The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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 71: Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:01 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 66 by Bust Nak]

Here is even more evidence

7.2. Problems for the Next Few Years
It seems appropriate to end this review with some
suggestions for “low-hanging fruit”: problems that, unlike the grand challenges we have just discussed, should
be solvable in the next one to two years, and that would
probably generate a large number of citations should an
ambitious young postdoc or grad student come up with a
solid answer. Most of these ideas have been mentioned
before in the review, but hopefully summarizing them
here will provide a quick cheat sheet of inspiration for
projects.


• Supernova feedback in a turbulent medium. The
feedback-regulated model of star formation discussed in Section 4.1.2 has as one if its crucial unknowns the amount of momentum that is produced
by expanding supernova blast waves. Present simulations for the most part do not reach the resolution required to determine this quantity in a reliable
manner. Using an AMR code or similar, it should
be possible to simulate star formation at a galactic scale and follow the collapse down to the point
where supernova blast waves would be resolved,
and then to set off supernovae (perhaps using a subgrid model for the star formation itself) and measure the amount of momentum they impart. Such a
simulation would probably be too expensive to run
for multiple galactic dynamical times, but just following it far enough for the supernova remnant to
reach the momentum-conserving phase would provide a very useful estimate for a quantity whose
current value is very poorly known.

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 72: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:02 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 70 by EarthScienceguy]

The lack of observed Population III stars may be explained by the fact that the Pop III generation of stars (in the early universe) were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun - a hypothesis supported by theoretical models. If this is the case, then all Pop III stars, as the oldest population of stars, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago and would now be present only as remnants (white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes), the original composition of which is nearly impossible to determine using current astronomical techniques.

Important to note that stars are not formed individually, but in massive groups and are usually associated with galaxies or globular clusters. Galaxies in the early Universe that have not formed stars yet are known as “proto-galaxies”, and these galaxies typically contain just dark matter and gas. It has been postulated that some such proto-galaxies may still exist, and in fact that there might be a class of “dark galaxies” that do not have the right conditions to ever form stars – these galaxies are solely made of dark matter, and perhaps gas.

Here’s the link from which I summarised the above.

The problem with early galaxy formation is that it cannot have happened because there has not been enough time since God created the universe 6,000 years ago it happened over billions of years ago, so their detection requires the most powerful telescopes. (Fixed it for you).

No doubt you’ll bleat that this isn’t ‘evidence’, just a hypothesis. And once the evidence starts to accumulate and confirm the hypothesis, you’ll move onto the next ‘problem’ that doesn’t fit with any Statement of Faith, and the cycle continues. It’s just your ‘god of the gaps’ approach in action, every single time.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 73: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:33 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

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

Using larger fonts isn't going to make that say supernovas are required for star formation. You do understand the difference between "aid" and "required," right?

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

How do you think population III stars form?

From the gravitational collapse of gas clouds composed almost entirely of Hydrogen and Helium, with cooling provided by Hydrogen in both its atomic and molecular form.

Quote:
Here is even more evidence...

Still doesn't help your case. Remember, the claim being challenge was not that there are problems with our current model, instead it was star formation are impossible without supernovas. Nothing you've quoted, including these latest passages support that claim that supernovas are required for star formation.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 74: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:05 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 72 by Diagoras]

Quote:
The lack of observed Population III stars may be explained by the fact that the Pop III generation of stars (in the early universe) were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun - a hypothesis supported by theoretical models. If this is the case, then all Pop III stars, as the oldest population of stars, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago and would now be present only as remnants (white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes), the original composition of which is nearly impossible to determine using current astronomical techniques.


This is the same theory which predicts that Lithium should be the third most abundant element in the universe right behind hydrogen and Helium. How does that work out for that theory?

This theory also predicts that galaxies should undergo some sort of evolution from the young galaxies that are observed and the older galaxies that are supposed around the Earth. But the universe looks the same no matter where you look.



Quote:
Important to note that stars are not formed individually, but in massive groups and are usually associated with galaxies or globular clusters. Galaxies in the early Universe that have not formed stars yet are known as “proto-galaxies”, and these galaxies typically contain just dark matter and gas. It has been postulated that some such proto-galaxies may still exist, and in fact that there might be a class of “dark galaxies” that do not have the right conditions to ever form stars – these galaxies are solely made of dark matter, and perhaps gas.


