PDA

View Full Version : Can Asteroids clump together ?



Adamsavage
2012-Jan-15, 08:30 PM
I'm just wondering do Asteroids clump together ? It's my understanding, that two moving objects would smash into each other rather then form as one. I've read about how it was thought that did in the past, however I can't seem to find anything about if they still are or what's going on. We have this huge Asteroid Belt out there, and they all seem to be moving independently of each other and with there own speeds.

StupendousMan
2012-Jan-15, 08:52 PM
Typical asteroids will move past each other at speeds which are
considerably larger than the speed it takes for material to
escape from their surfaces. That means that if two asteroids
do collide, (most of) the debris is more likely to fly off into space than
to stick together in one big lump.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-15, 09:18 PM
The thing about the asteroid belt is that it is very empty. The
asteroids are so far apart from one another that very few of
them have velocities that match closely enough for them to
stick together when they do happen to collide.

Large asteroids hold together mainly by gravity; very small
asteroids hold together mainly by electrostatic forces. I'm
not sure what happens in between those two ranges.

There is no strong tendency for the asteroids to either come
together in one clump or be ground to dust and be dispersed,
but as long as there are collisions, both will happen very slowly.

Individual dust particles should spiral in toward the Sun due
to the Poynting-Robertson effect, then be vaporized by the
Sun's heat when they get close, and blown out of the Solar
System by the solar wind. So the asteroid belt should be
very, very slowly losing mass.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

transreality
2012-Jan-15, 10:23 PM
In the early solar system, though, asteroids would have been much more adundant, especially in the inner system, as well as likely to be much warmer.

astromark
2012-Jan-15, 10:39 PM
The action of gravity force would draw objects of similar velocity and trajectory together..

It has been observed that SOME asteroids are lumps of scree..rubble. Which I think addresses your question.. Yes.

slang
2012-Jan-15, 11:07 PM
I'm just wondering do Asteroids clump together ? It's my understanding, that two moving objects would smash into each other rather then form as one. I've read about how it was thought that did in the past, however I can't seem to find anything about if they still are or what's going on. We have this huge Asteroid Belt out there, and they all seem to be moving independently of each other and with there own speeds.

Take a look at 25143 Itekawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25143_Itokawa), the asteroid visited by the ill-fated but ultimately succesfull Hayabusa mission.


The Hayabusa mission [...] suggested that Itokawa may be a contact binary formed by two or more smaller asteroids that have gravitated toward each other and stuck together.

The blurb doesn't mention when this was supposed to have happened, you'd probably have to dive into proper papers to find studies on it. Try ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html).

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-15, 11:11 PM
Well that is certainly interesting. It does indeed look like a rubble pile as explained in the pic. It would be even more interesting, to be lucky enough to witness such an event such as a merging.

Danny252
2012-Jan-17, 05:49 PM
Firstly, it's important to get any Star-Wars style asteroid belt images out of your head - the 'roid belt is nothing like that densely populated. A quick back of the envelope calculation implies the average distance between asteroids is of the order of the distance between the earth and the moon!

However, the leading model of planet (or moon or asteroid or...) formation is based on accretion - the sticking together and colliding of dust grains and rocks. This goes all the way up to the Earth/Moon system being formed out of a collision of two bodies (the Earth won and got more of the material in the end), and eventually once you stick enough asteroids on, you start collecting gas/ices too (the Earth is too small to keep H and He - the gas giants, on the other hand, are large enough to hold on to it).

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-18, 12:36 AM
I'm just wondering do Asteroids clump together ? It's my understanding, that two moving objects would smash into each other rather then form as one. I've read about how it was thought that did in the past, however I can't seem to find anything about if they still are or what's going on. We have this huge Asteroid Belt out there, and they all seem to be moving independently of each other and with there own speeds.

Are you wondering how the rocky planets formed?

Think of it this way. The debris field was much more dense. This has 2 major effects
1) More collisions would have been at a slower relative speed
2) More collisions would have been at a faster speed.

Essentially many more collisions.

The slower speed collisions would allow 2 bodies to remain gravitationally bound instead of acting like billiard balls ricocheting off each other. The higher speed collisions happening more often would tend to heat up the bodies from impacts. As these bodies heat up it become less and less likely that an impact will cause the to objects to bounce off each other but rather stick together. The new larger object has more mass and thus more gravity which also reduces the likely hood of the 2 objects just bouncing off each other.

