Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

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

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

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

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

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

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

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

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

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



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

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 77 by Diagoras]

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’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologi ... um_problem
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-universe- ... oblem.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 102501.htm
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/1 ... 010-130445
https://aasnova.org/2017/02/15/fixing-t ... m-problem/

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?

I am sorry. I forget that I need to explain the theory sometimes.

In our galactic area, the theory predicts that galaxies should be in the process of evolving from older galaxies to younger galaxies. Since it is alleged that the universe is 13.7 billion years old then the farthest galaxies that the hubble telescope can see should be all very young galaxies. But that is not what we see.

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.

That would prove that naturalist problems increase with scientific discovery thanks I could not have said it better.

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.

Yes!!! that is the problem. The CBR indicates of very smooth density distribution at the end of the imaginary inflation of the universe. So when looking at the CBR the universe in very homogeneous.

When observing the universe we see structure even on the largest scale.

This is exactly opposite of what the big bang theory predicts.

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

Cosmological Principle and the debate about Large Scale Structures distribution
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9504013

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.

This is the same problem. Your explanation did not solve this problem.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 81 by EarthScienceguy]

From your second link:

What this all means is scientists can now accurately predict the abundance in the primordial universe of the three primordial nuclei: helium, deuterium, and lithium. Without any discrepancy, and without any missing lithium.

This is how science grinds away at problems, and if the authors of the paper are correct, then it further validates the Big Bang Theory, and brings us one step closer to understanding how our universe was formed.

That didn’t take long to solve, did it?

I think I made a point about wilful blindness earlier. Now, what are we to conclude when you don’t even read the conclusion to your own link?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 78 by Bust Nak]

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

Documentation please!!
I know of no one that says this.

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?

Where do you think that heavier elements than Li came from? And stars today at least need heavier elements to form.

There are some theories out now that say that population III stars don't need supernova's but use dark mater instead but they still need moleculary hydrogen to form to cool the gas cloud.

This is sighted in many place along this string.

[Diagoras]

I am sorry. I forget that I need to explain the theory sometimes.

Just to make a point, when you say “the theory�, or “your theory�, it’s unlikely that it will be clear to your audience what you are referring to unless both parties have been consistently referring to the same theory which has been previously cited. Unfortunately, you have a habit of changing tack and taking us on diversions (e.g. star cooling, which wasn’t the focus of the OP), which makes it harder to refute “the theory� when it’s not clear to which one you refer.

It doesn’t help when the language used isn’t clear either:

In our galactic area, the theory predicts that galaxies should be in the process of evolving from older galaxies to younger galaxies.

Since you (hopefully) don’t believe that somehow each individual galaxy in our local area is getting younger, I’m wondering if you mean that the distribution of galaxies should form a pattern of ‘oldest to youngest’ or something like that? It’s not that you don’t explain “the theory� - it’s just that your explanation isn’t very good.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 79 by EarthScienceguy]

I find it simply fascinating how at exactly the point in which the Bible states that God created, the science breaks down ...

What is fascinating is that you are trying to argue a 6000 year old universe in 2019 when science has positively disproved that notion with 100% certainty. Mechanisms of star formation are the least of your problems.

Code: Select all

What makes your anthropic god better than the God of the Bible.

I have no anthropic god so this is a meaningless comment. It is another attempt to mischaracterize someone elses position, or to make up something to suit your argument when you cannot support it otherwise.

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.

Nothing in this set of comments makes any sense at all. The autoignition temperature you quoted is for ignition of H2 in air. Stars are not ideal gases and H2 isn't "burning." It is converted to He via nuclear fusion, which you seem to be confusing with H2 igniting in air where there is O2. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so where molecular hydrogen (H2) "comes from" should be obvious. But you asked that question after stating the autoignition temperature of H2 in air, which has nothing to do with where molecular H2 comes from. Then you make another left turn and comment that "this reaction" (presumably "burning" of H2 in air) must take place because there are stars with heavy metals in them, but those heavy metals don't come from "burning" of H2. Pure gibberish.

You if you want to worship some anthropic god, you are free to do that.

I don't worship any anthropic god. It is something you have made up for some reason that isn't clear.

Having impossible events take place, I would think would point to an intelligent force outside the universe.

What impossible events? So far you haven't described any impossible events as far as science is concerned. Unsolved science problems do not default to "god did it", which is the only answer you seem have for anything. You are creating "impossible events" where they don't exist in order to fabricate a point to argue about so that you can then claim that your favorite god is responsible as the only explanation. But what you've utterly failed to do is make any scientifically valid arguments to support your claims.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 79 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

Holy Zeus Batman! Where does that science fiction come from?

