Addressing the formation of the solar system

On Apr 9, 9:27*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message

netamerica...



"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
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.

Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSyst...tion.asp?Cate=...

Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."

No, you tell me how "Goddidit" is not a cryptic explanation first.

Can't explain it, just as I thought.

Mark, in this day and age, explaining anything by saying
"God did it" is tantamount to giving up trying. *Isaac Newton
did that with gravity. *Einstein made a better attempt, but
ended up little better than Newton.

Relying upon religion for cosmic answers is the same as
saying "Ignorance is Bliss"! *("T'is Folly to be Wise")

God did not put us here to be his ignorant puppets. *Nor did
he install controversial things like fossils to confound us. *He
(or She as the case may be) wants us to learn and to grow
as freethinking people with free will. *He wants us to search
and to find answers.

You can figuratively throw up you arms in covert misery-
loves-company frustration and preach your heart out. *But
you will never convince me that hiding behind a religious
veil is better than *never* surrendering to ignorance!

happy days and...
* *starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: *"I believe in looking reality straight in the
* * * * * *eye and denying it." * * * * Garrison Keillor

P.P.S.: *http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net
* * * * * * * *http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth

Did you and Art Deco ever get married?
~ BG

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article ,
BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article ,

*BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?


Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

~ BG

On May 5, 9:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article ,

*BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?



Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

*~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

Mitch Raemsch

On May 6, 4:50*pm, BURT wrote:
On May 5, 9:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article ,

*BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?

Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

*~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

Mitch Raemsch

I agree, as perhaps our Milky Way is on it's 2nd, 3rd or 4th recycle
by now. It seems unlikely that our galaxy has never encountered any
other galaxy.

~ BG

BURT wrote:

On May 5, 9:28Â*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:03Â*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article
,

BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. Â*Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?



Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). Â*Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Phone 617-495-7123 Â* Â*
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Â*Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

14,000,000,007 years old.

--
Paul Hovnanian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On May 8, 11:04*am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
BURT wrote:
On May 5, 9:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article
,

BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?

Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

14,000,000,007 years old.

--
Paul Hovnanian

Subjectively, it's any age you'd like it to be. Objectively we don't
have an honest clue.

~ BG

On May 8, 10:48*am, BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 11:04*am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:





BURT wrote:
On May 5, 9:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article
,

BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?

Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

14,000,000,007 years old.

--
Paul Hovnanian

Subjectively, it's any age you'd like it to be. *Objectively we don't
have an honest clue.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How long did it take expanding space of the universe to carry objects
out to 13.7 billion light years in distance?

Mitch Raemsch

On May 8, 4:26*pm, BURT wrote:
On May 8, 10:48*am, BradGuth wrote:



On May 8, 11:04*am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

BURT wrote:
On May 5, 9:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:

[irrelevant newsgroups left in because of correcting misquotation]

In article
,

BradGuth writes:
According to Steve Willner, the nearby stellar creation or
assimilation of something like Sirius ABC transpired fairly quickly,
say within 10 some odd million years

The timescale is mine, but the "nearby" is not. *Sirius did not form
anywhere near the Sun or Earth.

Would you care to specify or guess at where the original Sirius star/
solar system was, as of 250~300 MBP?

Sirius C is, as far as I can tell, entirely hypothetical (Benest &
Duvent, 1995 A&A 299, 621). *Of course "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence," and I have not investigated how easy or
difficult it would be to detect the star if it exists.

--
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. *Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

It must be subjectively nice, that you always get to pick and chose
whichever physics and science suites?

~ BG

I don't think we know the age of the universe. How many supernovas did
it take?

14,000,000,007 years old.

--
Paul Hovnanian

Subjectively, it's any age you'd like it to be. *Objectively we don't
have an honest clue.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How long did it take expanding space of the universe to carry objects
out to 13.7 billion light years in distance?

Mitch Raemsch

At the average exit velocity of 0.1C it should have taken 137 billion
years.

Thus far no recorded supernova and it's aftermath has demonstrated
even the 0.1c kind of expanding molecular shell velocity, so it's
unclear as to how fast matter can be made to move away from the
singular black hole ultranova or hypernova that supposedly created our
universe.

Supposedly a sufficiently massive collapsing star can manage 70,000
km/s on the final imploding cycle, with the expanding shock wave of
perhaps 15,000 km/s (less than 5%c).

Superluminal velocity of physical matter seems highly unlikely for
anything except quantum tunneling photons.

Perhaps if the pre-universe was in fact zero K and already saturated
with Cooper electron/positron pairs, it's possible that expanding
matter could have managed a FTL velocity.

~ BG

On Apr 9, 11:28*am, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"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.