Model is the dominant model for the interior of the Sun and other stars. According to this model a star has a nuclear burning core that produces helium by means of deuterium fusion, at 15 million degrees K. This core goes out to about 25% of the sun's radius. It is modeled as physically isolated from the solar structure above it and heat is transferred from the core by radiation, a process that takes about a million years. This has never actually been observed.

Recently solar oscillations have produced a problem for the Standard Solar Model. Their normal period is about 5 minutes. According to the Standard Solar Model, the maximum possible period is about 1 hour, but the maximum period that has been observed is 2 hours and 40 minutes. The maximum period for a totally homogeneous sun is 2 hours and 47 minutes. Thus the observed period of 2 hours and 40 minutes of oscillation shows the sun's interior to be very homogeneous, that is that the core and surface have similar composition. This also means that the model on which stellar evolution theory is based does not apply to the sun. It may not apply to other stars as well.

It has been shown that the long period is not a beat frequency of the shorter five minute oscillations, nor an artifact of the 24 hour rotation of the earth. The exact period was found to be 160.0095 minutes +-.001 minutes.[2]

S44.gif

It also means that the nuclear burning core produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K or less. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach the surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years.

This model makes more efficient use of fuel and would age differently than the standard model. Its death would also be less violent. The death of such stars might account for so called protostars.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #7

Post by LiamOS »

In this post I do not cover very early stellar formation, due to the vagueness, etc. associated. However, in the next post I am to show how one could form in a specific example, so hold your breath.
Part 1:
Shermana wrote:By L1551 I meant the system itself is shooting out Jets of gas, indicating that there's a Dying star, not a forming one.
Since it's quite obvious that Shermana is taking his information from this source, I shall go through the section of the article in question.
CreationWiki wrote:The facts are these:

L1551 is a binary system containing two small stars;
The system is surrounded by a cloud of gas;
The system is ejecting a stream of plasma at high speed;

From these facts, naturalistic scientists conclude that the stars are being born, while creationists conclude that the system is dying.
This conclusion is untenable.
As stars run out of the heaviest element they are capable of fusing, they collapse inward extremely quickly due to their being no heat to maintain their volume. For stars with mass <3M☉ (As is the case here), this would result in a 'rebound' type effect causing the star to explode relatively uniformly(If it has a reasonably low angular momentum). This is a farcry from the jets of the binary system in question, which is what is predicted in stellar formation. See Herbig-Haro object.
Secondly, this pair of stars does not have a stellar emission spectrum. Source.








Part 2:
Shermana wrote:Does Dark Matter play a role in this initial gravitational attraction?
Almost certainly not. Dark matter is homogeneous on the scales in question.
Shermana wrote:Was it Hot or Cold?
If 'it' is the nebula, quite cold.
Shermana wrote:Was it initially a Lyman Alpha Forest?
I don't know.
Shermana wrote:From whence the Dark Matter?
My guess is that it's a massive weakly interacting particle, but really I don't know.
Shermana wrote:Does Aki's answer sufficiently explain how a 15 million degree Celcius Ball of burning hydrogen can stay together?
Not quite.
I aim to cover this in my next post.
Shermana wrote:Is it true that Solar Wind would really not have had much an effect?