In this theory of yours galaxies are theorized as being very small deviations in the density of matter. The early expansion of matter had to be very smooth. Any large difference in density would have produced black holes instead of galaxies. Now if the CBR was perfectly smooth then there could not have been any galaxies. So off we go to the God of the anthropic principle to save the day for the Naturalist. So how could galaxies form if there was not enough difference in density to produce galaxies.

COBE was developed in the 1980's and in the 1990's COBE was sent into orbit to try to detect this difference in density in the CBR. The COBE satellite searched for the predicted density difference but did not fine any density difference. Not until by a very powerful statistical method did the COBE researchers claim to have found the sought-after inhomogeneity. But this inhomogeneity was a whole order of magnitude below what was predicted and the COBE researchers could not say where the inhomogeneity was. No one could point to a particular direction in space and say that this was an area of higher- or lower-than-average temperature.

The big bang depends upon the cosmological principle, but is the cosmological principle true? On the local level, galaxies obviously clump into clusters, but most cosmologists have assumed that on a grand scale this clumping disappears. Extensive surveys of galaxy distributions have revealed that clumping and long strands of galaxies seem to be the norm on the largest scales that have been plumbed. The homogeneity of the universe is assumed, but all evidence indicates that the universe is not homogeneous. Or in other words, there is no evidence that the universe is indeed homogeneous. Again the good old anthropic god jumps in for the rescue.

The big bang model also predicts that the universe is isotropic. Meaning a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions. But this is not what we observe when observations are made of the structures that Galaxies make. Polarization study of distant radio sources indicates that there is some fundamental anisotropy in the universe. Can you say anthropic God to the rescue again?

So your theory says that population III stars were made in a different manner than population II stars or population I stars.

Although even with the added dark matter mass these population III stars still need cooled. And the theory says that they were cooled by molecular Hydrogen.

The first star-forming halos were very small and likely contained only a handful of very massive, metal-free stars. These
stars formed in molecular clouds that were cooled by molecular hydrogen, rather than the metal-line cooling which occurs in star-forming regions today.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.02528.pdf

Molecular hydrogen does have trouble forming.

Formation of H2 is less straightforward than one might
initially expect, because the most obvious reaction for
making it, H + H → H2, occurs at a rate so low as
to be negligible. The low reaction rate is a product of
the symmetry of the system; if the hydrogen atoms are
both in the ground state, then there are no allowed radiative transitions that can remove the binding energy
of the free hydrogen atoms, and unless the temperature
exceeds several thousand K, the population of H atoms
in excited states is negligibly small (Gould & Salpeter
1963; Latter & Black 1991)


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

So you still have not solved the cooling problem that population III stars face.

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 75: Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:13 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to post 73 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
Still doesn't help your case. Remember, the claim being challenge was not that there are problems with our current model, instead it was star formation are impossible without supernovas. Nothing you've quoted, including these latest passages support that claim that supernovas are required for star formation.


Sure it does. There is no way to cool population III stars or any other stars unless there were supernova's first. Every theory of star formation states that the star needs some way to cool the gas cloud as contraction happens.

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 76: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:36 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 74 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
So you still have not solved the cooling problem that population III stars face.


What is your point in continuously complaining that certain aspects of star formation theory may not be completely worked out yet by science? You have no alternative to present ... just constant cherry picking of some aspect of the process that you seem to believe negates everything that is currently known about the physics of star formation.

I assume you are wasting time on this approach because you believe it supports the idea that some sort of never seen, never heard, never demonstrated to exist in any form, man-invented god is behind the process of star formation (ie. they were just "created" by this imaginary entity). But that is on infinitely less solid ground than the science you are trying (and failing) to pick apart.

Finding aspects of a science problem that may not yet be solved does not, in any way whatsoever, support an alternative idea that has virtually zero observational or analytical evidence behind it.

What science can you present that supports the idea that stars were created by some god being? Pointing out gaps in the current (real) science understanding of the process does not provide support for some other alternative mechanism ... especially when that alternative relies solely on the presumed actions of a supernatural being of some sort that has never been demonstrated to exist.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 77: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:25 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 74 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
This is the same theory which predicts that Lithium should be the third most abundant element in the universe right behind hydrogen and Helium.

