Addressing the formation of the solar system

On Apr 8, 11:31*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

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.
In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
In science you have the creed: *Nothing goes faster than light,
an object in motion stays in motion.
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.

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.

I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.
Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.

Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.
Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)

On Apr 8, 2:53*pm, "Chris.Bee" wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:31*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:







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.
In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
In science you have the creed: *Nothing goes faster than light,
an object in motion stays in motion.
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.

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.

I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.
Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.

Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.
Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yea but science says everything dies. I say the Spirit of God renews
everything including the Sun.

Mitch Raemsch

BURT wrote:
On Apr 8, 2:53 pm, "Chris.Bee" wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:31 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:







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.
In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
an object in motion stays in motion.
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.
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.
I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.
Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.

Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.
Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yea but science says everything dies. I say the Spirit of God renews
everything including the Sun.

Mitch Raemsch
Nitwit, even the sun dies(in a few billion years).

Suns all over the galaxies prove that daily.

"Chris.Bee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 11:31 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

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.
In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
an object in motion stays in motion.
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.

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.

I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.

**If science were not little more than a lame duck, it would be
easy to get vehicles to Mars, Venus, and even the stars themselves.


Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.

Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.

***That is the pot calling the kettle black. Science, too, is a religion.



Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)

***And among those that could only manage decent grades
are those that knew science for what it is: mere halfhearted attempts
at rhyming, pleasing others, and building toys for old physics professors.

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.

an object in motion stays in motion.

A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

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".

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.

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....

On 08/04/09 23:58, BURT wrote:

Yea but science says everything dies. I say the Spirit of God renews
everything including the Sun.

Really? Try telling that to the various novae floating around our
galaxy. Oh and by the way, the sun is measurably dying.

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?

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?

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

When did anyone say that's what happened?

On Apr 8, 10:53*am, wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:45*am, BradGuth wrote:



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 .06 solar mass).

Did I get that right?

*~ BG

Yup, that's about right.

There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
and thousands of others out there *just like it.

Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
likely to occur.

\Paul A

I agree that binaries and trinaries are by far the stellar norm.

You're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of
roughly 12.5 solar masses, as happening right next door if not damn
near on top of and/or easily including us, and it just doesn't add up
as to why that horrific nearby amount of such charged hydrogen wasn't
the least bit attracted to our pre-existing solar system mass of 2e30
kg. I mean to ask, what the hell was wrong with all of that
hydrogen? And why didn’t we get our fair share?

In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3, though
actually it’s of much less cosmic ISM density because of being hot as
hell, so let us make it worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a
hydrogen populated sphere of 18.5 light years diameter.

Were we actually that close to such a complex stellar birth as of 300
million years ago, and somehow remained unaffected?

However, it seems those "rogue events might happen here and there" are
not so unlikely, especially when there are mutual tidal radius factors
taken into account.

What might happen, for whatever the reason, if Sirius ABC were to
combine?

~ BG

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?

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

~ BG

"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.