A simulation of Solar Wind on Magnetic-fieldless Mars.
If we assume the closest star to our hypothetical cloud is about a parsec away, the incident energy per unit time would be about 1011 times weaker on our cloud. That's 100 billion times weaker.
Shermana wrote:According to this, it would take thousands of years of cooling before Neutral Hydrogen and Helium could be produced....how could this happen with Population III stars exactly? Assuming this star forms on its own to insane temperatures before it even cools enough to allow formation of neutral elements, what cools it to sufficiently allow formation of elements from within? And supposedly there was obscene numbers of these obscenely sized "Population III" stars, but the excuse for not seeing any of them or their remnants is that they're either too distant (for now) or that they all burned up (or, a more plausible argument, their remnants resemble Population II stars because of time and absorption from other stars). Nonetheless, the supposed "First Population star" remains a challenge for Astronomy to prove any evidence of. I'll let this site explain some problems with the Population III model:
Indeed, we can't really be sure.
I could make some arguments here, but you wouldn't accept them and I wouldn't blame you.
Any arguments with respect to the early universe are extremely vague, and I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough at the moment to give it a shot anyway.
Shermana wrote:Nonetheless, I will accept for the thread's sake here the possibility that a Supernova shockwave can make a gas cloud compress and collapse. Those Supernova Shockwaves can have millions of times more explosive force than the Sun ever produces altogether. Whether it will achieve 15 million degrees on its own and remain Stable on its own forces is still up to debate. Assuming a Supernova-powered Gas Cloud is shocked into a star, I don't think the evidence is sufficient that the Gas would become compressed into a self-powered fire.
I think that the evidence is conclusive, and shall affirm my belief in the nest post.
Shermana wrote:However, regarding where original Stars (pre-Supernova, or "Population III")initially came from, the only possible way an "original" star may have formed is from gargantuan gas clouds colliding with other gargantuan gas clouds shortly after the Big Bang, and in some theoretical fashion compressing to such a level as to start ignition and gravitation, (perhaps Dark Matter is at play here) since they could not have had any initial Supernova blast to compress the Gas, the theory that Stars form on their own relies purely on Gas collisions, and non-Metallic gas collisions at that.
Actually, it's possible for a gas cloud to collapse without outside interference if the cloud is gravitationally predisposed to it.
Shermana wrote:I present a paper by Japanese researchers (and a Reasonstobelieve critique, they are old-earth creationist as opposed to Young Earth) on theoretical models of "Population III.1" and "III.2" stars, supposedly the earliest conceiveable ones, that involve nothing but Molecular Hydrogen. Supposedly these would make the Sun look tiny, but have a shelf life of a small fraction of the Sun's before becoming Black Holes. The issue of how any cooling would take place before Metals are created by a prior sun is possibly explained with that of DH (Deuterium or Heavy Hydrogen combined with Light Hydrogen ). But this is a major issue. Cooling. Here is an article which critiques the idea of Population III.2 stars. (I.e. saying they are no different than population III.1)

journals.cambridge.org/article_S1743921308024526

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/706/2/1184
http://www.reasons.org/controversial-to ... irst-stars

HOWEVER, unless I'm mistaken...this paper says that HD cooling would not be "important" in high-mass halos, since it required a large percentage of the gas to be at a low enough temperature to begin with. When did this "line get crossed" and how? Why was HD formed instead of H2? Is it fair to say that there would be no ionization without the Supernova Shock Wave?

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/685 ... .text.html
Again, this is an area which I do not believe I am educated enough to debate.
Shermana wrote:And I'd like further elaboration on how a Gas cloud can have its own gravity.
Very well.

F = Gm1m2·r/|r3|
Where F is the gravitational force on our particle, mi is the mass of a specific particle, G is a constant and r is the vector from particle 1 to 2.
Since gas molecules have mass, they interact gravitationally.
Shermana wrote:Among other things, I think unless the Population III (.1 and .2) star can be shown more than just Hypothetical as the result of pure Hydrogen and Helium gas clouds colliding (with their own "Gravity"), its more than a question of chicken or egg.
I don't think so.
The debate at hand is whether solar systems are capable of forming naturally.

As stated earlier, I think discussing such matters won't actually get us anywhere, and it's not relevant to the debate.
Shermana wrote:Assigning the phenemenon to "natural" without an outside force to keep the Gas in formation and Spinning, if not ignire it altogether, I invoke Newton's belief along the lines that "Gravity is in the Hands of the Creator Himself". This ultimately assumes that an order will arise from Disorder to begin with.
Newton's comments stemmed from his belief that a multiple body system would be unstable due to their being no analytical solution to the equations; an argument from ignorance.
Shermana wrote:As for the Supernovae, I'd imagine that we'd see more than just a fraction of a percentage of the supposed millions that should exist by now, I don't believe that 99.999% of the SNR only exist outside of the "Earth's side of the Galaxy, or that the ISM would block them all. I'd imagine we'd see at least 100x at least but that I'll leave to conjecture.
I'd imagine that we'd see more too. If we saw one hundred times the current number, we'd have an even bigger problem, though.
Shermana wrote:I invite Aki to show evidence how the Population III stars were able to form and cool and whether there is evidence of them.
I will not be able to do so satisfactorily, due to the massive uncertainties surrounding the conditions, etc.
Shermana wrote:Thus, I state that the idea that his rebuttal saying that Stars can perfectly form on their own relies on more theory than evidence, especially regarding the cooling, and nonetheless requires an "original star" which was able to form on its own. It is logical to assume that more detailed study on how the first star formed is necessary before one can claim that all natural forces were involved. The very existence of "Population III" stars is itself filled with Speculation and contested theory.
This is not true. We know how stars form currently, and we have a reasonable idea how they may have formed initially, but do we have to prove how the first arose to prove our current theory? Of course not.
I know how mugs are made, but I can't honestly tell you how the first mug was made.




