|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
MDJ attempted to pass off as his own:
[Stuff copied, without attribution, directly from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/438.asp] Anyone who is tempted to give any credence to creationist (or "young Earth creationist") anti-science crap, such as that promulgated in this thread by MDJ, might first wish to visit: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html and/or http://atheism.about.com/cs/youngearthcreati/ and read some of the FAQs and articles there. Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
MDJ wrote:
I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy. And this one will correct some of the BS touted on this topic by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
Anything I've read in your link has been based on flawed arguments due you
the writer believing in the Big bang in the first place - hardly an unbiased argument and more of a belief in evolution. I can only give you the basic facts, but maybe the fact that you have taken an interest in reading the articles I have posted, you will maybe take a step back and examine the facts for yourself and the shortcomings of various theories. MarkDJ "In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded!" "Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message ... MDJ wrote: I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy. And this one will correct some of the BS touted on this topic by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"Richard Dickison" wrote in message ... Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'? If there is a cloud of dust/gas that starts to coalesce around a localized density in the middle of the dust/gas, it seems it would attract from all 3 dimensions equally. But galaxies and solar systems attract primarily in a single plane. What happened to all the debris above/below the plane? I understand there will probably be an unequal distribution of matter surrounding the central object and there will consequently be a resultant angular momentum after a while. But that doesn't seem to explain why there still isn't debris spiraling in from above/below the primary plane. I'll try to describe it in words and omit the maths. The theory of galaxy formation has been revolutionised by observations made over the past two decades. Galaxies such as ours probably formed from mergers of much smaller galaxies (see the Hubble Deep Fields for examples). Mature spirals did not appear until much later. Remember, the space between such galaxies was much smaller in the cosmic past, so collisions were much more likely. These small galaxies were very rich in gas and dust. During mergers there is a tendency for the overall system to gradually flatten. Objects, gas, and dust not already in the plane of rotation will eventually pass through the plane in the course of their orbits, and if there is enough gas pressure and collisions of clouds (imagine two clouds colliding as they come from either side of the plane) the gas and dust will dissipate the momentum in the perpendicular direction and settle down in the plane. Similar effects will gradually lead to circular orbits. Stars formed very early on or before the merger will not collide with anything, usually, and can continue to occupy the more or less spherical halo. Mergers will also lead to streamers and blobs that eventually become globular clusters. More mergers will generally increase the total angular momentum. Each acquisition is likely to twist the plane of rotation, while the star-forming plane will eventually stabilise in a new flat system. Have a look at some of the colliding galaxies in the Hubble heritage Collection. When stars and planetary systems form, it's all gas and dust to start with, so the dynamical friction and turbulence will quickly lead to a settling in one dominant plane. Collisions with another forming system would be very rare. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"MDJ" wrote in message . .. "Gavin Whittaker" wrote in message ... MDJ writted: : Are there really any stars forming today? Yes. Take a look at the Hubble photo archive for examples. The 'eagle nebula' and other similar gas complexes such as the 'horse-head nebula' in Orion are favourites since they show more than one type of nebula. These regions are called dark, reflection, and emission nebulae. a.. Dark nebulae are made mostly of dust. b.. Emission nebulae are fluorescent regions of gas glowing in the presence of embedded stars. c.. Reflection nebulae are cold un-ionized gas. When dark nebulae collide with emission nebulae, features like those noted in the HST image result. The dust pushes its way through the hot gas. Gas along the front edge of the collision compresses and glows hotter. This results in the whitish appearing areas at the edges of the dark 'fingers' of dust. I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. You presume a lot, and it is apparent that you haven't a clue what you are taking about, whether it is thermodynamics, stellar astrophysics, or anything else. An interstellar gas cloud at 10,000 K will not have a spectrum anything like a star at the same temperature. Astronomers can spot the difference without any difficulty. And the fact that stars have been observed in virtually every stage of formation in places like the Orion Nebula and the Taurus region would imply that you are totally incorrect about the impossibility of forming new stars at the present epoch. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"MDJ" wrote in message . .. "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:47:51 +0100, in uk.sci.astronomy , "MDJ" wrote: I think you've probably hit the nail on the head as regards one of the weaknesses of the big bang theory. How can order be created out of an explosion? Think about this for approximately ten seconds, and you'll realise how. What happens /after/ the explosion? Ever dropped a pebble into water and watched the chaos return to order? I watched it return to a flat nothingness so if there was a big bang then of course the explosion would die off and we would be left with nothing again. Your analogy is flawed in that the pebble is dropping into water that has already got gravity, viscosity and it's elements already there in the first place for the pebble to interact with. Wheras you are saying that out of an explosion of nothing, this world and universe came into being!!! Come on, your failed logic and reasoning is incomprehensible. Are there really any stars forming today? Yes. Take a look pretty much anywhere in the skies' and you can see it. Positive proof of before and after photos would be