Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

Reply to topic
EarthScienceguy
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:53 pm  Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe. Reply with quote

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.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:23 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 20 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Fusion. Elements up to Fe are made in stars like our sun through fusion reactions that are well understood and start with H -> He. There are countless published papers, web articles, etc. on this subject, for example:

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~nlanger/siu_web/ssescript/chapter5-7.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis



Never said this was not true. What I meant to say was all the stars we see today have heavier elements than Fe in them. It would not be possible for population III stars to have heavier elements than Fe because there were supposedly no supernovas before the population III stars came into existence.





Quote:
BB is a hypothesis. The statement "no BB theory, no earth" is nonsense.


Ah yes! The good old anthropic principle, old reliable, we are here so some naturalistic process had to happen no matter how remote the chance or even if there is no chance. It doesn't matter because there has to be some naturalistic solution.

Forget causality, forget all physical laws and constants. Laws and constants do not matter the only thing that matters is the naturalistic religion.

Quote:
Quote:
That is, no observed gas cloud is even close to the Jeans length.


And even more nonsense. The Jeans length is just one aspect of star formation, and is of the order of 50 parsec (pc). 1 pc is 3.26 light years, so the Jeans length is of the order of 163 light years. Sagittarius B2 (for just one example relatively close by) is about this size (150 light years across):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_B2

Hardly not "even close" to the Jeans length. But the Jeans length is not the only factor involved in star formation, which is not as simple as you are trying to make out.


You are correct in saying that Jeans length is not the only factor involved in star formation. The equation for jeans length is R= squ root(15kT/4pipGm)

The term p is the mass density of the gas cloud. The densest clouds in space may contain a few thousand particles per cubic inch (103 atoms per cubic cm).
By contrast, even the air we breathe contains a quadrillion times more particles than interstellar gas clouds (1018 particles per cubic cm). The sun’s average density is a million quadrillion times denser than gas clouds (about 1024 atoms per cubic cm).

Quote:
But there are trillions of them in the universe. How do you propose they formed ... just poofed into existence by a god? And if that is the case, why do we observe stars in all stages of formation from beginning to end? If god wanted to create stars (according to the bible to give us humans a little light to see by) why all the trouble to fake us out by giving the appearance that they form as modern physics understands them to form?


Good old anthropic principle again.


Quote:
There ARE molecular gas clouds comparable to the Jeans length, so that question is moot.


Do the math, I do not think so.

Quote:
Mercury is a planet and does not have to be explained by stellar evolution. It is explained by the mechanisms of planet formation, not the mechanisms of star formation. Or do you think Mercury is a star? You're so far off on these claims you are making that it is hard to tell.


According to stellar evolutionary theory Mercury was formed 4.6 billion years ago in a cloud of dust but without "hi ho silver." (old person joke, sorry millennials) According to this theory it was created by accretion when the sun was created by accretion also or so the theory states. Lots of problems in those statements but I will let them go for now.

“The driving force behind previous attempts to account for Mercury has been to fit the high density of the planet into some preferred overall solar system scheme … . It has become clear that none of these proposed models work, and the high density is conveniently accommodated by the large-impact hypothesis, which makes Mercury unique.” Taylor, S.R., Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 194, 1992.

Stellar evolution could not explain the high density of Mercury so out of thin air a meteorite impact was conjured up.

A second problem is Mercury's magnetic field. Why does it have one at all if it is 4.6 billion years old solid rock.

Quote:
Quote:
You are the one that brought this up. You said everything was known and it is not.


I never said that everything is known. What is "everything"?


Everything is all of the mechanisms need to create a universe, solar system, planet and life that we observe.

Quote:
Quote:
Physics shows what is possible in an adiabatic universe which is what are universe is.

Creationist believe in a open universe which makes sense of our observations.


Physics shows, Creationist believe. You finally got something right.


Wow handed you that one didn't I.

Let's try that again.

All of physics built on the assumption that the universe is an adiabatic system which is the reason we have the law of conservation of energy. But this cannot be true for the creation week events.

Like for example the creation of stars and life which physics cannot answer.