I shall post my argument in affirmation of the debate question later.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #8

Post by LiamOS »

The issue up for debate here is whether a Solar System, given initial conditions which exist in this universe, can form. In this post, I aim to outline in detail how one can.
In this post, I've attempted to remove as much mathematics from the argument as possible to make it accessible, and to keep it from being excessively long. Whether I've succeeded is another debate. :P



Firstly, I shall address the formation of a protostar and proto-disk from a gas cloud.

Let us consider a very large interstellar cloud of gas(Hydrogen, mostly) consisting of N particles. From the Ideal Gas Law, we know that
PV = NkBT
where T is the absolute temperature, kB is the Boltzmann constant, P is the pressure of the cloud and V is the volume.
Taking into account the self-gravitation of the particles in the cloud, we can show(Using the Virial Theorem) that it will reach equilibrium when the gravitational potential is equal, U, is equal to twice the thermal energy.
For a sufficiently massive cloud, a sufficiently cold cloud, etc. Jeans Instability will result in the cloud collapsing. Jeans' formulation predicts that the cloud will collapse indefinitely, but this is not actually the case, since at sufficient pressures, non-classical effects begin to become prevalent.
Similar effects could foreseeably occur from supernova events, collisions with other clouds, etc.
It is important to note that such gaseous clouds exist in abundance in the universe, providing ample room for stellar birth.



I shall now address the formation of a star from a collapsing gas cloud.

As is demonstrated by Jeans' formulation, a cloud may collapse to extreme pressures, and will continue to collapse as long as the gravitational potential energy can be removed; this occurs primarily through the release of radiation with the peak wavelengths decreasing as the core compresses. As the core becomes sufficiently compressed, it inevitably becomes opaque to much of its radiation, causing collapse to slow. With temperatures of ~2000K, the energy will ionise hydrogen and helium and dissociate H2 facilitating some further collapse. Again, by the Virial Theorem we can show that the collapse towards the core of much of the surrounding cloud will continue, and this will further heat the core region due to both an increase in gravitational potential and opacity. Clearly this cyclical process continues until there is very little material left which will fall to the core.
If the core temperature of our collapsed star reaches ~106K, Deuterium fusion can occur. This temperature is easily reached by a core formed from well below the Jeans Mass due to the trapping of the gravitational potential energy in the core region by the opacity of the star to its own radiation. While it is possible for a protostar to have sufficient energy to fuse Deuterium but not Hydrogen(Resulting in a Brown Dwarf) this occurrence derives from a small band of mass and potential, since Hydrogen fusion occurs at a slightly higher temperature than Deuterium fusion would necessarily produce.
With Hydrogen fusion, we have a star.



Since a solar system is little without planets or other such satellites, I should probably address this issue too.
In our scenario outlined above, collapse will conserve angular momentum causing the star and its surrounding material to rotate. Mathematical modelling deduces that such collapse will create a disk rotating about the same axis as the star due to the conservation of angular momentum of the cloud.
With this protodisk, it becomes clear that it will clump as a results of gravity and the disk's differential rotation. As I've done before, I invite you to observe what happens to a protodisk in this Gravity Simulator when it is made such that colliding particles merge and conserve momentum.
This is really all I can offer in support of planetary formation, as it occurs inherently in a protodisk provided the region of interest is outside the Roche limit and is not somehow repulsive. That said, there are instances such as the asteroid belt where a combination of massive bodies can maintain a relatively uniform disk, but those require the formation of planets first.


I now invite Shermana to inquire into my argument and/or rebut some of my points.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #9

Post by Shermana »

This particular Solar System will be used as the example in question of how it came to be.