Now with the asteroid belt what is there has so little mass for the amount of area that it is in that it isn't funny so your impacts are very infrequent meaning that the asteroids won't ever get up to a temperature where it is more like hitting a ball of dough rather then a ball of iron. The orbits and relative speeds are probably going to be more different and thus soft collisions where gravity can kind of win over the 2 objects trying to bounce away from each other. While the belt is very big the amount of stuff in the belt is relatively small.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-18, 12:53 AM
Wayne,

Very, very few collisions would ever be like billiard balls bouncing
off one another, and only very slow collisions of very low-mass
bodies would allow that. Any fast collision and any collision of
large bodies would be much more like an explosion than like a
bounce. Part or all of both bodies would be pulverized. At high
speeds, part of both bodies would be vaporized. That's how they
get hot. But it is also why they should cool off very quickly. The
dust and vapor should carry off or radiate the heat so rapidly that
what remains of the asteroids should never get very hot unless
the rubble is unable to escape due to the asteroid's gravity.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-18, 12:57 AM
That could explain how they grew in size, but I can't understand how it would explain there orbits, how some spin backwards, or are tilted on there side. You have Jupiter, it's about (roughly) as far away from mars as Earth is to mercury. Saturn from Jupiter is roughly the same as Jupiter to Venus. Then you have Pluto the dwarf planet which is on this wild orbit around the sun, completely different then any of the other planets.

Chew
2012-Jan-18, 01:16 AM
That could explain how they grew in size, but I can't understand how it would explain there orbits, how some spin backwards, or are tilted on there side. You have Jupiter, it's about (roughly) as far away from mars as Earth is to mercury. Saturn from Jupiter is roughly the same as Jupiter to Venus. Then you have Pluto the dwarf planet which is on this wild orbit around the sun, completely different then any of the other planets.

This simulator will give you a better understanding of multiple body orbital dynamics: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

From the "Select Preset" drop-down menu select "Sun, planet, comet". You can speed up or slow down the simulation with the slider on the bottom right. You can manually change the masses of the objects. You can click and drag starting locations and velocity vectors. Keep in mind this is only a 2-D simulator. In 3-D things can get even more funkier.

slang
2012-Jan-18, 01:37 AM
Firstly

Speaking of firstlies, welcome to BAUT, Danny252!

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-18, 06:33 AM
Well that was an interesting model. I can see how in the perfect conditions they can merge as one. Go to fast, hit slightly off and it smashes into small pieces. I think I will just acept the information presented to me, as the more I ask the more questions it makes me wonder even more. So I think I will just leave it at that.

Chew
2012-Jan-18, 06:50 AM
as the more I ask the more questions it makes me wonder even more.


That's a good thing.

What other questions do you have?

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-18, 07:49 PM
That's a good thing.

What other questions do you have?

No it's not, because it's starting to conflict with my own personal belief's. Those which don't exactly fail into "Main Stream Science" as it's put here.

astromark
2012-Jan-18, 08:25 PM
To help understand the orbital behaviour of objects in this solar system it helps me to remember that

Four and a half Billion Years ago the Sun and its planetary disk were very different than found today.

Chaotic and busy. With objects in collusion and collision as random trajectories intersected..

It was complicated. That over the ensuing millions of years a cleaning out of debris has happened.

That its complicated and difficult to imagine is understood.. but real.

Chew
2012-Jan-18, 08:31 PM
No it's not, because it's starting to conflict with my own personal belief's.

That's a good thing, too!

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-18, 08:37 PM
That's a good thing, too!

Is it a good thing that what I believe in personally, basically flys in the face of Modern Science ? I can ask more questions, I just don't want to get anyone upset when I do. So instead of beating around the bush about it, I believe in the combination of Creation and Modern Science. I don't believe everything in Creation Science, nor do I at the same time believe in everything of Main Stream Science. I'm also trying to ask my questions in a way, that I don't force my beliefs on to anyone here..

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-19, 12:07 AM
Everyone starts out ignorant of everything. Everyone gets
mistaken ideas. (Without knowing that they are mistaken,
naturally!) And everyone asks questions when they find
out that not everyone believes what they believe.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

slang
2012-Jan-19, 12:19 AM
Is it a good thing that what I believe in personally, basically flys in the face of Modern Science ?