You believe that all there is an adiabatic universe, but this view cannot explain by observation.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:02 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post (2): benchwarmer, brunumb
[Replying to post 21 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Ah yes! The good old anthropic principle ...


What? You are the one who would more closely follow that principle. I think life thrives on this planet simply because the conditions happen to be right for it ... not because the universe was designed to accommodate sentient beings or must be compatible with their existence in any way. Obviously, the kind of life forms that exist on Earth now would not survive without the conditions we have on the planet, but this life evolved into the variation we have now because of the conditions present on Earth, not the other way around (ie. the conditions on Earth (or the universe in general) were not "created" to accommodate the life forms present now, and did not develop in order to support life).

Quote:
Do the math, I do not think so.


I did do the math, and a typical value for the Jeans length is about 50 parsec which is about 160 light years. Some of your prior "creation math" has been 7-8 orders of magnitude out so no telling what you came up with for a typical Jeans length. If you want another opinion, page 15 of this PDF has one:

http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~kdh1/ce/ce06.pdf

and Sagittarius B2 is about this size for just one example.

Quote:
Stellar evolution could not explain the high density of Mercury so out of thin air a meteorite impact was conjured up.

A second problem is Mercury's magnetic field. Why does it have one at all if it is 4.6 billion years old solid rock.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury%27s_magnetic_field

What does stellar evolution or how stars are formed have to do with Mercury and its formation? This must be from some creationist website's lame attempt at finding something to complain about out of left field. There are plenty of nearly 4.6 billion year old "solid rocks" orbiting our sun both in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and at orbits past pluto. Mercury just happens to be closer to the sun, and big enough to be categorized as a planet.

Quote:
But this cannot be true for the creation week events.


There were no such events. Myths like this have no place in the real science world, and don't explain anything. The fact that these kinds of silly stories violate the laws of physics is irrelevant because they didn't actually happen and don't need to be explained within the frameworks we have in place now to explain the parts of nature that we do understand. One reason we know the biblical creation week stories are complete nonsense is because they do violate so many known laws of physics and chemistry (and geology, biology etc.), not to mention that they were supposedly carried out by a mythical being that has never been shown to actually exist.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:35 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post (2): DrNoGods, Tcg
[Replying to post 22 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Obviously, the kind of life forms that exist on Earth now would not survive without the conditions we have on the planet, but this life evolved into the variation we have now because of the conditions present on Earth, not the other way around

And when those conditions have changed, numerous life-form have been unable to survive and eventually become extinct. It is estimated that of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Far from what you would expect on a planet specially designed to accommodate life.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:10 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 23 by brunumb]

Quote:
It is estimated that of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Far from what you would expect on a planet specially designed to accommodate life.


... or from an infallable creator god. Certainly would not be able to give high marks in the omnipotence or omniscience categories with that track record.

The creatoinists are going to have to up their game in trying to force creationism to be compatible with modern science. The failure rate there so far is sitting at 100% ... even worse than the extinction rate.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:50 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 24 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
The creationists are going to have to up their game in trying to force creationism to be compatible with modern science. The failure rate there so far is sitting at 100% ... even worse than the extinction rate.


You can think this but we are the only ones that have theories that make accurate predictions on many things like magnetic fields, gravity, comets, and our theories.

In fact this whole issue of star formation is actually a failure in naturalist theology not in creationist theory. Creationist theory would not be effect at all if there were a process of star formation. Star formation can easily be worked in to our all of our theories. Creation theory does predict that the the very first stars were created by fiat and there is abundant evidence for that star formation does not seem to be possible at all.

The problem is star formation

The following quotes are from this article https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3947

1. Star formation is stupendously inefficient. Take the Milky Way. Our galaxy contains about a billion solar masses of fresh gas available to form stars—and yet it produces only one solar mass of new stars a year. Accounting for that inefficiency is one of the biggest challenges of modern astrophysics. Why should we care about star formation? Because the process powers the evolution of galaxies and sets the initial conditions for planet formation and thus, ultimately, for life.

But there is a big problem with gravity. When we look at typical gas clouds in the Milky Way, we find that they are already quite dense. If the clouds’ densities and masses were all that mattered, star formation in our galaxy would be 10–100 times as fast as it actually is.


if the jean length even means anything than why are there not many more stars being produced?