First off, this site seems to say that Dark Matter is not only proven, and that there are entire planets of Dark Matter, but it is in fact the friction of such which allows the Formation of Galaxies in the first place: Please explain what's going with the "the Jeans Criteria is simply wrong" thing and if that relates to the issue, and if CDMHC has anything to do with anything.

http://journalofcosmology.com/GibsonSchild2.pdf

This site says that "Cold Dark Matter Hierarchical Cosmology" "must be abandoned." Perhaps you can translate as I may be misunderstanding them, but where does that leave us in the "Whence"? This also says that Jeans neglected a coupled things. There are also articles that try to vindicate the "Jeans Swindle", perhaps you can translate for everyone. What kind of faulty assumptions does the CDMHC rely on exactly?

http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S07/%20JAFM.pdf

And also perhaps you can translate this article for us and explain why it "Somewhat" explains the concept that the compression (And fragmentation) won't keep going "on and on" and any refernces in the Rees Article he refers to. I think its safe to say that this all exists in the realm of possibility. What was the "Jeans Swindle" about and does it apply to such conditions. Is there a conflict between these articles and their conclusions? You say that "classical effects" disprove's his prediction, elaborate please.

http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p6lost ... rticle.pdf

Now about Solar Systems....

Have you seen or heard of Spike Psarris, the US Military Space Engineer turned Creationism supporter? Anyways, he brings up a number of issues with planets like Venus, and its counter-rotation (among other issues like the fact that Planeteides are all that can form under the current models, not full on planets).



We can also get into the perfection of the atmosphere and the distance for life and other factors involved with the Earth, but this is mainly about the Solar System itself. Is there any evidence for the supposed collision that causes Venus to orbit in a different direction? On my next round of questioning, I can bring up more issues that Spike brings up. The exact distance of the moon to the Earth for stable tidal movements we can leave at coincidence I suppose. I like his conclusion that Earth's magnetic fields are a few thousand years old. Why does he say that Mercury Should NOT have a magnetic field with current theory? And why is it dense? Is he wrong when he says that Venus' surface is fresh and doesn't have signs of erosion? Is there proof of this supposed asteroid that Hit Venus so bad that it started spinning a different direction? (That sounds like a great new insult for someone "I'm gonna smack you like an asteroid on venus!")? Is he wrong when he says that current theory only allows for the formation of tiny planets, not giants? Why is Uranus's magnetic axis offset from the center by 60 degrees? How do these things happen within current theory? Why doesn't Uranus radiate energy and what's the deal with its rotation? (More asteroids?)

There's also the issue of comets and how they "shouldn't be there". And the issue of Miranda.




As it stands, it seems that all the theorizing and conjecture about how the Solar System (and Stars...and Earth) got to how it is relies on a lot of...theorizing and conjecture that has conflicting ideas of how things happened exactly, and what exactly defines "natural" forces is in question. Does "Dark Matter" count as "natural" and if so, does it necessitate an explanation? Where are the explanations of why anything but small planets can form?

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #10

Post by LiamOS »

