Addressing the formation of the solar system

On Apr 7, 7:18*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 7, 4:48 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:



"BradGuth" wrote in message

....
On Apr 7, 12:00 am, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

....

How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch

Gas does not come together.
It dissipates.
There is no way the solar system could have formed,
except by supernatural accomplishment.

There's always good old gravity, the electrostatic force and the
magnetic force of attraction, in addition to just the natural process
of recombining and subsequent crystal growth of matter (aka black
diamond).

***How much gravity is one atom every few hundred feet going to give off?

Damn little, but perhaps there's an electrostatic charge of 1e12 Ev
to work with, and it helps if most of the available stuff is kind of
going along in the same orbital trek, so to speak, plus there's always
other new stuff passing through or merging.

**Surely any kind of charge an atom has will not make it have any
more gravity, considering the almost total emptiness of space.

A few billion years ago, Eden/Earth probably had 1e12 kg/year of rogue/
new stuff arriving.

***It all starts as hydrogen.
As electrostatic charged hydrogen.


You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

**Just because they are different intensities in heat?
No


**I once read that the probability of two stars converging in the
vastness of space was about that of two blind gnats colliding
in the Grand Canyon.

Sirius ABC are not very far apart, or even all that far from us.

~ BG

On Apr 7, 5:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:

You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

************

Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.

Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 07/04/09 23:11, Mark Earnest wrote:

It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
without some kind of help.

Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.

If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.

Amusing. But at least now we know you're either a blatant troll, or a
lunatic.

No he is probably quite sincere but willfully ignorant.
This is very typical of Creationists.

Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back
to burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the
Sun. Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of
the UK notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/0...reationis.html

Regards,
Martin Brown

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:

No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.

Gravitational attraction of mostly neutral matter, a small amount of
dissipative friction and radiative cooling of the accretion disk is all
that is needed to allow solar systems to form and planets to condense.
Gravity is the weakest magnitude force but it always attracts.

Shockwaves and excreta from nearby supernovae almost certainly played a
part in our solar systems formation - it contains far too much iron and
heavier elements to be a first generation star.

Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."

You mean like you do? Superstitious cryptic "just so" stories are no
"explanation" of anything.

It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
without some kind of help.

Gas *is* matter. The "help" it gets comes from gravity.

I take it that you are aware that the sun is just a big ball of very hot
hydrogen gas with some helium and a few other trace elements. It is held
together by gravity and prevented from collapsing by the radiation
pressure of the light it emits. The balance of these competing forces at
the surface determines its equilibrium size.

If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.

Superheated steam pressure and an outer skin that will resist
considerable internal overpressure before it fails catastrophically. The
hull is good for about 130psi and 180C internal temperature.

How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?

A New Dark Ages is dawning. Science must fight this stupidity head on.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/09 09:16, Mark Earnest wrote:
No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
It didn't "anti-dissipate".

It came together, right?
Then it must have dissipated in reverse, in other words.

Collapsed under its own weight under the influence of gravity. The same
way that Newton's apple fell to the ground instead of floating off into
space.

No need for God to empty the invisible cosmic vacuum cleaner onto the
invisible cosmic carpet to explain how our Solar system was formed.

Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense such
as "a divine being did it".

That is not cryptic.

The "Just so" stories of the superstitious Creationists. Unfortunately,
dumbing down is so prevalent that they are gaining ground


Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
"anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth?

Earth has enough heavy elements to hold down the atmosphere.
Deep space does not.

Hydrogen gas still has mass. Take a look at the Orion nebula for a naked
eye example of a self gravitating clump of gas where stars are forming.
In the night sky now middle of Orion's sword - easy binocular object.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images...heic0601a.html

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 8, 11:29*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?

A New Dark Ages is dawning. Science must fight this stupidity head on.

Martin Brown

I'll hold your coat, Sir!

Science has not provided the cosy answers which the ordinarily
superstitious man in the street needs a quick answer to for his non-
verbalised questions. Science offers only greater complexity and more
questions. Science cannot offer absolutes. Nor fast rules for a life
which often involve far more mundane problems than the scientist is
trained to solve. Science has provided very nasty weapons which nobody
likes except Southern rednecks and an even more superstitious group
called the NRA. Science puts nasty things in fluffy bunny rabbit's
eyes and sticks needles in sweet little Disney mice.

Science cannot win by demanding loyalty since it offers no club to
join. Its most eloquent spokespersons give no straight or remotely
understandable answers which can be used to win on the horses. Or lose
weight without having to stop doing something to which we are all
addicted for basic survival. Science offers no appeal to the
conscience. Nor fairy stories to send the kids to sleep. To become
popular science needs a makeover. It needs a cuddly, non-threatening
uniform and "nice people" to sell the message. Until then the
"uneducated masses" have nothing to cling to. Nothing to admire.
Nothing to pay their subs to. Nothing to look up to. Nowhere to go on
Friday night or at the weekends. Nothing to collect.

Science is everywhere but there are no designer labels to admire.
Nobody thinks about science labs when they watch their LCD TV. They
don't think about science while their computer or Xbox amuses them for
hours on end. Nobody thinks about science when their water always
comes safely out of the tap. Nor worry about where it goes afterwards.
Nobody thinks about the extraordinary amount of science behind the
scenes as they fill their cars at the gas station. Nobody thinks about
science as they try on new shoes or buy an electric bicycle, follow
their GPS to the airport or take a plane trip.

