PDA

View Full Version : Star Formation



derick
2006-Jun-12, 11:39 AM
Good day friends.

First I would like to congratulate Universe Today with their new Website!!! It looks very good. Easier navigateable (sp).

I would like to know if anybody can direct me to a site or explain to me what the evidence is for Star formation. Also regarding the Redshift Theory, what indicates that light will have the same properties than sound, to be more compressed the closer you move?

The reason for these questions is Creation Science, I read some articles about the Topic and found some interesting theories. I would like to sift through the proposed evidence for facts.

Please help if at all possible.

Regards,

Derick van Zyl.

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-12, 12:01 PM
Redshift has been prove by theoretical and practial application, you can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Star formation is a theory pieced together from observational and theoretical evidence until the theory fits the observed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

derick
2006-Jun-12, 12:54 PM
Has this ever been observed since the explanations only refer to theories?

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-12, 01:17 PM
I presume you mean the star formation ?, it has been observed to some extent, the problem is your trying to track changes in something that occurs over several thousands to tens of millions of years, so that it can only ever be frames of time in the evolution interspaced with theory.

Many of the main key points on the evolutionary track have been observed either directly or indirectly with the various theories linking them .

Young stars in the process of forming have been observed many times,here for example:
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/sform.html

For more information on young stars, have a search for 'T-Tauri '

derick
2006-Jun-12, 01:28 PM
Thanks, needed to copy the passage for a bit of study...lol. But thanks. There is one more thing I would like toget more clarity on... How do they determine if a nebulosity is around a star or in front of the star?

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-12, 01:35 PM
You can determine a nebulas location by observing the star, if the nebula is in front of it you will emission lines where the light from the star has been been absorbed and re-emitted by the nebula as well as absorption lines where energy has been absorbed and not fully re-emitted along the line of sight.

derick
2006-Jun-12, 01:43 PM
You have been most helpful, thank you.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jun-12, 03:06 PM
Has this ever been observed since the explanations only refer to theories?
The theories have predicted things you would expect to see in subsequent observations, these have been found to fit the predictions.

derick
2006-Jun-13, 06:49 AM
I understand but most of it is still theoretical.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jun-13, 02:19 PM
I understand but most of it is still theoretical.
So what? Everything is "theoretical". The whole process of star formation cannot ever be observed, in practice or even in principle. Either you are willing to accept that science works, or you are not. If you are, then star formation can only be considered a scientifcally proven fact, no way around that. For starters, see my webpage: Hertzsprung Russell Diagram And Stellar Evolution (http://www.tim-thompson.com/hr.html), and the links at the bottom of the page (I haven't checked the links myself lately, if you find any bad ones, let me know).


The reason for these questions is Creation Science, I read some articles about the Topic and found some interesting theories. I would like to sift through the proposed evidence for facts.
The "proposed evidence" is itself the "facts" that you are looking for, and there are tens of thousands of pages of it for you to spend the rest of your life "sifting" through. A theory is essentially a story told to make sense out of the facts in evidence. Science recognizes a large collection of "laws of nature" (themselves sometimes the subject of debate), and we insist that all of the stories we call "theories" must be consistent with all of the "laws" and all of the "facts" in evidence. It is often the case that this can't be, and there is commonly one or a few inconsistencies. The more inconsistencies, the less likely it is that anyone will have much respect for the theory. Too many inconsistencies, and we just throw it out.

The theory of star formation is sufficiently consistent with the facts in evidence to be well respected and widely accepted.

Creation "science" is not in fact "science" at all, as creation "scientists" do not respect the fundamental principles of an honest investigation of the natural world. They do not follow the principles of science, nor do they respect its methods. But they know that the word "science" has a lot of propaganda value, so they use it for that purpose. They call themselves "scientists", and then hope you will not notice that they are not really scientists at all. Don't waste your time on it.

derick
2006-Jun-13, 02:41 PM
Tim, thanks for the replay and the link.

First thing, may I print your page for study purposes?

Second, the Bible maybe gives a dramatic representation of the creation of earth. But it does have some good theories, regardless of what some people made it out to be. I think if one made a study into it, one will find some interesting facts.

For instance... What gives scientists the idea the earth has always been the same. Talking about the atmospheric conditions ect...?

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-13, 07:16 PM
Which Scientists say that the Earth is always the same ?, the physical laws governing the Earth have always been the same but no respected scientist wouls say that it had never changed.

Atmospheric conditions have changed dramatically from an early primarily CO2 atmospere to the current N2/O2 atmosphere, well known and accepted by scientists.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jun-13, 09:28 PM
First thing, may I print your page for study purposes?
OK with me.


For instance... What gives scientists the idea the earth has always been the same. Talking about the atmospheric conditions ect...?
No scientist has believed that for over 100 years, and the smart ones go back 200 years or more.

derick
2006-Jun-14, 06:44 AM
Good day, Thank you.

Do you think there could be a possibility that there was a water canopy of some sort around the earth? It says this in the bible, that is why people got so big and the animals too, because of the increased air preasure. Also, UV will be filtered by the canopy, that would explain why they lived as long?

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-14, 07:51 AM
Water could not exist in liquid form, only as H20 vapour where the thermal and kinetic gas pressure allows the gas to stay in the air against the force of gravity,

Liquid water could not exist in the atmosphere to any great extent (if it could why are oceans not in the sky now, if th atmosphere has not changed ??), thats why rain falls down.