Umm... no comment. :) Nah, I think Chew meant that there are many creationist disbeliefs in scientific theories that are based on misunderstanding. Asking more questions, aimed to help in understanding the scientific view, is thus usually a good thing. Maybe always, even.


I'm also trying to ask my questions in a way, that I don't force my beliefs on to anyone here..

And so far you're doing that well, IMHO. Keep it up.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 02:12 AM
Going to take alot more then before I would even consider doubting my belief's. For the Asteroids, if they where always growing in size, then what stopped this growth. Why did some planets sit in the orbits they have now. I would assume if everything was purely random and chance, then so would the orbits of the planets. Also, if the moon was 167,200 km to us then it is now, what sort of impact would that have on the planet. I got that number on the thought that the moon is 4.4 Billion years old and the distance it moves away from us. It's also mentioned it being closer would also cause to move away from us faster as well.

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 02:36 AM
No it's not, because it's starting to conflict with my own personal belief's. Those which don't exactly fail into "Main Stream Science" as it's put here.

So you have your "own personal belief's" which "don't fall into main stream science" but the answers here are, which should all be main stream answers, are making you question your own personal belief's?

How is that bad. Let me put that into more simple terms

"I've got some beliefs that facts are making me question."

That sounds like a good thing to me because if you have beliefs that can be refuted with facts then your beliefs are most likely wrong or you are making connections to philosophical beliefs from hard science that don't need to be made.

IE. A 14.75 billion year old universe that came about by a process like the big bang does not support or discount any "God" or "Gods"

glappkaeft
2012-Jan-19, 02:45 AM
Going to take alot more then before I would even consider doubting my belief's. For the Asteroids, if they where always growing in size, then what stopped this growth.

They ran out of stuff to collide with.


Why did some planets sit in the orbits they have now. I would assume if everything was purely random and chance, then so would the orbits of the planets.

Everything wasn't completley random, everything originally condensed out of the co-rotating solar nebula. There was also significant shifting of the orbits.


Also, if the moon was 167,200 km to us then it is now, what sort of impact would that have on the planet. I got that number on the thought that the moon is 4.4 Billion years old and the distance it moves away from us. It's also mentioned it being closer would also cause to move away from us faster as well.

Tides forces and tides was higher.

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 02:47 AM
Is it a good thing that what I believe in personally, basically flys in the face of Modern Science ? I can ask more questions, I just don't want to get anyone upset when I do. So instead of beating around the bush about it, I believe in the combination of Creation and Modern Science. I don't believe everything in Creation Science, nor do I at the same time believe in everything of Main Stream Science. I'm also trying to ask my questions in a way, that I don't force my beliefs on to anyone here..

Well ask questions. But when faced with a conflict of facts and theories, scientific definition of theory not the common usage of theory, and your current beliefs you are willing to change your mind what is the problem? Main stream science does this all the time. All, or most, of the evidence supports a theory and scientists believe that theory because it makes useful and accurate prediction. New theory comes along that better fits observations. Main stream science changes.

What is a problem is when anyone, religious or not, believes in something that goes against the observation and refuses to change their minds no matter what evidence and how much of it is shown to them.

I don't know what form of "creation" you believe in and it doesn't matter really. You ask a question. We give you the mainstream answer and hopefully some "why" behind that answer. If you change your view then you are participating in science and the scientific method. If you refuse to change your view point despite any information put forth to you then you are not only not being scientific you are being illogical and probably using some bad philosophy too because even philosophy won't have you denying reality except in the oddest corners of philosophy. And if that is the case you really don't want to engage in science but probably only want to cherry pick the science to match your preconceived world view.

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-19, 03:07 AM
For the Asteroids, if they where always growing in size,
then what stopped this growth.
No more raw material. The Solar System started out as a
slowly-cooling cloud of gas and dust. As it cooled, it slowly
shrank. As it shrank, it became more dense, so collisions
of particles became more frequent. When the collisions
became frequent enough, the densest part rather suddenly
collapsed into a disk. The disk was much more dense than
the cloud, so all the particles were colliding constantly.

