4 Things Americans Can Learn About Faith and Evolution From Great Britain and Canada


#312

The 2nd law applies to a closed system. Last time I checked stars shine. They radiate energy so the 2nd law doesn’t apply.


(Phil) #313

The whole gas pressure thing and stars is interesting, but I suspect pretty easy to explain. After all, the gas pressure of H20 allows for rain snow and ice to form when the temps fall. Of course, it takes times for stars to form, much longer than the time we have had to observe them, though we can see various stages taking place.


(James McKay) #314

Star formation from gas clouds is a direct consequence of the law of gravity. Once you get above a certain size, perturbations in the density of the gas cloud become unstable, they start to collapse in on themselves, and a runaway effect happens. It’s fairly basic maths.


(Phil) #315

All that talk about jeans mass and length reminded me of how diarrhea is genetically transmitted. They found it runs in the jeans.
sorry.


#316

And yet you can’t even define what a kind is or how to determine which species fit into a kind.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:311, topic:36748”]
Species is an arbitrary definition that evolutionists play around with to fit their hokey theory.
[/quote]

How so?


#317

Does Google not work for you?

How does our own star not violate the 2nd law of thermondynamics, or any star for that matter? Gas is being pulled inward in every single star, so if gas pulling inwards towards a center of gravity during star formation violates the 2LoT then every star in the universe violates that law.

Added in edit: In thinking about this problem even further it seemed rather hilarious that an astrophysicist would even consider it a problem. If the collapse of a gas cloud violates the 2Lot, then something as common as rivers shouldn’t work.

A liquid is given energy, evaporates, climbs up a gravity well, condensense, falls back down that gravity well, and then flows to the lowest point in the gravity well that it can. Heck, hydroelectric dams shouldn’t work according to @Bill_Smith logic.

Stars forming in nebulae are just the same, in priniciple. First generation stars explode in supernovae and scatter their remains through space. The gas interacts, slows down, and then starts falling back down through a gravity well until it reaches the lowest point it can reach in that gravity well, which happens to be the core of a star. After that, it is a tug of war between gravity pulling inwards and the energy from fusion pushing outwards.


(George Brooks) #318

Awesome, @T_aquaticus! @Bill_Smith, this is a tough one for you to beat…


#319

There is also an earlier observation of another baby star being born:

"Most protostars are between one to 10 times as luminous as the Sun, with large dust envelopes that glow at infrared wavelengths. Because L1448-IRS2E is less than one tenth as luminous as the Sun, the team believes the object is too dim to be considered a true protostar. Yet they also discovered that the object is ejecting streams of high-velocity gas from its center, confirming that some sort of preliminary mass has already formed and the object has developed beyond the prestellar phase. This kind of outflow is seen in protostars (as a result of the magnetic field surrounding the forming star), but has not been seen at such an early stage until now."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-06-astronomers-witness-star-born.html#jCp

These are from 4 and 7 years ago, so it’s hardly something new. It is interesting to see how stories of “Science hasn’t found X” circulate within the YEC/OEC community well beyond their expiration date.


#320

Did they watch the entire birth for millions of years or are they just assuming what they see at this instant is part of something they have never seen happen?

Here is a note from an astrophysicist on the gas pressure problem from http://www.icr.org/article/blue-stars-confirm-recent-creation/

Some astronomy textbooks even have pictures of nebulae labeled as “star-forming regions” or “stellar nurseries,” as if star formation were an observed fact. But it is not. Star formation has never been observed.

Star formation is problematic at best.3 Gas is very resistant to being compressed. On earth, gas always fills its container. In space, there is no container. So gas expands indefinitely. If the gas could be forced into a sphere that is very small (in comparison to a nebula) such as the sun, then the gas would be held together by its own gravity. However, in a typical nebula, the gas pressure far exceeds the miniscule force of gravity. Secular astronomers now believe that external forces, such as a shockwave from an exploding star, are necessary in most cases to trigger star formation.(But, of course, this would require a previous star, and so it cannot be used to explain the formation of the first stars.) Observations confirm that gas clouds expand; they do not appear to collapse into stars.