Theres no evidence for long life recorded anywhere except the bible, where's the other evidence for it ??

derick
2006-Jun-14, 08:11 AM
Could it not have been ice that is kept in place by the meisner (sp) effect? The evidence is as good a guess as anyone's. About the long lives... Just specutaling about the Bible's science a little.

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-14, 10:40 AM
The Meisner field is related to superconductivity and requires a temperature somewhere around the -200K mark from the quick look up Ive just gave it, I also believe the effect only applies over reasonably small distances

Iam sure you can agree that -200K is a little bit on the chilly side..

IMHO, The bible science is very weak in many,many places; using it as science is a bit like picking up a Tolkein book and declaring it as evidence that Orks and Ents exist.

derick
2006-Jun-14, 11:06 AM
Indeed, -200k is a bit chilli... lol... I know using the Bible for scientific facts would not be a proper use, but still, there are some information contained that could prove very useful for a starting point in research since it does contain some information about the earlier state the earth was in?

selden
2006-Jun-14, 11:46 AM
The Meisner effect is due to a material being a superconductor, not directly on a material's temperature.

Some materials are superconductors at much higher temperatures than others. Some superconduct at about the temperature of liquid helium (~ 4oK), some can superconduct at temperatures warmer than liquid nitrogen (77oK).

K = Kelvin. Temperatures measured in K are always positive. 0o K is absolute zero.

I suspect you were thinking Celcius. 0oC = 273.15oK. -200oC is about the temperature of liquid nitrogen.

ArgoNavis
2006-Jun-14, 11:57 AM
but still, there are some information contained that could prove very useful for a starting point in research since it does contain some information about the earlier state the earth was in?

The Bible is maybe a good starting point for archeological investigations, however much of it was authored from 100 BCE to 50 CE, which is only 2000 years ago, so it will not be able to say much about the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history regarding varying climate, atmosphere, flora, fauna and geology over this enormous period.

derick
2006-Jun-14, 12:07 PM
Meissner effect: I see, the tempteratures is a definite problem, as well as the conductor. Thanks for the information, much obliged...

Bible starting point.
Considering what you said, the only problem is time, or our perception of it.

Grey
2006-Jun-14, 03:20 PM
Do you think there could be a possibility that there was a water canopy of some sort around the earth? It says this in the bible, that is why people got so big and the animals too, because of the increased air preasure. Also, UV will be filtered by the canopy, that would explain why they lived as long?Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html) is a link describing some of the problems with a "water canopy". Talk Origins has plenty of additional discussion of where a literal reading of the Bible runs into problems with actual observation.

George
2006-Jun-14, 05:33 PM
TalkOrigins is quite good, as per Grey's recommendation. You may wish to check out some other sites which actively engage in Biblical and scientific issues. Bible.org and Bibleforums.org both have strong science discussions. [The former is now locked, regretfully.] If you are looking for compatibility options between science and religion, possibly this religious theory may intererst you... EvoGenesis (http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=54112).

[Added: Tim, your HR link does'nt work for me.]

Tim Thompson
2006-Jun-14, 06:52 PM
[Added: Tim, your HR link does'nt work for me.]
A typo got in the BB code somehow. I edited it and it should now work, there & here: http://www.tim-thompson.com/hr.html

Tim Thompson
2006-Jun-14, 06:55 PM
Do you think there could be a possibility that there was a water canopy of some sort around the earth?
No. Not vapor, not liquid, not ice. Unless, of course, you choose to believe that God intervened and suspended the laws of physics from operating. But then, if you believe that, no sense in worrying about mere science.

Kaptain K
2006-Jun-21, 05:26 AM
Before you use the Bible as a science "fact" source, don't forget that the Bible says that pi equals exactly three!

Ken G
2006-Jun-21, 11:27 AM
I see the phrase "Bible science" in this thread, and I think it is important to point out that this is like saying "painted music", or other similarly impossibly connected words. There is no way to make a direct connection between the Bible and science, because they are different means entirely. Science is by definition the body of knowledge obtained using the scientific method, and religion is also by definition not the scientific method, so it is impossible to use religion to obtain scientific knowledge. So what you are really asking is, what is the possible overlap between a religious creation story and the story that emerges from using science? The answer is, you can always interpret some overlap if you want to, and that's the beauty of religion-- it can be whatever you want it to be, or whatever the religious authorities agree it is, depending on how you do your religion. The greatest strength of science is that it changes with the evidence, and the greatest strength of religion is that it requires no evidence. Please note how each of these strengths turns into a weakness when misapplied.

jlhredshift
2006-Jun-21, 02:25 PM
The fear of those of faith is that if they do not follow the tenents of their faith properly that they will give up everlasting existence. The promise of religion is the answer to the question "Is there nothing more?". Most religions are based on geocentric concepts developed in ancient times and as science has removed us from the center of the universe conflict has arose. It is hard for some to give up the potential of heaven, paradise, in their minds as science has evaporated the mystic and replaced it with fact. The good lessons taught by religions are still good, but an open mind is a gift from God. One must continue to learn and grow to honor the gift and be not fearful of expanding your thoughts into the cosmos and discovery.

Tinaa
2006-Jun-21, 04:07 PM
12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

Be very careful here. As y'all know we shun most religious debate as it generally just causes problems.

jlhredshift, you have crossed the line. Please let me point you to the rules here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

jlhredshift
2006-Jun-21, 04:14 PM
Sorry, not my intention.
I was trying to do C. above.

ToSeek
2006-Jun-21, 06:18 PM
It's a fine line. So long as you don't make a habit of crossing it, we won't hold it against you.