Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded!"


This is a direct "straw-man" quote from Arch-Creationist
snake-oil-salesman Kent Hovind.

Is that the source? I always thought it was Terry Pratchett (I read it
in one of his novels).

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...


"MDJ" wrote in message
. ..

"Gavin Whittaker" wrote in message
...
MDJ wrote:


: 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,

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

Unlike yourself, I will refrain from personal attacks and stick to the
facts.

The fact is that the eagle nebula is where, in 1995, that all astronomers
were calling "The pillars of creation" - one of the largest known areas of
star formation. Now the latest news is that there is possibly less than a
handful of stars forming there. I am saying to you that this U-turn will
again run off into the distance in maybe another 5 years and they will then
say that star formation has ended in the Eagle nebula, in only 10 years!
It's apparent that the so-called bright tips in the fingers is simply the
interaction of dust and gas and not the formation of stars.

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

What cannot be disputed is that the Bible is a real book and was written by
many different writers from 2000BC to 200AD. Now, if you can accept that,
then read the following extract from the book of Job, written in 1500BC.

God spoke to Job out of a whirlwind and asked a series of profound questions
dealing with both man’s limited knowledge and God’s awesome power. One of
these questions is to be found in Job 38:31.
The King James Version [AD1611, revised 1769] reads: ‘Canst thou bind the
sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?’

The Revised Standard Version [1946] reads: ‘Can you bind the chains of the
Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?’

The Pleiades and Orion are still with us and are often visible on a clear
night and the modern observation of these through astronomy has given us a
fascinating insight into this passage. It is in fact a double-barrelled
question dealing with two contrasting astronomical phenomena. Let us look
briefly at the two objects in question—the cluster of Pleiades commonly
called the Seven Sisters, and the stellar grouping called Orion, also known
as the Saucepan.

To the naked eye the Pleiades seems to be composed of six or seven bluish
stars shyly scintillating in the constellation of Taurus. The telescope,
however, reveals that the whole cluster is made up of about 500 stars in a
spherical group about 50 light years across and nearly 410 light years away.
Photographs reveal some of the component stars veiled in a faint diaphanous
blue haze of gas and dust, which beautifully reflects the glory of the stars
enrobed in it with their various colours. The Creator’s description of it is
extremely apt — it is indeed a ‘sweet cluster’ of stars; a delight to
behold. Even to the naked eye there is a winsome attractiveness about the
group. However, God's statement to Job also includes an astronomical truth
of which Job was probably unaware. The cluster of the Pleiades is an odd one
out as far as star clusters go. Because of the small amounts of dust and gas
between the stars in the cluster, it is called a galactic or open cluster,
but unlike many such open clusters, it is not breaking up. It is the classic
example of a ‘bound’ cluster.The energies of motion of the individual stars
cannot ever overcome the ‘chains’ of gravity and allow them to move away
from the cluster. Nor, indeed, is the cluster expanding, as it has been
calculated that it would take 1,000 million years to significantly change
the diameter of the cluster.This situation is very uncommon as the reverse
is usually true of all open or galactic clusters.

The constellation of Orion is one of the most outstanding star groupings in
the heavens. Photographs of this brilliant association with its giant stars
reveal an immense halo of gas and dust in which practically all its stars
are immersed. [Part of this nebulosity is visible to the naked eye as the
central ‘star’ in the handle of the ‘saucepan’.] The fact that virtually the
whole constellation is made up of one massive cluster of stars is in itself
unusual. Most constellations are made up of stars merely in line of sight
and separated by vast distances. The Orion grouping all lie about 1600 light
years away. Despite its size of about 350 light years diameter and despite
the vast quantities of gas and dust it contains, the whole system is
gravitationally unstable and is steadily expanding outwards.2 The
gravitational ‘bands’ holding the constellation together have indeed been
loosed, just as God said to Job. Not only that, but even the smaller
clusters of stars within the association are fragmenting. On the basis of
the stars’ individual motions in one cluster within the Orion Nebula, Dr
Peter Van de Voort has shown that the age of the cluster must be less than
10,000 years.This also implies that the whole association must be less than
10,000 years old as both Hoyle and Gamow state that new stars cannot form
from clouds of gas and dust unless cloud temperatures are below 5°
Absolutes.The observed average temperatures range from 100° Absolute and
above, and any collapse of the clouds will only increase the temperature
which in turn re-expands the cloud. Thus if new stars cannot form from
clouds of gas and dust and the star clusters that have formed are less than
10,000 years old, it strongly indicates that the whole constellation of
Orion is less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, there is far more behind God
’s comment to Job that the constellation of Orion is a massive disrupting
star cluster than might immediately appear, as it also provides proof for a
recent Creation.

Now, how could Job, the writer, know about these astronomical insights? the
answer is that the whole of the Bible is the inspired Word of God and only
the creator of the universe could know the structures of these
constellations. So if you now agree that the Bible is the Word of God and
that God created the universe and told Job these astronomical insights, then
the first 11 chapters of Genesis are also true and the world and universe
was created in six days.

Food for thought

MarkDJ

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:18:29 -0000, in uk.sci.astronomy , "MDJ"
wrote:


"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.

So you watched order being created from Chaos. Good. Learned anything
yet?

Your analogy is flawed

And your website's science is total rubbish. One all?

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.

Yes, its incomprehensible to you because you don't have the knowledge.
Go do a physics degree, study the right postgrad course, then come
back and we'll talk.

Positive proof of before and after photos would be helpful.

What, of a million-year process? Sure, I'll take some snaps now.
Who says its decaying? What makes you think evolutionary theory


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...


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

See the other message regarding the truth of the bible and one piece of
evidence that the Bible is true.

As for the 400 years of experiments. I think we could argue to the cows come
home and since I don't have any, that's a long time.