Particles which had similar velocities quickly ended up
moving together. That's part of why they collapsed into a
disk, rather than some other configuration. They were in
circular orbits around the center of mass.

So particles close to one another were moving slowly
relative to each other. And could easily stick together
and form planetesimals, or early asteroids. When many
planetesimals stuck together they had enough gravity
to clear their orbit of gas and dust and other planetesimals.

What we have now are a few large planets which grew
from the planetesimals which stuck together and gathered
more dust and gas from the rest of the disk, clearing out
the rest of the disk, and a few planetesimals left over
which never collided with a planet. The gas and dust is
long gone, so the asteroids haven't been able to grow any
larger in a long, long time, except for very rare low-speed
collisions in which two asteroids in similar orbits stick
together.



Why did some planets sit in the orbits they have now.
I would assume if everything was purely random and
chance, then so would the orbits of the planets.
The orbits are random and chance. But they are nearly
circular because the gas and dust they formed from
was constrained by the frequent collisions into circular
orbits. And they are spaced apart from one another
because planets that were not spaced apart from one
another either collided and became one planet, or the
smaller body got thrown out of the Solar System by a
very large planet such as Jupiter or Neptune.



Also, if the moon was 167,200 km to us then it is now,
what sort of impact would that have on the planet. I got
that number on the thought that the moon is 4.4 Billion
years old and the distance it moves away from us. It's
also mentioned it being closer would also cause to
move away from us faster as well.
I'm not going to try to answer the main question here,
but the rate of the Moon's recession from Earth has
almost certainly varied a lot over time-- sometimes
faster than it is currently and sometimes slower.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 03:08 AM
Going to take alot more then before I would even consider doubting my belief's. For the Asteroids, if they where always growing in size, then what stopped this growth. Why did some planets sit in the orbits they have now. I would assume if everything was purely random and chance, then so would the orbits of the planets. Also, if the moon was 167,200 km to us then it is now, what sort of impact would that have on the planet. I got that number on the thought that the moon is 4.4 Billion years old and the distance it moves away from us. It's also mentioned it being closer would also cause to move away from us faster as well.

Ok, let us deal with the "purely random and chance" first
What happens in the universe isn't drive by randomness and chance. The universe, and everything in it, obey "Laws" even if we humans don't understand all those "Laws" yet. For example the solar system when it formed wasn't just particles randomly going in every direction at all different types of speeds. Gravity and things like fluid dynamics dictate how a huge gas cloud will condense. Very simply a cloud of gas that starts to collapse gravitationally will end up as a swirling disk of material. The orientation of the disk being determined by the predominate motion of the particles in the collapsing cloud. This disk then will start to condense not only into the central star but maybe even planets further out.

What "stops" the growth of planets and asteroids? Well "stop" is probably not the best word. Slow down or even better "alter the rate of change" is caused by the amount of material available. Take the Earth. It formed and cleared out a big swath of space of material. By "clearing out" I mostly mean "collected up". So percentage wise there is a lot less material out there for the Earth to collect now so, again, percentage wise the Earth doesn't grow very much.

The Moon was much closer in the past. Because of this the Earth's crust stayed VERY hot for a while because just like the ocean tides The Moon caused the ground to swell up like a big wave. This friction kept the crust in a liquid state for longer then it would have been otherwise. This had an add on effect that the way the "tide" works with the moon, regardless if it is water or magma involved, is that as the Earth turns under The Moon the tied is pulled forward away from the moon. This causes the gravitational centre point to be in front of The Moon's current position in its orbit...kind of pulling The Moon making it orbit faster. Faster orbit = higher orbit. Ie the faster something travels the higher the orbit. Might sound counter intuitive but it is the way the maths works out. The Moon doesn't get this orbital boost for free. In the process of The Moon getting faster the rotation speed of the Earth slows down. On the early Earth the day was MUCH shorter but as the years went by the days became longer and that energy was transferred to The Moon's orbital speed until one day the Earth and The Moon will be tidally locked. IE The Moon will appear to hover over 1 point of the Earth. In actuality the sun will grow to a red giant before that point and may engulf the Earth/The Moon system.

