Addressing the formation of the solar system

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/09 22:33, Mark Earnest wrote:

***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
highly improbably

Oh, you're an expert statistician are you?

The mind is capable of extraordinary statistics if you only give it a
chance.
Just apply a little imagination and watch it go.


Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the probability
of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?

Not much, seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.
Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
after it was first recorded.



that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
caught in each other's gravity.

When did anyone say that's what happened?

I thought Brad was saying that, when he was describing the different colors
of the stars of Sirius.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 2:33 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
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.

***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
highly improbably that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and
got
caught in each other's gravity.

Except that it seems to happen all the time. How many thousand images
from public accessible archives would you care to obfuscate and/or
apply denial?

**Why peruse musical journasl when you are considering botany?


How about, do you not believe The Great Attractor is real?

**Sounds about as real as anything else I've heard from this quadrant.

On Apr 8, 6:14*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...



On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:

Science is the religion, not theism.

This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by the
tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above are
dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can equate
the above to prophets.

In science you have the creed: *Nothing goes faster than light,

That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even if
you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year a
group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually travel
faster than light.

That is no theory to scientists. *It is considered solid fact.
I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.



an object in motion stays in motion.

A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.



Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
adherence to Catholicism but offers no *rationale or logic. And don't even
get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically boil down
to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to the heavies
near the door".

I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.



In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.

In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn power
and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to retain
it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews, moslems,
christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and dodos, and took
fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the name of religion,
some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do. *I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
anywhere. *All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.



Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....

We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

If one of our probes bumps into an ET, our job is essentially done.

Sending out a million probes rather than one, improves our odds by
1e6:1 in favor of making contact.

~ BG

On Apr 8, 6:22*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 8, 2:33 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:



"BradGuth" wrote in message

....
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.

***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
highly improbably that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and
got caught in each other's gravity.

Except that it seems to happen all the time. *How many thousand images
from public accessible archives would you care to obfuscate and/or
apply denial?

**Why peruse musical journasl when you are considering botany?

How about, do you not believe The Great Attractor is real?

**Sounds about as real as anything else I've heard from this quadrant.

Indeed, "The Great Attractor" is quite real, as well as being very
upsetting to the Big Bang mindset.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 6:14 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...



On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:

Science is the religion, not theism.

This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by
the
tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above are
dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can equate
the above to prophets.

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even
if
you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year
a
group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually
travel
faster than light.

That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.



an object in motion stays in motion.

A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.



Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
adherence to Catholicism but offers no rationale or logic. And don't
even
get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically boil
down
to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to the
heavies
near the door".

I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.



In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.

In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn power
and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to
retain
it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews, moslems,
christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and dodos, and
took
fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the name of
religion,
some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never
get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.



Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....

We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

If one of our probes bumps into an ET, our job is essentially done.

Sending out a million probes rather than one, improves our odds by
1e6:1 in favor of making contact.

Why is NASA sending out probes to find E.T.'s, anyway?
Before launching Voyager, they should have surmised that
if E.T. were smart enough to come to it, they would surely be
smart enough to come all the way here, to Earth.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 6:14 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...



On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:

Science is the religion, not theism.

This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by
the
tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above are
dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can
equate
the above to prophets.

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even
if
you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year
a
group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually
travel
faster than light.

That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.



an object in motion stays in motion.

A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.



Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
adherence to Catholicism but offers no rationale or logic. And don't
even
get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically boil
down
to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to the
heavies
near the door".

I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.



In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.

In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn
power
and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to
retain
it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews, moslems,
christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and dodos, and
took
fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the name of
religion,
some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics
of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never
get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.



Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....

We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

If one of our probes bumps into an ET, our job is essentially done.

Sending out a million probes rather than one, improves our odds by
1e6:1 in favor of making contact.

Why is NASA sending out probes to find E.T.'s, anyway?
Before launching Voyager, they should have surmised that
if E.T. were smart enough to come to it, they would surely be
smart enough to come all the way here, to Earth.
If E.T. were really, really smart he'd use satellite dishes and digital
cable
to broadcast his TV and saving us the trouble of searching for him
with radio telescopes and setting up organisations called SETI, the
Search for Extra Terrestrial stupIdity. On the other hand he could be
as dumb as Carl Sagan was.

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

Science is the religion, not theism.

