|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
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? Are there really any stars forming today? The universe seems to be decaying and not evolving as evolution dictates. For more of these questions answered, click on the link below. I am not in any way associated with the website below. http://tinyurl.com/iwpe There is a lot of reading in the website above and many many articles, but the main Question and Answers section is where all the info is. Clear Skies MarkDJ "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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"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? Are there really any stars forming today? The universe seems to be decaying and not evolving as evolution dictates. I am constantly amazed at how delicately the gravel on the beach at Dungeness is sorted into size by the random crashing of enormous waves. Order can and frequently does come out of chaos Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
MDJ writted:
: I think you've probably hit the nail on the head as regards one of the : weaknesses of the big bang theory. The shape of galaxies is rather well understood, and very well modelled. I hardly think it's a problem or a weakness in big bang theory. : How can order be created out of an : explosion? Entropy has to increase in a closed system (Second law of thermodynamics). That does not preclude regions within that system from becoming more ordered, just that the order has to be offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere within the system. : Are there really any stars forming today? Yes. Take a look at the Hubble photo archive for examples. : The universe seems to : be decaying and not evolving as evolution dictates. Which dictat of evolution is that, precisely? Gavin. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"Gavin Whittaker" wrote in message ... MDJ writted: : How can order be created out of an : explosion? Entropy has to increase in a closed system (Second law of thermodynamics). That does not preclude regions within that system from becoming more ordered, just that the order has to be offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere within the system. I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy. http://tinyurl.com/schm The Second Law of Thermodynamic Question 1: Open Systems ‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy. Answer 1: The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.: a.. that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder) b.. usable energy is running out c.. information tends to get scrambled d.. order tends towards disorder e.. a random jumble won’t organize itself It also depends on the type of system: a.. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down — see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies. b.. A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases. c.. An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states: … there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1 Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life. The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex — the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things. To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks. I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book. For more information on mutation, variation and information, see our Question and Answer pages on these topics, or Refuting Evolution (above right). Return to top ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Question 2: What about crystals? To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger: If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.2 Answer 2: Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen. The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature. Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’. A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts. A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased. Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal — specified complexity — e.g. ‘I love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence. Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes. Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life. The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity: Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189] Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive.3 See How Simple Can Life Be? Return to top ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall? Answer 3: No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay: a.. solar heating of the earth (heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classical case of the Second Law in action), b.. walking (requires the highly entropic phenomenon of friction, otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden!), c.. breathing (based on air moving from high pressure to low pressure, producing a more disordered equalized concentration of molecules), d.. digestion (breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks), e.. baking a cake (mixing the ingredients produces a lot of disorder), etc. What is contrary to Scripture is death of nephesh animals before sin, and suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power at the Fall. He still sustains the universe (Col. 1:17) otherwise it would cease to exist. But most of the time He doesn’t sustain it in the way that He prevented the Israelites’ shoes and clothes from wearing out during the 40 years in the wilderness (Dt. 29:5). But this special case may have been the rule rather than the exception before the Fall. Return to top ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- References and notes 1.. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 27, 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Return to text. 2.. Boyce Rensberger, ‘How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution’, Washington Post, 8 Jan 1997. See Response by AiG. Return to Text. 3.. For a good discussion on thermodynamics; open, closed and isolated systems, order vs. complexity; and other difficulties for evolutionary origin of life scenarios, see Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1984, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Lewis & Stanley, Dallas, TX (above right. The relevant chapters are online) . See also detailed response to an evolutionist. Return to Text. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
Gavin Whittaker writted:
: Entropy has to increase in a closed system oops. That should be isolated, not closed. I slap students for less than that. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
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? Are there really any stars forming today? Yes. Take a look pretty much anywhere in the skies' and you can see it. 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? For more of these questions answered, Read any decent science book, instead of pseudoscience based on people's understandable desire to avoid having to face difficult questions. Like for instance "is it possible that people long ago misunderstood the Word because they lacked the necessary knowledge to understand?". There's no need to rely on mythology to explain what you see around you. -- 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 =--- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:52:37 +0100, in uk.sci.astronomy , "MDJ"
wrote: "Gavin Whittaker" wrote in message Entropy has to increase in a closed system (Second law of thermodynamics). That does not preclude regions within that system from becoming more ordered, just that the order has to be offset by an increase in disorder elsewhere within the system. I think the article below should cover your questions regarding entropy. FYI, we don't /have/ any questions regarding entropy, I suspect the posters here understand it pretty well. Pseudoscience like your link don't help anyone else who might want information. The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Proof please. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Hmm, undirected sunlight lands randomly on plants, yep, definitely not causing anything to grow there is it? Oh, sorry, according to 'your' theory, the sun is a big searchlight or something being directed at us, so you get out of that one. Hmm... Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex — the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. Actually this is merely false. Try standing in a place without much solar energy for a while (like eg on the night side of Pluto), and see if its lack harms you. Like all animals, we have the ability to use sunlight to warm our bodies, and indeed reptiles rely on it. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, And if you ate cheese and pickle for too long, your friends would all stand upwind of you in case you either a) burst, or b) broke wind. Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. Its a cute but wrong argument. As it happens, this has been tested experimentally and it works. -- 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 =--- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"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". 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 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. 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. MDJ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why are most galaxies and solar systems 'flat'?
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:47:51 +0100, in uk.sci.astronomy , "MDJ" wrote: 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? Also see this article... http://www.nature.com/nsu/010517/010517-6.html |
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 09:36 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 |