Jeff's explanation while I was typing this is a very good one for the first part of your question.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 03:52 AM
I can definitely make sense of the Moons high orbit, I remember watching a video about Astronauts explaining how catch up with an object ahead of him, but also in a lower orbit. He mentioned the first thing he did was speed, however this only pushed up into a higher orbit. It wasn't until he slowed down that he eventually caught up with the object/person in orbit. I can't remember it perfectly but that's roughly what they said.

Usher
2012-Jan-19, 03:53 AM
Well ask questions. But when faced with a conflict of facts and theories, scientific definition of theory not the common usage of theory, and your current beliefs you are willing to change your mind what is the problem? Main stream science does this all the time. All, or most, of the evidence supports a theory and scientists believe that theory because it makes useful and accurate prediction. New theory comes along that better fits observations. Main stream science changes.

What is a problem is when anyone, religious or not, believes in something that goes against the observation and refuses to change their minds no matter what evidence and how much of it is shown to them.

I don't know what form of "creation" you believe in and it doesn't matter really. You ask a question. We give you the mainstream answer and hopefully some "why" behind that answer. If you change your view then you are participating in science and the scientific method. If you refuse to change your view point despite any information put forth to you then you are not only not being scientific you are being illogical and probably using some bad philosophy too because even philosophy won't have you denying reality except in the oddest corners of philosophy. And if that is the case you really don't want to engage in science but probably only want to cherry pick the science to match your preconceived world view.

I would qualify this approach. IMO, science should be a tool, not a master. For example, I choose to believe that all humans are "created equal," but that has less to do with creationism and more about holding to a particular principle of human value. This is independent of any scientific basis for this belief. Indeed, one claim for intellectual inferiority of a certain human population was made by Nobel-prize winner James Watson in 2007. One did not need to check the veracity or quality of the evidence for this claim before rejecting it because ethics and humanist principle demand the dignity of equal treatment for all people. My point is that we as humans should never become arrogant about our science. It is not equipped to guide every aspect of human behavior.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 05:02 AM
Per my comment earlier, I ask because I believe there some things that I don't know enough about yet to make a solid choice on where I stand. Another is some things can be understood without the need to bring a Creator or the evolution theory. Example of the moon being high in it's orbit, other moons going around there planet backwards could also be larger asteroids that could of came to close to the planet. Then perhaps overtime, they attracted much smaller objects and grew in size.

neilzero
2012-Jan-19, 05:16 AM
I'll guess it is like vehicles colliding at high speed on the interstate. Typically both vehicles get a new trajectory with a few very small parts going in still different trajectories. On very rare occasions, the vehicle merge, except for a few small parts. A gravel pile asteroid may be disapated widely by a colision, but likely most have enough adhesion and cohesion that the bulk of the mass just changes direction and speed slightly. Glancing hits will out number firm impacts when they are near the same size. Neil

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 06:03 AM
I would qualify this approach. IMO, science should be a tool, not a master. For example, I choose to believe that all humans are "created equal," but that has less to do with creationism and more about holding to a particular principle of human value. This is independent of any scientific basis for this belief. Indeed, one claim for intellectual inferiority of a certain human population was made by Nobel-prize winner James Watson in 2007. One did not need to check the veracity or quality of the evidence for this claim before rejecting it because ethics and humanist principle demand the dignity of equal treatment for all people. My point is that we as humans should never become arrogant about our science. It is not equipped to guide every aspect of human behavior.

Agreed but don't mistake what science says and what we base our morals on. IE statistically speaking women are better communicators then men. Men are generally better at spatial reasoning then women. Women are generally better multitasking then men. Men are generally physically stronger then women. Eskimos are better physically adapted to deal with colder temperature then Kenyians, Kenyians are more physically adapted to running long distances then Eskimos.

Does this mean an Eskimo can't become a world class marathon runner? Does this a man can't multi-task? Does this mean a woman can't be stronger then a man? No. Note science can tell you if you are predisposed to heart disease. What you do with your life can effect that too. Science can help guide you there. But no where do I put one person above another as a human. But for a race between an average Eskimo and an average Kenyan for 26.2miles/42.195km I'll bet on the Kenyan if I don't have any other information besides the ethnicity of the 2 runners. Tell me that the race is in -20 below zero conditions I'll swap my bet over to the Eskimo.

