Addressing the formation of the solar system

On 09/04/09 18:16, Androcles wrote:

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have that nearly right. In your case you will probably find it a
blessing that they don't have to read rebuttals of your crackpot
theories, because it means you can carry on ignoring reality.

On the other hand, plonking me won't stop me rebutting you, pointing out
the errors in your posts and so forth. You won't see them - but the rest
of the world will.

On 09/04/09 19:33, Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark wrote in message

And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.

That still shows stars as moving pretty darned slow.

Huh? In 0.00000003% of the life of the universe, they will completely
change position and won't look anything like they do today. And you
think its slow?

Stop thinking in human terms. The galaxy is on a rather grander scale
than puny humanity.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
netamerica...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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.

E.T. may indeed be smart, but that may not have occured to him.
And how would he know about SETI if he was still on his planet back home?

E.T. would not know, I was being facetious.
If we assume E.T. is intelligent then it would be foolish of him to announce
his presence to a species of great ape hell-bent on destruction of all life
on
our own planet, including himself. Man is quite unable to control his own
population growth which is doubling every 33 years, constantly at war with
his fellows in competition for available resources and would be seen by E.T.
as a dangerous disease to be eradicated before it spreads beyond its
present containment. In another century the world population will be EIGHT
times what it is at present, East will battle West for arable land, there
will
be mass starvation and nobody is even aware of the problem, let alone
doing anything about it. That is hardly intelligent. You'd better hope
E.T. isn't out there because if he is he ain't letting us out of our own
Solar
System, we are lethal and we've already told him where we are. What he
makes of our fictional horror films and real war footage I shudder to think,
but we've already transmitted them.

On Apr 9, 12:03*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message

netamerica...





"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:

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

No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
the next person of doing a web-search.

Scientists may say it is theory. But they still inadvertantly treat it as
fact.
Tell them you can go faster than 186, 000 miles per second, and you will see
what I mean.


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

Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?

The scientists as NASA.


Pharmacists? Science is an enormous field and just like I have no idea
what the laws are governing molecular biology, I wouldn't expect a chemist
to know the detail of relativity or quantum mech.

And furthermo we're surrounded by scientific theories which are
regarded as "laws of physics" by laypeople and those whose experience
isn't in the right field. That's a matter of convenience, not fact.
Newton's laws are wrong - but mostly they're good enough to be considered
as laws. General relativity is a theory which fits most known pertinent
observations - but its still a theory.


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.

The classic response - deny the supplementary proof exists.

By the way, maths isn't a science. Applied Maths is a tool used by
scientists. Pure Maths is a form of philosophy. See Popper et al.

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

Again definitionally, religion is organized theism.

some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do.

Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.

Christians may have indeed burned scientists, but scientists do not exactly
have clean hands either, considering how they close doors on mankind, such
as the door to interstellar and intergalactic space travel.


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."

If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
who will read it and point out any issues for you.

No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
waste my time.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 19:33, Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark wrote in message

And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.

That still shows stars as moving pretty darned slow.

Huh? In 0.00000003% of the life of the universe, they will completely
change position and won't look anything like they do today. And you think
its slow?

Stop thinking in human terms. The galaxy is on a rather grander scale than
puny humanity.

Don't you remember what this thread was even about?
It was about the stars of Sirius being captured by each other, and the fact
that the stars surely formed together rather than being captured by one of
their gravity. We were already on a grand scale.

On Apr 9, 8:52*am, BradGuth wrote:


You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
year, highly dynamic and hugely volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic
saturated gas as of 300 million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen
and otherwise helium that was sufficiently star creation worthy, and
situated right next door to our solar system, whereas 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 as Sirius C).

Did I get that right?

Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been closer as of 300 million years ago, you're talking about a
sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of roughly 12.5 solar
masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), 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
electric 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 available hydrogen and helium? *And why
didn’t we get our fair share?

Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius
going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
(\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)

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

Boy, you sure can go on and on about things you know absolutely
nothing about.

Sirius and its single companion are approaching earth at about 19 km/
sec, and in 200K years they will be making their closest approach to
earth. Doing the simple math, when that system formed it was over 200
light years away from the solar system. It did NOT form anywhere near
the earth. Take a class, or do some worthy research before putting
your mouth in gear.

By the way, it is very doubtful that this system contains a "C"
component. Many have searched for it and all have failed, including
Hubble. It is just not there. Here is my reference;

http://www.solstation.com/stars/sirius2.htm

Where is yours?

\Paul A

On Apr 6, 10:20*pm, BURT wrote:
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

Mitch, never say never, because it just ****es folks off, and I'd bet
God too. There are perhaps at least a dozen primary causes that
produced our universe. Your God was a very busy boy or gal, and for
quite some time none the less. Seems it would have been a whole lot
easier to just sit back and let **** happen, then come back in and try
making sense out of 0.00001% of it.

Here’s my revised/updated reply to Paul A (pnals), as being another
one of our resident diehard anti-revisionist, plus this is for anyone
else without an original deductive thought or a lose cannon to his/her
name.

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 at heart, 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.


