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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"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)

"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)

"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")

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

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

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 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"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)