The early universe was predominantly hydrogen.
As gravity caused the hydrogen to coalesce into massive bodies, gravitational potential energy was converted into kinetic energy and the body heated up.
At higher temperatures molecular hydrogen dissociates into atomic hydrogen. At very high temperatures it exists as a plasma of protons and electrons.
When the mass becomes large enough the core temperature can exceed a million degrees.
At such temperatures the protons have enough kinetic energy to overcome electrostatic repulsion and get close enough for the nuclear force to kick in resulting in nuclear fusion.
A tiny portion of the mass of the protons is converted into a huge amount of energy and released explosively as heat. A star is born. It doesn't explode because the outward force of the production of energy is balanced by the incredible force of gravity pulling inwards.
As hydrogen is used up, the products of fusion such as helium may undergo fusion as the temperature in the core increases. This process continues until the element iron begins to accumulate. Fusion to form elements heavier than iron takes in energy rather than releasing it. Eventually gravity wins and the star may collapse and explode during which heavier elements can form. These will eventually get incorporated into the matter condensing to form new stars. The heavy elements are not necessary for stars to form. It is the lightest. The heavy ones just happen to be there because they are caught up in the debris.

[Bust Nak]

Documentation please!!
I know of no one that says this.

No one? How are you not ware of what is happening within stars? Stars produces radiation, and radiation, you know, radiates. What happens when radiation leaves a body, it takes energy away. You don't need to know any cosmology for this.

Where do you think that heavier elements than Li came from?

Nuclear fusion.

And stars today at least need heavier elements to form.

We are finally getting somewhere with this acknowledgment of "at least," how exactly does that mean the first stars need heavier elements to form?

While we are here, what you said here still isn't quite right. It's not that stars today need heavier elements to form. Instead, for stars to form at the rate and density that we see them today requires heavier elements.

There are some theories out now that say that population III stars don't need supernova's but use dark mater instead but they still need moleculary hydrogen to form to cool the gas cloud.

Right, and what do we have an abundance of, in the early universe without any supernovas? Hydrogen.

This is sighted in many place along this string.

If you knew this, why did you insist that supernovas are for stars to form?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

The early universe was predominantly hydrogen.
As gravity caused the hydrogen to coalesce into massive bodies, gravitational potential energy was converted into kinetic energy and the body heated up.
At higher temperatures molecular hydrogen dissociates into atomic hydrogen. At very high temperatures it exists as a plasma of protons and electrons.
When the mass becomes large enough the core temperature can exceed a million degrees.
At such temperatures the protons have enough kinetic energy to overcome electrostatic repulsion and get close enough for the nuclear force to kick in resulting in nuclear fusion.
A tiny portion of the mass of the protons is converted into a huge amount of energy and released explosively as heat. A star is born. It doesn't explode because the outward force of the production of energy is balanced by the incredible force of gravity pulling inwards.
As hydrogen is used up, the products of fusion such as helium may undergo fusion as the temperature in the core increases. This process continues until the element iron begins to accumulate. Fusion to form elements heavier than iron takes in energy rather than releasing it. Eventually gravity wins and the star may collapse and explode during which heavier elements can form. These will eventually get incorporated into the matter condensing to form new stars. The heavy elements are not necessary for stars to form. It is the lightest. The heavy ones just happen to be there because they are caught up in the debris.

Holy Anthropic God, Robin, I do not believe these people have ever heard of the gas laws, which explains how gases expand when heated and over comes the gravitational force.

What should we do Batman send them back to school?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 88 by EarthScienceguy]

I do not believe these people have ever heard of the gas laws, which explains how gases expand when heated and over comes the gravitational force.

What (underline mine)? When the temperature of a gas rises the thermal velocity of the gas molecules increases, which can increase the pressure in a closed volume, or cause the gas to expand in an open system. But this increase in thermal velocity does not overcome gravitational force. The molecules don't lose inertial mass and become less subject to gravitational force just because their thermal velocity increases (in fact, if the velocity were to get high enough the inertial mass would actually increase per ToR).

So heating a gas does not "over come the gravitation force", and stars do exist with extremely hot gases throughout their volume because gravity holds them together against the forces trying to blow them apart (nuclear reactions in the core, ionic repulsion, etc.). Either you are trying to apply the simple ideal gas law where it does not apply, or just don't understand anything about the kinetic theory of gases.

[Diagoras]

Either you are trying to apply the simple ideal gas law where it does not apply, or just don't understand anything about the kinetic theory of gases.

<bolding mine>

Isn’t that false equivalence though? No evidence offered to disprove the claim that he’s made both mistakes...