It is obvious that Jean's length means nothing. That there are forces that are keeping stars from forming. This author is admitting that star formation is not what it should be by several orders of magnitude. This authors assumption is stars formed in a natural process. But if these processes can keep most stars from forming who is to say that these processes would not keep all stars from forming.


2. At first, magnetic fields were thought to provide the major balancing force against gravity. Clouds are indeed observed to have magnetic fields. However, the idea of magnetic field–regulated star formation faced several problems. Most important, if a magnetic field is strong enough to balance gravity initially, it will retain its predominance forever, and thus no stars will form. Theorists had to invoke finely tuned processes, such as ambipolar diffusion (the drift of ions and neutral atoms), to allow the clouds to lose magnetic flux on just the right time scales to explain the observed low star-formation rate. Then came the realization that magnetic fields, given their observed spatial distribution in the clouds, cannot retard star formation to the degree that the theory predicted.

If this observation turns out to be correct, then maybe it will not retard star formation to the degree that the theory predicted. Maybe. But even if that were the case there are still more problems with this theory.

3. And here is the great new theory that this author is writing about.

The basic idea behind the theory is that turbulence plays a dual role. On one hand, by kicking the gas around, the turbulence makes it harder for gravity to collapse the clouds, which solves the original problem of accounting for the slow rate of star formation. On the other hand, the turbulence is supersonic—that is, the gas travels faster than pressure fluctuations can propagate. As a result, the gas experiences shocks and strong local compressions, which are necessary to seed gravitational collapse. The upshot: Turbulence kick-starts star formation that takes place in localized regions of the cloud that turbulence helped to create.

Once stars form, their winds blow material into the interstellar medium (ISM). More material is fed back into the ISM when massive stars die in supernova explosions. Crucially, the stellar feedback replenishes and sustains the ubiquitous turbulence and, with it, star formation itself. Turbulence helps initiate the formation of stars, which feeds material and energy back into the ISM and drives further turbulence. But large-scale dynamical processes, such as the shear induced by galactic rotation and the accretion of gas from outside the galaxy, also drive turbulence. In the turbulence-regulated picture of star formation, it is important to identify and understand the various drivers.



A supernova is still needed to drive the process of star formation. If the observation of the gas jets is correct.

But tell me if it takes supernova's for stars to form then how did the first stars form so that there could be supernovas?

Wait don't tell me. The wonderful anthropic principle again, why of course.

If you would like a little more technical article on the problem of star formation. Although it is a little or very long 89 pages.

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

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:22 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 25 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
In fact this whole issue of star formation is actually a failure in naturalist theology not in creationist theory.


Creationism is not a theory. It is the idea that some all powerful god being just poofed things into existence (ie. "created" them) because he/she/it wanted to. Virtually anything can be explained that way without any need for experiments, theories, or science in general.

There is no need to attempt to make this kind of nonsense compatible with modern science, which was my point. Then you ramble on about star formation. What is the creationist "theory" of star formation? Very simple ... god "created" the stars from nothing. What real science does is observe that there are stars ... many billions of them ... and we can see them at various stages of formation, life and death because they exist during those phases. Then work is done to try and explain the observations through known physics.

At no point in the process is it necessary to play the "god did this part" card because something isn't understood completely. Scientists continue to work on the problem and refine the theories through the same process that guides all scientific inquiry. Creationists either start with one or more "god did it" assumptions (eg. Humphreys), or invoke these along the way when they run into something impossible to explain otherwise. And to make that process sound legitimate they call it creation "science", and the explanations creation "theories." Neither are correct because "god did it' is not a valid step towards arriving at any hypothesis, or any theory. Creation science is an oxymoron.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:50 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 26 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
There is no need to attempt to make this kind of nonsense compatible with modern science, which was my point. Then you ramble on about star formation. What is the creationist "theory" of star formation? Very simple ... god "created" the stars from nothing. What real science does is observe that there are stars ... many billions of them ... and we can see them at various stages of formation, life and death because they exist during those phases. Then work is done to try and explain the observations through known physics.