Science offers life to the sick and keeps us healthy but we don't ever
think about it unless it gets really personal. Science is invisible to
those who will not see. They think they know more than the finest
minds on the planet because they have no real knowledge except that
given to them by their priests. Or some moronic, fascist, TV
evangelist on the make. Someone who knows exactly how to sell his
snake oil dearly to the endlessly gullible, mentally handicapped
amongst us. Or worse, an immoral, knuckle dragging president who set
the world back by decades in survival terms and by several centuries
in intellectual terms. Science is like those self service bins. One
can pick and choose what you like and which to ignore and it isn't
immediately life threatening. But by god science is useful when you
want to do harm to somebody!

The problem is that science doesn't care about the ordinary person.
Most basic scientist has no immediate customers. At least none they
can recognise in the street. They may save literally billions of real
people's lives but their names are completely unknown.They cannot
compete with sports people for fame and fortune. They are no good as
pop idols because they need to work hard rather than simply entertain.
Nobody would care if they went without underwear or displayed more
than is modest on a drunken night on the town. Nobody cares if they
divorce through overwork and underpay. Nor suffer from lack of
recognition for their very doubtful talents.

Science gets a bad press more times than it is praised yet has nobody
to speak for it. Nobody to defend it. Nobody to love it or admire it.
No groupies or adoring fan clubs. Science's best sellers roll
constantly off the world's production lines but nobody is there to
hype real science for its own sake. You don't buy a scientific
experiment which went right. You buy a finished product with a name on
it. One which competes with all the other names which we
superstitiously choose to buy without the slightest understanding
behind our choices.

We are illogical beings. Science doesn't care because it is too busy
doing what it does best behind the scenes. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can
pretend to know more abut science than his pals. Which is never much
anyway. Science likes the truth but doesn't have strict rules for
blasphemy. It doesn't deliberately stone little girls to death. Nor
make death threats against those who deny its stone age heroes. It
doesn't mind being mocked because it has the truth on its side. It is
not hypersensitive to doubters because it appreciates questions which
may lead to greater understanding.

Science provides the AK47 which drives the war against education and
suppresses basic human rights. Science provides the satellite
telephones which direct ignorance and terrorism in equal measure.
Science provides the video tapes and video cameras which terrorists
use for their own ends to force ignorance deep into human society. If
the New Dark Ages are coming then science will provide the
deliberately ignorant with their tools, their communication systems
and their weapons of choice. Just as science provides the belligerent
ignoramus with his tools to spread darkness right across the Internet
today.

Martin Brown wrote:

How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?

Science education has never been very good overall.

Progress is the direct consequence of relatively small aberrations
where "gifted" teacher and student come together by happenstance. All
the rest are hobbyists.

On Apr 7, 11:07*pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:

You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

************

Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 *million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.

Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111

So, you're another one of the ultra purest that doesn't believe
there's ever anything rogue going on, no mergers of any kind and
otherwise no cosmic interactions of any kind, and the Great Attractor
simply doesn't exist. Well, aren't you special.

~ BG

On Apr 7, 11:07*pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:58*pm, BradGuth wrote:

You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

************

Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 *million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.

Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111

So, you're another one of the ultra creation and forever expansion
purest that doesn't believe there's ever anything rogue going on, no
such mergers or encounters of any importance taking place and
otherwise no significant cosmic interactions of any kind, and the
Great Attractor plus a good number of colliding galaxies simply do not
exist. Well, aren't you special.

You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
year dynamic volumetric sphere of cosmic saturated gas as of 300
million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen that was star creation
worthy and situated right next door to our solar system, instead of
being gathered up by our nearby and well formulated tidal radius of
gravity influence, having instead independently formulated itself into
a nifty pair of truly massive stars (Sirius B of 9 solar masses and
Sirius A of 2.5 solar masses, plus having created at least a third
significant body of 0.6 solar mass).

Did I get that right?

~ BG

On 08/04/09 00:46, Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark wrote in message
...
On 07/04/09 09:16, Mark Earnest wrote:
No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
It didn't "anti-dissipate".

It came together, right?

Uhuh.

Then it must have dissipated in reverse, in other words.

What, you mean like steam unevaporates into water, trees ungrow their
leaves in the autumn, that sort of thing?

Suggestion: don't invent meaningless phrases in an attempt to ridicule
your opponent's argument, it merely makes your own argument weak.

Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense such
as "a divine being did it".

That is not cryptic.

Cryptic: "secret or occult", "having hidden meaning".

Hmm, surely thats /precisely/ what your divine being is?

Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
"anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth?

Earth has enough heavy elements to hold down the atmosphere.

Good - so you admit the existence of gravity.

Deep space does not.

The solar system didn't form in "deep space", it formed in a huge cloud
of matter (gas and solid), which had a huge mass.

How about the moon?

The Moon simply does not have sufficient gravity.

How does the moon's lack of gravity mean that it can't fly away from the
earth?

Even scientists aren't completely wrong.

I'm glad we agree on something...