Perhaps you could provide a cite for the prediction of lithium’s relative abundance?

Anyone interested in how lithium forms could start here. Not particularly relevant to the OP, I grant you, but we appeared to have once again veered off onto the ‘Problem Highway’.

Quote:
This theory also predicts that galaxies should undergo some sort of evolution from the young galaxies that are observed and the older galaxies that are supposed around the Earth.

<bolding mine>

What does ‘around the Earth’ mean in this context? It’s sometimes very hard to follow your posts. Oh, and would you provide a cite for your claim?

Quote:
But the universe looks the same no matter where you look.

I’ll get back to this...

Quote:
In this theory of yours...

It’s not my theory. The only theory I hold is that ‘Creationists’ problems increase in proportion to the expansion rate of scientific discovery’. Here’s a cite for that.

Quote:
The homogeneity of the universe is assumed, but all evidence indicates that the universe is not homogeneous.

...but wait - didn’t you just say that the universe looks the same no ma- oh, forget it.

Quote:
The big bang model also predicts that the universe is isotropic.

You might have got this the wrong way round. Observations that show the universe to be isotropic on a large scale support the Big Bang hypothesis. Here’s a simple explanation

Quote:
the cooling problem

Is this the same as the ‘time heat problem’? I’m starting to lose track. If so, then no need to update my list.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 78: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:03 am
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

Sure it does. There is no way to cool population III stars or any other stars unless there were supernova's first.

That's not remotely true, why do you even think cooling a star is a thing? Stars cool themselves just fine via radiation.

Quote:
Every theory of star formation states that the star needs some way to cool the gas cloud as contraction happens.

Right, cooling gas cloud, what on Earth were you talking about with cooling stars. More to the point, why are you still maintaining supernovas are the only way for gas cloud to cool despite not being find any quote to back you up?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 79: Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:34 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Quote:
What is your point in continuously complaining that certain aspects of star formation theory may not be completely worked out yet by science? You have no alternative to present ... just constant cherry picking of some aspect of the process that you seem to believe negates everything that is currently known about the physics of star formation.


It does not seem like I am the one that is complaining. I find it simply fascinating how at exactly the point in which the Bible states that God created, the science breaks down and naturalist have to invoke their favorite god the anthropic god.

Quote:
I assume you are wasting time on this approach because you believe it supports the idea that some sort of never seen, never heard, never demonstrated to exist in any form, man-invented god is behind the process of star formation (ie. they were just "created" by this imaginary entity). But that is on infinitely less solid ground than the science you are trying (and failing) to pick apart.


What makes your anthropic god better than the God of the Bible. You know chemistry and understand the the autoignition temperature. The autoignition temperature of hydrogen is 500 C. So where does the molecular hydrogen come from to cool the star and not blow up the new forming star. But this reaction has to take place because there are stars with heavy metals in them and we need those heavy metals to make more stars.

You if you want to worship some anthropic god, you are free to do that. It is not that science has not figured these problems out, because most of the iime if they are "figured out" the circumstances are so outside the norm it makes it impossible. But that does not matter as long as the anthropic god is around.

Quote:
What science can you present that supports the idea that stars were created by some god being? Pointing out gaps in the current (real) science understanding of the process does not provide support for some other alternative mechanism ... especially when that alternative relies solely on the presumed actions of a supernatural being of some sort that has never been demonstrated to exist.


Having impossible events take place, I would think would point to an intelligent force outside the universe. My guess would be nothing would convince you, because belief in God is not about evidence. Jesus did miracles when He was here on earth and many still did not believe. So I do not really mind if you believe there is a God in heaven or not. I just love being able to confirm what the Bible says is true. Science has not answer for the creation for stars and science never will have an answer for star formation just like the Bible declared 4000 years ago. That is why I enjoy writing on this forum.

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 80: Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:48 pm
Reply
Re: Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

Like this post (1): benchwarmer
[quote="EarthScienceguy"]
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Quote:
Science has not answer for the creation for stars and science never will have an answer for star formation just like the Bible declared 4000 years ago. That is why I enjoy writing on this forum.

<bolding mine>

My guess would be nothing would convince you, because belief in God is not about evidence.

Wilful blindness must take an extraordinary effort at times.

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

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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