The goal is not to make it compatible with known science. Science is simply a tool used to discover God in the creation He made. Naturalist believe the same thing I have heard many naturalist say thing like nature revealed itself one way or another.

In fact I find it fascinating when science reaches road blocks exactly where the Bible says road blocks should be. Like I find it fascinating that there is no workable theory for the origin of stars. Just getting the right chemical combination to produce a star is impossible. (that was in the long paper)

Quote:
At no point in the process is it necessary to play the "god did this part" card because something isn't understood completely. Scientists continue to work on the problem and refine the theories through the same process that guides all scientific inquiry. Creationists either start with one or more "god did it" assumptions (eg. Humphreys), or invoke these along the way when they run into something impossible to explain otherwise. And to make that process sound legitimate they call it creation "science", and the explanations creation "theories." Neither are correct because "god did it' is not a valid step towards arriving at any hypothesis, or any theory. Creation science is an oxymoron.


No actually a naturalistic view of the creation of the universe, life and now stars all violate causality. Creation science does not. Creation theory is the only theory that does not violate causality.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

What I meant to say was all the stars we see today have heavier elements than Fe in them. It would not be possible for population III stars to have heavier elements than Fe because there were supposedly no supernovas before the population III stars came into existence.

What's wrong with the explanation that stars picked up heavier elements from supernovas after population III stars came into existence?

Quote:
The good old anthropic principle... Forget causality, forget all physical laws and constants.

Why forget any of these at all? What made you think the good old anthropic principle would not be compatible with causality, physical laws or constants?

Quote:
Stellar evolution could not explain the high density of Mercury so out of thin air a meteorite impact was conjured up.

Well there you go, there is a scientific explanation for Mercury.

Quote:
A second problem is Mercury's magnetic field. Why does it have one at all if it is 4.6 billion years old solid rock.

Because it's not actually solid rock?

Quote:
All of physics built on the assumption that the universe is an adiabatic system which is the reason we have the law of conservation of energy. But this cannot be true for the creation week events.

That's all the more reason to discard this concept of a creation week. Besides, didn't you just say creationism doesn't break the laws of physics in another post?

Quote:
You can think this but we are the only ones that have theories..

God did it is not a theory. That our scientific model is incomplete does not warrant making supernatural stuff up. It's a god of the gaps fallacy.

Quote:
But tell me if it takes supernova's for stars to form then how did the first stars form so that there could be supernovas?

But stars do not take supernovas to form. Supernovas help, but not required.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:10 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]

Quote:
But stars do not take supernovas to form. Supernovas help, but not required.


How are you saying they help? You did not explain your position.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:45 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 27 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
In fact I find it fascinating when science reaches road blocks exactly where the Bible says road blocks should be. Like I find it fascinating that there is no workable theory for the origin of stars.


The bible predicts that science will reach a road block in attempts to explain star formation? Do tell us where this text is located (book, verses, etc.). It would indeed be fascinating if people 2000+ years ago, who had no idea what stars were other than tiny dots of light in the sky, predicted that scientists many centuries into the future would run into specific road blocks in their attempts to understand star formation mechanisms. But since they did not, there is nothing to be fascinated about. What is fascinating is that you think anything modern science has yet to explain in minute detail means that the default alternate explanation is wizardry and magic, and that this is perfectly fine and equates to good science. Being that far off from reality is not fascinating, it is sad.

Quote:
Just getting the right chemical combination to produce a star is impossible.


Really? Stars exist, we can see them at various stages in their life cycle from formation to death. These are facts. Science attempts to explain these observations and has been successful at many aspects of the problem without inserting any god-did-it steps along the way. We have an active mission now studying the handy star nearby (Parker Solar Probe):

http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/

And two more scheduled to launch in 2020 (ESA's Solar Orbiter, and ISRO's Aditya-L1):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Orbiter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditya-L1

The instrumentation on these probes will further our understanding of stars, and their measurements combined with those from various ground-based and satellite-based (eg. NOAA's DSCOVR) instruments will put more pieces into the star puzzle. The bible did not predict any of this, nor did it predict road blocks at specific points as you suggested. But prove me wrong.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version