Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?

Martin Brown wrote:
BTW Localised development of order out of chaos is old hat. There are
several cute and relatively simple chemical reactions that can
demonstrate complex self organising structure in a school chemical
laboratory:

Water glass (sodium silicate) is your friend here. My chemistry
colleague uses it to put an element of "Wow!" back into science for
adolescents.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:39:54 +0000, Stephen Tonkin
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Hey, Dave, don't be so restrained; tell him what you *really* think! :-)

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

I *was* being restrained.... :-)

Best,
Dave

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote
Water glass (sodium silicate) is your friend here. My chemistry
colleague uses it to put an element of "Wow!" back into science for
adolescents.

Do you mean those "Chemical Gardens" that grow upwards in the
solution, when you drop in crystals of other coloured salts?

I remember that from WAAAAY before adolescence. I must've been
about 7 or 8 when I was shown it. Fond memories!


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

In message , Stephen Tonkin
writes
Martin Brown wrote:
BTW Localised development of order out of chaos is old hat. There are
several cute and relatively simple chemical reactions that can
demonstrate complex self organising structure in a school chemical
laboratory:

Water glass (sodium silicate) is your friend here. My chemistry
colleague uses it to put an element of "Wow!" back into science for
adolescents.

Chemical gardens are interesting and as you say fairly safe for schools.

But the B-Z reaction is in a different league altogether. Any teacher
intending to show it to students would be well advised to practice in
private first and do a bit of research to find out correct answers to
the obvious questions. Unlike the simple iodine clock this one in bulk
ticks and tocks from yellow to clear and back again (or with indicator
blue to red) until the reagents run out. Pour it into a petri dish and
you get very interesting behaviour indeed.

Another related one at this time of year are the bits in fireworks that
make the loud screaming noises. They are typically based on self
organised combustion of very energetic compositions (but far too
dangerous for schools these days). A few practitioners still do live
lecture demos.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...


Take radiometric dating. I have read many articles on carbon dating
methods
but read here for an interesting set. http://tinyurl.com/sghw

In the article below, fossil wood was dated at 45 million years old and
then
was retested (without prior knowledge) using carbon14 dating. Carbon14
should not be detectable after 50,000 years so if there is any
detectable
then the specimen must be younger and this was the case.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp



Ah, so you believe the K-Ar dates, which mean that the Earth is at least
45
million years old? That's a start.

Contamination of the wood is one possibility. However, it seems unlikely
that organic wood could last for millions of years in a bed of basalt, so
I
suspect the wood was introduced relatively recently on a geological time
scale. In any event, carbon dating only applies up to its limit of about
50,000 years and is totally irrelevant to the question of the age of the
Earth.

The important thing is that you would need to refute all the thousands of
consistent radioactive datings of rocks and meteorites that put the age of
the Earth well up in the billions of years, as well as all the
corroborative
independent evidence from stellar evolution, geophysics, etc. You cannot.

--
Mike Dworetsky


Yes, you would tihnk that Carbon dating is totally irrelevant to the
question of the age of the earth but as I have pointed out, it has never
been used on samples that have been aged as millions of years old. As in the
article I linked to, carbon dating was used and carbon14 was present showing
that the sample was indeed less than 50,000 years old. I'm quite sure that
if carbon14 was used instead of other dating methods we would see completely
opposing ages.

MDJ

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , MDJ
writes

Really, all this debate boils down to is, do you believe in the biblical
account of creation in 6 days?

NO. Next question? What makes you think that the translation of the
original Word into "days" in English is even remotely accurate?


There is only one word used throughout the Old Testament for a day of
24hours and that is "yom". There are other words for long periods of time
including eons and ages etc.
In Genesis1, the Hebrew word is a day of 24hours. See this article for more
detail.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp

Goodnight

MDJ

In message , Martin Brown
writes

BTW Localised development of order out of chaos is old hat. There are
several cute and relatively simple chemical reactions that can
demonstrate complex self organising structure in a school chemical
laboratory:

There's an interesting article with links on The Scientist web site,
about how clay minerals may have been involved in the synthesis of the
first membranes.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031024/02

The creationists will say "it's just theory" and (their killer argument)
"no-one was there to see it".
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Trying to wash over the age of the Bible won't work. It was written long
before the makeup of the constellations was known which shows that the
author (the creator of the Universe) knew about the "loose" stars of Orion
as discussed in previous message.

‘Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of
Orion?’ Written by Job under the inspiration of God in 1500BC.


"Mike & Heather Collins" wrote
in message ...

"MDJ" wrote
What cannot be disputed is that the Bible is a real book

So is "The Wind in the Willows".


--
Mike Collins
UK

Replace the seed by the tree to reply

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:01:04 -0000, "MDJ"
wrote:

"Anyway, Live long and prosper. I think I'm finished with this thread. Hoping to get some clear skies here soon."

Any chance of doing what you thought you had and actually finishing?
Why not take this bollox to a group where the participants actually
give a damn?!

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk

I'm simply putting across a point of view. I have to put up with constant
evolution on TV and so-called evolutionary breakthroughs on news reports
etc. (only to findout that the facts are weak and scientists are still
guessing) so I think you can put up with a few thoughts from another
standpoint. The BB theory is not the be all and end all as there are many
problems with it. Even Stephen Hawkings admits that there are serious
problems with the BB model, like how stars and galaxies are formed. Why is
another viewpoint so offensive to you?


"ChrisH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:21:43 -0000, "MDJ"
wrote:

You sir, are a complete nutter. You expositions are an offense to the
memory of the thousands of scientists, astronomers, and other educated
people who dedicated their lives by working tirelessly to provide us
with the facts that all can now read in countless text books. Your
distortions of selected facts, cobbled together as a frail belief that
doesn't withstand a moment's logical thought may give an interesting
insight into your own deluded mentality, but this really isn't the
place to preach it. You will get no comfort here. Leave.

ChrisH



UK Astro Ads: http://www.UKAstroAds.co.uk