Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?

In message , MDJ
writes

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,

Nonsense. It's a galactic cluster rather than a globular cluster, which
is a totally different sort of object.

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.

Can you give a reference for that? According to
http://www.pleiade.org/pleiades_03.html the Pleiades are about 100
million years old and will have dispersed in another 250 million years.


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.

And just how does the existence of newly formed stars prove that? Will
you be peddling the old argument that the evidence for the Earth and Sun
being very ancient (4500 million years is the current estimate) is
false? If so, you are on very shaky theological ground. It's the
Adversary who is supposed to be telling lies, and he can't create
anything. Your church has tortured people to death for saying otherwise.


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

"Thought"? You people don't think. All the "Christian" references I find
on the web peddle the same ultra-modern interpretation of the Bible,
presumably because they copy each other or take their cue from some
common source.
You might consider whether the word "Orion" actually refers to the
modern constellation. And even if it does, there's a good argument that
what the passage actually means is "can you move that pattern from its
position in the sky" (thanks to "Cretinism or Evilution" at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part5.html for that insight)
Actually, I doubt if anyone really knows what the passage means. It's
poetry.
The Bible doesn't even refer to the idea that the Earth revolves around
the Sum; in fact, the idea was heresy.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Pete Lawrence
writes
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?!

I'm sorry you feel that way. Granted it's probably not strictly on topic
for uk.sci.astronomy, which is supposed to be about UK-related topics,
but it's provoking a vigorous debate. That's what Usenet is about.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , MDJ
writes
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.

Of course there are problems with it. It's not handed down on tablets of
stone :-) It's the product of human minds, like all the rest of creative
thought.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:25:51 -0000, "MDJ"
wrote:

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?



But you don't have a viewpoint - what you have is a problem with your
thought processes resulting in an inability to comprehend reality. I
find it offensive when people like you try to grossly distort facts
(based on science you don't comprehend) in an effort to mould them to
your beliefs, then publicly profess them as a serious religious
standpoint. Sadly, they're not even your beliefs are they? - no grain
of original thought from you went into it. I also fail to understand
why you then feel the urge to inflict your malady on those who enjoy
using this forum for it's intended purpose, especially when this has
been made clear to you. In any event, to argue against insanty is
futile and insanity in itself.

Personally, I don't give a damn what you believe, any more than I gave
a damn about the people who believed aliens inhabited comet Hale Bopp,
so why don't you take leaf out of their book and get yourself a Darwin
award? It would seem ironically appropriate to me.

ChrisH



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

Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:
I'm sorry you feel that way. Granted it's probably not strictly on
topic for uk.sci.astronomy, which is supposed to be about UK-related
topics, but it's provoking a vigorous debate. That's what Usenet is
about.

All true, but those who want to discuss creationism have an appropriate
USENET forum at alt.talk.creationism -- there's no reason that they
can't use it unless they are trolling or evangelising.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

Steve Taylor wrote:
[...]
Don't forget their usual dismissal of "its ONLY a theory" - as if that
makes it invalid.

But Steve, surely a theory is *far* less valid than a belief that is
unsupported by inconvenient things like evidence? VBG


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

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

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:16:31 +0000, Steve Taylor
wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Of course there are problems with it. It's not handed down on tablets of
stone :-) It's the product of human minds, like all the rest of creative
thought.

Jonathan,
Don't forget their usual dismissal of "its ONLY a theory" - as if that
makes it invalid.

STeve

In that case, they don't understand the meaning of the word 'Theory'.

ChrisH

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

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Of course there are problems with it. It's not handed down on tablets of
stone :-) It's the product of human minds, like all the rest of creative
thought.

Jonathan,
Don't forget their usual dismissal of "its ONLY a theory" - as if that
makes it invalid.

STeve

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
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

I recall going to a talk where the lecturer soaked a digestive bisuit in
liquid oxygen, then set light to it. Quite impressive!

Dave

ChrisH wrote:

In that case, they don't understand the meaning of the word 'Theory'.

....or the phrase "total ********"

Steve