Neither says who is a better human. Science can guide moral decisions too. The science on other primates in the past 50 years has shown us that the other great apes are a lot more sophisticated then we used to think. This is one of the bigger arguments against using great apes in medical experiments. Science guiding our moral choices. Some times it is not politicly correct to mention differences in different demographic subjects but it doesn't mean there are no differences and I for one don't think we should be basing moral decisions on generalities of some demographic of a population. Sure don't give John a job to review engineering specifications if he's average at maths but this is different then not giving Sue the same job because, in general, males do better at maths then men, for what ever reason that currently is, because Sue can easily be better at maths then anyone you know.

One day, very soon, we will probably find ourselves turning to science to help make some moral decisions which is better then just arbitrary selecting what is right and what is wrong. For example with population. If population growth continues to rise you might see many countries put into place some type of population control and this might mix in some eugenics. I'd hate to see governments say 2 people can't have a child but I'm not against a government that say all families must limit themselves to 2 children.

So again science can guide many "moral" choices.

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 06:09 AM
Per my comment earlier, I ask because I believe there some things that I don't know enough about yet to make a solid choice on where I stand. Another is some things can be understood without the need to bring a Creator or the evolution theory. Example of the moon being high in it's orbit, other moons going around there planet backwards could also be larger asteroids that could of came to close to the planet. Then perhaps overtime, they attracted much smaller objects and grew in size.

Note that the fact of evolution and the modern theory of evolution say nothing about is there a "God" or "Gods". The modern theory of evolution may be contradictory to some religious interpretations but just like a 14.75 billion year old universe or even a 4.5 billion year old Earth contradicts "Young Earth Creationists" claims that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. The science based on the data we have says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14.75 billion years old. When religion wants to step into the realm of scientifically verifiable claims then they open them selves up to having those "scientific" claims falsified.

Here on BAUT we can cover the physics and the astronomy claims and you'll find that this is probably the best, friendliest, science type forum to learn about the main stream science if you do have a back ground where bad science may have been taught to you in the name of religion. Unfortunately you'll probably won't find any boards like this on topics like biology. The forum here is well moderated to remove any religion slamming here because at the end of the day the physics stands on its own is agnostic on the topic of religion. Well until you get to "Where did the universe first come from" then there are lots of philosophical answers and non of them really conclusive at this point and that isn't physics really ... it is philosophy.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 07:25 AM
Note that the fact of evolution and the modern theory of evolution say nothing about is there a "God" or "Gods". The modern theory of evolution may be contradictory to some religious interpretations but just like a 14.75 billion year old universe or even a 4.5 billion year old Earth contradicts "Young Earth Creationists" claims that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. The science based on the data we have says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14.75 billion years old. When religion wants to step into the realm of scientifically verifiable claims then they open them selves up to having those "scientific" claims falsified.

Here on BAUT we can cover the physics and the astronomy claims and you'll find that this is probably the best, friendliest, science type forum to learn about the main stream science if you do have a back ground where bad science may have been taught to you in the name of religion. Unfortunately you'll probably won't find any boards like this on topics like biology. The forum here is well moderated to remove any religion slamming here because at the end of the day the physics stands on its own is agnostic on the topic of religion. Well until you get to "Where did the universe first come from" then there are lots of philosophical answers and non of them really conclusive at this point and that isn't physics really ... it is philosophy.

This is why I didn't want to push my own beliefs to much, and it's also why I'm stopping right here. Any questions I have from this point on, will be strictly me wondering for the sake of wondering. It will not be any attempt to connect either to each other. It's becoming loud and clear that even suggesting a creator vs evolution is taboo or will turn into thread lock/deletion. It reminds me as well of the comment my Brother so nicely said. He pretty much said anyone that didn't believe in Evolution was stupid/slow/would fall behind mentally. Example of my just wanting to know questions, is my thread about Jupiter.

WayneFrancis
2012-Jan-19, 01:02 PM
This is why I didn't want to push my own beliefs to much, and it's also why I'm stopping right here. Any questions I have from this point on, will be strictly me wondering for the sake of wondering. It will not be any attempt to connect either to each other. It's becoming loud and clear that even suggesting a creator vs evolution is taboo or will turn into thread lock/deletion. It reminds me as well of the comment my Brother so nicely said. He pretty much said anyone that didn't believe in Evolution was stupid/slow/would fall behind mentally. Example of my just wanting to know questions, is my thread about Jupiter.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Agnostic does not mean either "God(s)" or no "God(s)". It means that the science is independent of any religious or lack of religious beliefs. The theories presented here are the main stream answers. Someone not understanding the science isn't stupid. It is ignorance and that isn't meant as a derogatory term just stating a lack of knowledge.