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


MarkDJ

MDJ wrote:
I will (...) stick to the facts.

....and then attempted to pass off as his own:
[snip creationist trash copied verbatim, and without attribution, from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3542.asp]

The sheer profundity of the ignorance in this creationist crock is
exemplified by:

the stellar grouping called Orion, also known as the Saucepan.

ROTFLMAO! If that is a fact, my nose is a haddock. The sad buffoons
can't even get something as simple as that right. As for the errors that
infest the rest of it, if anyone is interested in enumerating them, read
it in conjunction with a halfway decent descriptive astronomy text.

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 00:22:11 +0000, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

MDJ wrote:
I will (...) stick to the facts.

...and then attempted to pass off as his own:
[snip creationist trash copied verbatim, and without attribution, from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3542.asp]

The sheer profundity of the ignorance in this creationist crock is
exemplified by:

the stellar grouping called Orion, also known as the Saucepan.

ROTFLMAO! If that is a fact, my nose is a haddock. The sad buffoons
can't even get something as simple as that right. As for the errors that
infest the rest of it, if anyone is interested in enumerating them, read
it in conjunction with a halfway decent descriptive astronomy text.

I fear that you have opened the bottle now and there are going to be
numerous posts from MDJ that will show that we are all wrong by
writing so much drivel that it's really beyond our capabilities to
read through it all and address every query and conundrum.

Was it not written that Orion shall be the saucepan and that it's
handle shall be M42 and that the milk it doth boil over with shalt be
thine milky way.

Me - I believe that the Matrix is the way forward and am going to
adopt it as 'my' belief. What I like about it is the fact that any
argument against it as being not real has an equally balanced,
unprovable argument that it is. A bit like many other beliefs ;-)

Now I'm going to get back to some bedtime reading about the fact that
spiral density waves are proof that some galaxies are in need of a
damn good clean. All that luminous blue dust is a sod to shake off.
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk

Pete Lawrence wrote:
that will show that we are all wrong by writing so much drivel that
it's really beyond our capabilities to read through it all and address
every query and conundrum.

Oops! I really must learn just to use a killfile and not to engage the
trolls. Sorry, people.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Oops! I really must learn just to use a killfile and not to engage the
trolls. Sorry, people.

Best,
Stephen

Ignore them and they hold the field and spout that rationalists have
no answer to their garbage - engage with them and you have a full time
job reading

as Pete Lawrence said, they write

so much drivel that
it's really beyond our capabilities to read through it all and address
every query and conundrum.

But it must not be beyond our capabilities, however tedious. All that
is required for these energetic freaks to prevail is for good people
to do nothing - and the current US administration is a ghastly example
of just that.

Compared to the extreme right religious, Daniel Min is harmless - he
has two specific aims, Moon landings and horror-scopes. These guys
have a pernicious goal - the replacement of rational thought by the
rigid imposition of their interpretation of an ancient book of
control.

Cheers

Martin

--------------
Martin Frey
N 51 02 E 0 47
--------------

MDJ writted:

: I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy.

I gave you a statement about entropy, not a question. The rest of
your cut and paste is so riddled with errors that it's not worth wasting my
time on it. Read a first year undergrad (non-creationist) text on
thermodynamics, and if you understand it, you'll see why.

Let me put your discussion where it should be. The first chapters
of Genesis are not a literal narrative, they is a Jewish interpretation of
contemporaneous creation theories.
If you wish to take the Bible literally, I suggest that you examine
how you are going to cope with Matthew 5:29 - oh, and you can't get a
surgeon to do it, as the text says that you should pluck it out. That's
before we tackle the laws in Leviticus, whose continuing authority is dealt
with in Matthew 5:18. Is the song of Solomon literal? Are his lover's
breasts *really* like two fawns that feed among the lilies? Do his
lover's lips distil nectar? Choose yes, and you have the ugliest woman in
history. Choose no, and you accept that some parts of the Bible are not
literal. If you decide that it is not literal, what or who gave you or
anyone else the authority to decide that Genesis 1 IS literal?

The simple fact is that creation chapters have two primary purposes:

One, to differentiate the single God of the Jews from the multitheistic
religions of the rest of the world.

Two, to emphasise that God is the originator of creation, not part of it.
Again, in contrast to the Gods of other religions.

Take a look at the Babylonian narratives - they were the creation theories
of the time - and see how closely Genesis resembles them. Genesis 1
amounts to, "here is the latest theory that describes creation, this chapter
tells you WHY the creation happened". Now, bring this up to modern times,
and you can replace Genesis 1 with 'In the beginning, God said,
let there be a universe created from a singularity, and let the laws that
govern this universe be expressed in the following equations...' That
doesn't take away from God, it describes his continually creative
personality.

When St Paul tells us to be fools for the sake of the Gospel, he's
referring to the seeming foolishness of the death of Christ. He's not
telling us to empty our brains of critical thought processes and give
our will up to a politically motivated creation movement.

God gave you a brain for a reason. I advise you not to insult God's
gift by failing to use it.


Gavin

"MDJ" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...


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

See the other message regarding the truth of the bible and one piece of
evidence that the Bible is true.

I see you haven't answered my question: what is the scientific theory of
creationism, and how can it be tested? As for the people who wrote the
Bible thousands of years after the alleged events of creation, can you
really believe them? After all, they did not actually witness the events
personally. I for one do not accept that the OT was written as a scientific
textbook. It contains too many basic scientific errors, such as describing
a bat as a bird.

You quote some passages from the English translation of the Bible, but it is
a matter of subjective and linguistic interpretation just what God is
supposed to be implying here. Your post otherwise contains many factual
errors about astronomy.


As for the 400 years of experiments. I think we could argue to the cows
come
home and since I don't have any, that's a long time.

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

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)