helpful. I've already explained that the superheated gas explosions that we are seeing in the eagle nebula and others simply cannot form stars as the gas at such temperatures quickly disperses. If you have a look at some of the recent astro news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1987449.stm http://www.nature.com/nsu/980723/980723-4.html there is talk now that "star formation may be drawing to an end". Neither of these articles say that stars are not being formed today. One of them dates back 5 years and says that in the very early Universe, some galaxies formed stars at a rate about 100 times today's rate, and the other says that the Eagle Nebulae is not forming stars at the rate originally thought, but that stars are indeed being formed there. The universe seems to be decaying and not evolving as evolution dictates. Who says its decaying? What makes you think evolutionary theory applies to inanimate matter? What do you think evolution means? Ever heard of entropy? Who says it's decaying? see above articles and search for yourself. All I think the quote above proves that you were the one who said it. I looked it up. Yep.What you may be trying to say, and very badly, is that astronomers are saying that galaxies are not forming stars at the rate they once did. I think that is a mainstream astronomical opinion at the present time. So what? You are aware that astronomers accept htat their observations mean that the Universe had a beginning 13.7x10^9 yrs ago and is expanding and changing with time? reports of star formation are merely conjecture and "educated guesses" and we all know those (Mr Tony Blair). Start reading into these reports from a young-earth standpoint and you can see how led astray these reports are. I can personally guarantee that the astronomers quoted in those articles would laugh at your interpretation, and be extremely angry that you (with no scientific expertise at all--that is clearly obvious) are describing their work as "conjecture". Astronomers are trying to explain away facts with more unproven theories which come from the fact that they are trying to explain what they see and tally it up with the Big Bang. Nothing is being explained away, but it is being explained. Unlike "Creationism", which you regard as obvious and proven??? Oh, yes, please tell me the scientific theory of Creationism. You know, the one that can be subjected to experimental and observational investigation. The one that hasn't already been refuted by 400 years of scientific experiments. Your turn. -- Mike Dworetsky (remove "pants") |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
In message , Stephen Tonkin
writes MDJ wrote: I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy. And this one will correct some of the BS touted on this topic by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html What is really sad is that these lunatic fringe creationist theories are now starting to take a hold in the UK. The government is even allowing state subsidised funding of "faith based schools" like the creationist one set up in Middlesborough to inculcate this superstitious garbage into young minds. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
MDJ wrote:
How can order be created out of an explosion? Powerful explosions can produce diamond (i.e. a more ordered form of carbon) from amorphous carbon. But this belies your fundamental misunderstanding, which is that the Big Bang Theory does not postulate an explosion, but an *expansion*, and that, at the time at which it occurred, entropy was negligible (possibly zero). Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
MDJ wrote:
Anything I've read in your link has been based on flawed arguments Really? Please state clearly and precisely what these flawed arguments are and why you believe that they are flawed. Please do this in your own words (i.e. not by passing off someone else's words as your own). due you the writer believing in the Big bang in the first place - Four out of the five FAQs referenced on that page do not even mention "Big Bang", so how the hell can you pronounce on the beliefs of the FAQs' authors unless they tell you what these are? If you would like to respond to the substantive points made in the one FAQ that does refer to BB (in 3 places: CE 260.1, CE421, CE441), please do so. I can only give you the basic facts, I wish that statement was true; it would be refreshing if you would begin to do so now. However, the only things you have "given" have been distortions and misrepresentations of the truth, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether these are due to an intention to deceive or merely due to ignorance and incompetence (i.e. consider Hanlon's Razor to be whetted, for the moment, at least). FWIW, I believe that there are problems with BB (but that it is still the best we've got so far). However, whilst you are obviously free to believe what you like, trying to pass off creationist claptrap as science is, in my opinion, not merely counterproductive; it is despicable. Anything that seeks to replace rationalism with superstition and evidence with mythology is the sort of assault on the evolution of human consciousness whose aim can only be to drive us into the sort of "new dark age" that Carl Sagan cautioned against. Best, Stephen Remove footfrommouth to reply -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books + + (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"MDJ" wrote in message .. . Anything I've read in your link has been based on flawed arguments due you the writer believing in the Big bang in the first place - hardly an unbiased argument and more of a belief in evolution. I can only give you the basic facts, but maybe the fact that you have taken an interest in reading the articles I have posted, you will maybe take a step back and examine the facts for yourself and the shortcomings of various theories. MarkDJ "In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded!" This is a direct "straw-man" quote from Arch-Creationist snake-oil-salesman Kent Hovind. Any other comment on its stupidity would be superfluous, except to note the source of your information is not exactly authoritative. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How special is the Solar System? (Forwarded) | Rodney Kelp | Policy | 24 | September 3rd 04 04:38 AM |
Planetary Systems With Habitable Earths? | Rodney Kelp | Policy | 6 | April 2nd 04 02:32 PM |
Life and The Universe | lifehealer | History | 8 | February 2nd 04 08:36 PM |
Astronomers reveal the first detailed maps of galaxy distributionin the early universe (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 18th 03 12:23 AM |