I apologise for taking so long to respond, but Shermana did give me a boatload to read, and I was quite busy. :P
Shermana wrote:Please explain what's going with the "the Jeans Criteria is simply wrong" thing and if that relates to the issue, [...]
The Jeans criteria neglects viscous forces among others, and is as such less reliable as density and angular momentum increase. However, at the equilibrium state viscous forces are completely negligible(as the cloud is very diffuse) and its angular momentum is also negligible.
The paper is commenting on how using Jeans' equations to obtain solutions of any precision is essentially not viable.
What is important is that initially, the Jeans criteria holds on the scales and such in question.
Shermana wrote:[...] and if CDMHC has anything to do with anything.
Not at such a scale.
Shermana wrote:This site says that "Cold Dark Matter Hierarchical Cosmology" "must be abandoned." Perhaps you can translate as I may be misunderstanding them, but where does that leave us in the "Whence"?
They are making arguments against the validity of the theory in question. They are right in doing so as the Jeans equations applied in such conditions aren't really applicable.
In terms of your 'whence' concerns, that we don't know exactly what was going on in the universe isn't a surprise. Do you know what was going on in the early universe?
Shermana wrote:This also says that Jeans neglected a coupled things.
The possibilities of stellar clusters, viscous forces, drag, turbulence... None of which comes into question at the point of collapse. After this point, all other forces become more prevalent, making further use of Jeans' equations useless.
Shermana wrote:There are also articles that try to vindicate the "Jeans Swindle", perhaps you can translate for everyone.
The Jeans Swindle is Jeans' assumption that our hypothetical cloud is surrounded by a static medium. This is not true, as the surrounding material will also be collapsing somewhat.
Again, this only effects the validity of Jeans' arguments are we progress from the initial collapse, and the fact that collapse will occur still remains(Although the numerical solutions are somewhat affected).
Shermana wrote:What kind of faulty assumptions does the CDMHC rely on exactly?
I'm not exactly sure.
Shermana wrote:And also perhaps you can translate this article for us and explain why it "Somewhat" explains the concept that the compression (And fragmentation) won't keep going "on and on" and any refernces in the Rees Article he refers to.
The reason such collapse cannot continue indefinitely is that at some point, the cloud will become opaque to a large amount of the radiation being emitted. This will cause the temperature to rise in the section in question as it collapses, causing it to halt.
It's actually very concisely explained in the article itself.
Shermana wrote:Is there a conflict between these articles and their conclusions?
Not that I can see.
Shermana wrote:You say that "classical effects" disprove's his prediction, elaborate please.
It is the non-classical effects that Jeans did not account for such as viscosity and turbulence, etc. In states of high pressure, these are extremely important factors which Jeans was unaware of.
Shermana wrote:Have you seen or heard of Spike Psarris, the US Military Space Engineer turned Creationism supporter?
No, but don't be surprised.


Unfortunately, my computer crashed while working on the Psarris specific rebuttal(I was half way through Uranus), and I just don't have the time or will to do that again.
Luckily, many before me have made valiant efforts at doing so.
This YouTube channel rebuts most of the lecture thoroughly, albeit in a horrifically condescending manner.(You've been warned... And not that Psarris' lecture was a whole lot better.)
Here's a rebuttal specific to his claims about Jupiter. Although it's not as concise and thorough as I'd like, it's more than necessary to demonstrate that Psarris neglects facts where convenient, among other things. It's also a much nicer read if you're not all too fond of somebody incessantly putting down on you.

Shermana wrote:I like his conclusion that Earth's magnetic fields are a few thousand years old.
So does he. However, he's ignoring the clear evidence that magnetic reversals have occured.
Shermana wrote:Why does he say that Mercury Should NOT have a magnetic field with current theory?
Because saying the negation of that wouldn't help his argument.
Shermana wrote:And why is it dense?
Because a very large amount of it is iron, which is extremely dense(Relatively speaking).
Shermana wrote:Is he wrong when he says that Venus' surface is fresh and doesn't have signs of erosion?
He's right that it shows no signs of erosion, but that doesn't mean it's fresh, considering that erosion wouldn't happen.
Shermana wrote:Is there proof of this supposed asteroid that Hit Venus so bad that it started spinning a different direction?
Not that I know of. That said, I haven't looked sufficiently into this issue.
Shermana wrote:Is he wrong when he says that current theory only allows for the formation of tiny planets, not giants?
Completely.
Almost all theories of planetary formation unsurprisingly allow for planetary formation. Psarris merely states that this is not the case and gives no evidence for this other than an out-of-context quote.
Shermana wrote:Why is Uranus's magnetic axis offset from the center by 60 degrees?
Here's a possible explanation which would also explain Neptune's.
Shermana wrote:How do these things happen within current theory?
This question is somewhat self defeating, as things in a theory happen as in the theory.
Shermana wrote:Why doesn't Uranus radiate energy and what's the deal with its rotation? (More asteroids?)
Probably more asteroids. However, such collisions are so frequent in almost all models that they are very probably explanations for large deviations from the expectation.
Shermana wrote:There's also the issue of comets and how they "shouldn't be there".
This isn't an 'issue'. The Oort cloud has a lot more evidence for its existence that Creationist sources would lead you to believe. See here.
Shermana wrote:what exactly defines "natural" forces is in question.
Shermana wrote:Where are the explanations of why anything but small planets can form?
Exactly where one would expect them to be; in scientific literature.

Post Reply