I'm going to take a claim that has been made in the past and show why the science discount that individual claim. The claim being that there were no rainbows before a global flood. The problem with this is that means there was no light refraction before the claimed flood. But if that was the case then no ones eye would have worked and everyone would have been blind. Some animal with different types of light sensing organs would be able to see but most animals would not.

That is a very specific claim made and there have been some apologetics put forth to try to explain this but at the end of the day they are very complex and are more of an attempt to fool those who do not fully understand the science then actually address the issue.

When we have to resort to "God did it" then you are outside the realm of science and those questions are not for a science board. Science by in large will say, when we don't know something, "we don't know" because if you go to "God did it" you are throwing your hands up and saying it isn't science. There are clear things that science doesn't deal with. Things of morality for example. Some people think it is not moral to eat meat. Science can say we've evolved as omnivores and point to our teeth and digestive system and our ancestors to show that we have eaten meat for a long time. Does this mean that the vegetarians are wrong? No science doesn't deal with good and evil. We, as a society, can look at it and decide, despite our past, if killing animals for food is moral.

Now if someone comes in here and asks how old the universe is and argues with people here that it can't be 14.75 billion years old because their "religion" says that the universe was created with a history last Thursday then they should be prepared to hear the main stream answer and if they want they can take the philosophical question of could the universe been created last Thursday with a history already in place and what it means to some other site because they are dealing with something that isn't science.

Again the physics and astronomy presented here doesn't care if you or anyone else is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Gnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina, Shinto, Tao, Pagan, Inuit, Mayan, Olmec, Moai, Wicca, Satanic, Scientologist, Agnostic, Atheist or any other religious belief/non belief.

So feel free to keep asking your science based questions but if you find your self asking a question wanting an answer of "God(s) did it" then and only then you would be in the wrong place.

Strange
2012-Jan-19, 03:07 PM
Note that the fact of evolution and the modern theory of evolution say nothing about is there a "God" or "Gods".

I don't want to risk taking this very interesting and useful discussion of planet formation further off track, but this is a really important point. Especially when we have someone like Adam who appears to be open to the idea of adjusting his beliefs to fit with the facts. (And kudos for that.)

There are plenty of "real" biologists (who therefore accept evolution, etc) who are also religious, whether Christian, Moslem, Jewish, whatever.

Similarly, there are plenty of cosmologists/astronomers who fully accpet mainstream physics and cosmology and are also religious.

There is only a conflict when people choose to create one by insisting on a particular interpretation which contradicts reality.

And now back to our regularly scheduled asteroid collisions...

ETA: just read the rest of Wayne's post and see he makes pretty much the same point. Ho hum.

slang
2012-Jan-19, 03:23 PM
This is why I didn't want to push my own beliefs to much, and it's also why I'm stopping right here.

Yeah, sorry to see the thread continuing in that direction instead of just answering questions. It started out so well :) Questions like those about the asteroids, and about random/not random solar system are really good questions, no matter what the motivation for asking them might be.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 07:42 PM
Ok I have to get this out of my head.. I have a pretty wild theory that could bring bother Creation and Modern Science into the equation.

Ok So it's mentioned how the Earth was formless and Empty and that the spirit of God was hovering over the Waters. This is a key factor that 99.9% miss.

1. The earth is already formed

2. It has water

3. There is a heat source in order for the water to remain in liquid form.

4. There is also must be gravity in some shape or form other wise there would be no "surface".

So you have to ask yourself this, if there was already water on day 1, then where did it come from and how long has it been there for ? Then we move forward and it talks about how there is night and day for 7 days and how he created the sun and stuff later on. This confused me to no end for years, and I was always trying to make sense of this.. If the sun and what not did not get created until later on, then how is it possible for there to be a night and day ? I eventually came up with the idea with the help of a friend that there is a explanation for this. This was written from the point of view from the person who wrote the book, the night and day we see could of been night and day for him. Another explanation that explains possibly how the water was still in liquid form is that the Sun, Stars and moon where already there. Yes it says it was created later on, but this also coming from the point of view from the person that wrote the book. I think there could of been some sort of cloud cover or something blocking out the light from these sources. Thus this would make it seem like there not present.