Not at all. Science is a methodology for testing what we think we know
about how the universe works by constructing theoretical models and
*testing* them against what actually happens in the real world.

Scientists are always looking for the next experiment that tests to
breaking point the existing world model. The photo-electric effect and
the Michelson-Morley ether drift experiments are good examples.

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

And there will be others who become famous in the future for improving
on the works of their predecessors. We are not wedded to a literal
interpretation of a particular English translation of an old book.

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

No information can be transferred faster than light.

And the speed of light is a practical barrier for all particle
accelerators. The particles can be given more energy, but they never go
faster than c in a vacuum. And in a refractive medium a massive charged
particle can travel faster than the local speed of light leaving
Cherenkov radiation in its wake. Wiki has a nice article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cerenkov_radiation

It also fits very nicely with Maxwell's equations and every experimental
test so far has been entirely consistent with SR and GR. There may be a
more complete theory, but until someone finds an experiment where GR
fails to predict the right outcome it is about as good as it gets.

Lets see your deity do any better!

an object in motion stays in motion.

Conservation laws are about the most general and powerful rules of the
universe that there are. The general relativity versions seem to hold
valid even in the most extreme cases of binary pulsars.

In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.

You are drooling uncontrollably here. It is the established church that
has forever tried to keep the population ignorant and fearful. The
modern equivalent of medieval indulgences is the tele-Evangelist with
his "Gimme your money and I will sin for you". They are so funny!

Theism is just a mode of operation.

"Just so" stories promising eternal life and jam tomorrow to the poor so
that they will follow their King, "Gods appointed ruler" into battle.

Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

That is a policy decision I happen to agree with.

I don't see the point in sending men to the moon, Mars or to sit in that
useless boondoggle the ISS for that matter. Unless and until we find
something that our robotic systems cannot do. The robotic Mars explorers
are still working very nicely long after their design lifetime.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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

Science is the religion, not theism.

Not at all. Science is a methodology for testing what we think we know
about how the universe works by constructing theoretical models and
*testing* them against what actually happens in the real world.

Scientists are always looking for the next experiment that tests to
breaking point the existing world model. The photo-electric effect and the
Michelson-Morley ether drift experiments are good examples.

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

And there will be others who become famous in the future for improving on
the works of their predecessors. We are not wedded to a literal
interpretation of a particular English translation of an old book.

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

No information can be transferred faster than light.

Yeah, yeah, and chant "Einstein akbar" while you are at it,
you religious dork.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:

retain it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews,
moslems, christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and
dodos, and took fire and sword to Africa and America.

The dodo's biggest problem was that it was big, tasted really good and
wasn't afraid of man. It would be worth trying to replicate its DNA from
museum specimens when our technology is up to the task.

Different brands of Christianity have been at each others throats for
many centuries, and they still are in Northern Ireland. Odd when they
claim to worship the same nominal deity.

A minimalist mathematical religion requires just two founding axioms:

Proposition 1: All non-believers will burn eternally in hell fire.
Proposition 2: True believers must minimise the suffering of others.

You can quickly get from these axioms to accepting that any finite
amount of suffering and torture to save eternal souls is entirely
justified. Summed up as "the ends justify the means". Typical examples
being the inquisition and various other religious zealots.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even if
you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year a
group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
supralight speed.

Unclear whether that is truly what it means though. Interpretation of
quantum entanglement experiments is still an area of active research.

And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually travel
faster than light.

The cutest one is monochromatic sodium light passing through sodium
vapour. You can see the light bend so you know that the wavecrests are
genuinely travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The
problem is that as soon as you try to modulate a signal onto the
wavetrain it is no longer monochromatic and the signal is scrambled by
the extremely dispersive medium. The same happens in waveguides. It is a
due to a subtle distinction between phase and group velocity.

That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.

It has never been demonstrated to be incorrect.

I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.

So show us you faster than light device then.

an object in motion stays in motion.
A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.

No. Mathematics exists completely outside of science as a discipline in
its own right. The Axioms of mathematics and rules of logic can be used
to construct exact formal proofs. If the mathematics happens to describe
how the universe works then that is a bonus.

Science tests mathematical models of the universe against reality.

Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

I am not surprised. YOU ARE BARKING MAD.

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.

ROFL. Lets see your FTL drive then.

Regards,
Martin Brown