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.
Ø \Paul A

I’ve always agreed that binary and even trinary star systems are
pretty much the cosmic norm. However, you realize what you are saying
is that a truly horrific multi light year, highly dynamic and hugely
volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic saturated gas as of 300 million
some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen and otherwise helium that was
sufficiently star creation worthy, and situated right next door to our
solar system, whereas 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 as Sirius C).

Did I get that right?

Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been more compact and otherwise closer as of 300 million years ago,
you're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of
roughly 12.5 solar masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), 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 electric 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 available hydrogen and
helium? And why didn’t we get our fair share if we were here first?

In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar molecular hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3,
though actually it’s of less cosmic ISM density because of such gas
being hot as hell and being continually tidal force pulled apart or
diverted by the gravity other nearby stars (such as our sun), so let
us make it worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a gaseous
populated sphere of 18.5 light years diameter at 100% stellar
formation efficiency, and since we can safely say this star creating
process is never that good, so perhaps 33,000 ly3 as a collective
gravitational collapse worthy sphere of 40 ly is more like it. The
“Jeans Mass” for accommodating a sufficient “triggered star formation”
is suggesting much greater solar mass ratios of at least 1000:1
required for the accretion process, of which puts us smack within the
center realm of whatever culmination of matter and events created
Sirius ABC, making us very much a part of the same stellar formation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius B
going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
(\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)

Perhaps if something of mass were to merge into a sufficient molecular
cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium that would have easily included
our solar system, such as a brown dwarf of 10~100 Jm, or possibly a
small antimatter black hole could have been the stellar seed, but
perhaps that kind of reverse-nova or anti-nova too should have
adversely affected our solar system that was likely situated within
the same molecular cloud.

Within many complex theories to pick from http://
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp, supposedly the final
straw of our dinosaur extinction process took place as of merely 65
million years ago, of which seems to suggest the nearby red-giant and
subsequent slow nova of Sirius B (our second sun) becoming a white
dwarf and having lost its tidal radius grip on whatever planets,
planetoids and moons would have been a most likely contributor of this
otherwise robust biodiversity demise that should have otherwise stood
the test of time. Clearly no one cosmic and/or terrestrial event
caused the great extinction process, although physical impacts derived
from the sudden demise of the Sirius B solar system (perhaps including
our obtaining and icy Selene as our moon) would certainly have
finished off most of whatever was left of such life on Earth.

Of course, here in Google Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) land of mostly
insurmountable naysayism, obfuscation, denial and above all
consistently anti-revision mindsets, you’d think there would be a
little room for the give and take of fresh ideas, especially since so
much of astrophysics upon what we thought we knew has been recently
tossed out the proverbial window. Meanwhile, the most vibrant and
interesting star system that’s situated right next to us remains as
oddly taboo/nondisclosure rated, as though our NASA had once landed on
it, or that it’s hiding OBL plus all of those Muslim WMD along with
all of those SEC red-flag reports that were never acted upon, and of
course those 700 large and clearly marked NASA/Apollo boxes of mission
related R&D plus critical systems and science data that seemed to
vanish into thin air.

Btw, I find that creation, intelligent design and natural evolution
can safely coexist most anywhere, except here on Eden/Earth.

~ BG

On 09/04/09 22:06, Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:
That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
the next person of doing a web-search.

Scientists may say it is theory. But they still inadvertantly treat it as
fact.
Tell them you can go faster than 186, 000 miles per second, and you will see
what I mean.

I'm a scientist, you've told me, and you saw the result.
My lodger is a scientist, I just checked with her and she agreed with me
that its a theory, not a fact.

/Your/ theory isn't being borne out by experimental evidence. :-)

You also have the classic heisenberg problem. Your mere observation of
the experiment is influencing it.

You also have the classic non-neutral question problem. You're starting
from a pejorative position and asking a leading question. Inevitably
that biases your results.

Furthermore you have the "scientist versus layperson" problem. If
someone on the bus asked me that question, I'd say "no" because to
explain when the theory breaks down is beyond the level of common
ground. it'd merely confuse matters.

And then as I've already pointed out, science isn't a single homogenous
mass of identically educated persons, and if you asked a biologist or a
pharmacist, they'd be in no position to comment on the latest thinking
of quantum mech.


I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.
Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?

The scientists as NASA.

Um, you do know that engineers aren't even real scientists? And I speak
as an engineering DPhil ...

Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.

Christians may have indeed burned scientists,

what does that have to do with the price of fish?

but scientists do not exactly
have clean hands either, considering how they close doors on mankind, such
as the door to interstellar and intergalactic space travel.

You meant to add "assuming my unproven hypothesis is correct."

And again I ask, which scientists have burned their opponents in the
name of science?

If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
who will read it and point out any issues for you.

No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
waste my time.

Talk about pompous!

"The Stainless Steel Cat" wrote in message
...
In article merica,
"Mark Earnest" wrote:

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

No, that's engineering and economics you're thinking of there.

Cat.

Incorrect.

If scientists were smart enough to deduce from orbital mechanics that it is
possible to get to the edge of the Milky Way in only 2 months, then
the money would be there.