The conclusion is that, sometimes it can be possible to combine both creation and Modern Science.

Thoughts ?

astromark
2012-Jan-19, 08:16 PM
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Agnostic does not mean either "God(s)" or no "God(s)". It means that the science is independent of any religious or lack of religious beliefs. The theories presented here are the main stream answers. Someone not understanding the science isn't stupid. It is ignorance and that isn't meant as a derogatory term just stating a lack of knowledge.

I'm going to take a claim that has been made in the past and show why the science discount that individual claim. The claim being that there were no rainbows before a global flood. The problem with this is that means there was no light refraction before the claimed flood. But if that was the case then no ones eye would have worked and everyone would have been blind. Some animal with different types of light sensing organs would be able to see but most animals would not.

That is a very specific claim made and there have been some apologetics put forth to try to explain this but at the end of the day they are very complex and are more of an attempt to fool those who do not fully understand the science then actually address the issue.

When we have to resort to "God did it" then you are outside the realm of science and those questions are not for a science board. Science by in large will say, when we don't know something, "we don't know" because if you go to "God did it" you are throwing your hands up and saying it isn't science. There are clear things that science doesn't deal with. Things of morality for example. Some people think it is not moral to eat meat. Science can say we've evolved as omnivores and point to our teeth and digestive system and our ancestors to show that we have eaten meat for a long time. Does this mean that the vegetarians are wrong? No science doesn't deal with good and evil. We, as a society, can look at it and decide, despite our past, if killing animals for food is moral.

Now if someone comes in here and asks how old the universe is and argues with people here that it can't be 14.75 billion years old because their "religion" says that the universe was created with a history last Thursday then they should be prepared to hear the main stream answer and if they want they can take the philosophical question of could the universe been created last Thursday with a history already in place and what it means to some other site because they are dealing with something that isn't science.

Again the physics and astronomy presented here doesn't care if you or anyone else is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Gnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina, Shinto, Tao, Pagan, Inuit, Mayan, Olmec, Moai, Wicca, Satanic, Scientologist, Agnostic, Atheist or any other religious belief/non belief.

So feel free to keep asking your science based questions but if you find your self asking a question wanting an answer of "God(s) did it" then and only then you would be in the wrong place.

... ' Very well said..' and it will not be understood. Is a given..

... ' and to 'Adamsavage' I can only suggest that all reference to things biblical are not relevant to this conversation.

That the purest science view is that a explanation of creation was never to be so finely critiqued..

that you go on to question and doubt is understandable.. 'We do not need to agree'...

It was only ever a broad overview for the consumption of the undereducated masses... of the dark ages..

That science and astronomy can and does understand orbital mechanics

in such detail as to make planetary disks and asteroid motion and formation largely understood..

The motions of asteroids and the gravity force that govern such are not any mystery to us..

Take your religious faith out of this conversation.. that is yours to cherish and hold.. is faith based.

This and these pages are 'science and astronomy'.. a real separation is required..

To protect your and all from getting into a dispute that a amicable solution is not so easily found..

I can speak reams on this but the rules of this forum are clear.. We avoid this .. Mark.

Strange
2012-Jan-19, 08:36 PM
Ok I have to get this out of my head.. I have a pretty wild theory that could bring bother Creation and Modern Science into the equation.

None of your attempts at rationalizing this make any physical sense. The other alternative is that it is an old creation myth. This is, I believe, the "mainstream" Christian interpretation. But we are getting into waters that are not really within the scope of BAUT. Lets stick to what is observed, measured, confirmed.

Adamsavage
2012-Jan-19, 08:59 PM
I'm done, I've tried and I don't have the patience to post anymore. I'm going to ask that my post/threads removed to remove all traces of my account from here.

PetersCreek
2012-Jan-19, 10:38 PM
Adamsavage,

Redacting your posts as you have done, is a serious violation of our rules. If you do not wish to participate further, don't and this thread will eventually scroll down the page into obscurity. However, we do not remove threads at members' request and we do not "remove all traces" of their accounts.