Even if we could compress the nebula sufficiently to the point that the force of gravity was strong enough to prevent the gas from expanding, other effects would kick in, thereby preventing the formation of a star. Clouds of gas always have a weak magnetic field, which would be concentrated if the cloud were compressed. This dramatically increases the field strength. The magnetic pressure would halt a shrinking cloud and drive it to re-expand.5 It’s a bit like trying to push the like poles of two magnets together.

Also, gas clouds always have a small amount of angular momentum; they rotate, if ever so slowly. But much like a skater who pulls her arms and legs in as she spins, a collapsing gas cloud would spin-up dramatically. The “centrifugal force” generated would tend to prevent any further collapse. Gas pressure, magnetic field strength, and angular momentum all work to prevent star formation. From a scientific perspective, naturalistic star formation appears unlikely at best. The evidence seems far more consistent with the biblical account—it appears that stars were supernaturally created only thousands of years ago. With blue stars scattered across the cosmos, our universe certainly “looks” young


(George Brooks) #321

@Bill_Smith,

Now that is amusing. Because you are skeptical, a generation of advanced mathematics must be wrong?

Your ability to describe various elements of physics (or to quote these elements from a poorly conceived ICR article you link us to above) doesn’t seem to give you the capacity to understand the whole picture. It’s like listening to a traveling circus of miracle workers explain why penicillin (made from disgusting mold on rotten bread) cannot possibly cure a person of human disease - - but that only prayer can explain cures. While here at BioLogos, we describe both solutions - - together.

Forces like momenta, magnetic fields, and gravitational pull are all well understood by modern physicists, and cross-referenced by other phenomena visible in the the heavens and in the laboratories. The ICR article thinks that the brightness of these stars is because they burn hotter, when in fact, they burn less hot. (See the discussion in the Wiki article at the bottom.)

As for whether or not someone has “observed” star formation … if we have photographs of the empty night sky, suddenly followed by a burst of light coming from the very same sector of the sky a year later … what would you call that? Are you saying that because we don’t have a film clip of the gases gathering, we cannot say the birth of a new star was observed? I think your requirements for “observation” are not just impractical, but intentionally so!

"The lifecycle of massive O-type stars from the lower mass limit to 120M☉ has been well modelled in recent years. Stars with different metallicities and rotation rates show considerable variation in their evolution, but the basics remain the same.

O-type stars start to move slowly from the zero-age main sequence almost immediately, gradually becoming cooler and slightly more luminous.

“Although they may be characterised spectroscopically as giants or supergiants, they continue to burn hydrogen in their cores for several million years and develop in a very different manner from low-mass stars such as the Sun. Most O-type main-sequence stars will evolve more or less horizontally in the HR diagram to cooler temperatures, becoming blue supergiants. Core helium ignition occurs smoothly as the stars expand and cool. There are a number of complex phases depending on the exact mass of the star and other initial conditions, but the lowest mass O-type stars will eventually evolve into red supergiants while still burning helium in their cores. If they do not explode as a supernova first, they will then lose their outer layers and become hotter again, sometimes going through a number of blue loops before finally reaching the Wolf–Rayet stage.”

The more-massive stars, initially main-sequence stars hotter than about O9, never become red supergiants because strong convection and high luminosity blow away the outer layers too quickly. 25–60M☉ stars may become yellow hypergiants before either exploding as a supernova or evolving back to hotter temperatures. Above about 60M☉, O-type stars evolve though a short blue hypergiant or luminous blue variable phase directly to Wolf–Rayet stars. The most massive O-type stars develop a WNLh spectral type as they start to convect material from the core towards the surface, and these are the most luminous stars that exist.

Low to intermediate-mass stars age in a very different way, through red-giant, horizontal-branch, asymptotic-giant-branch (AGB), and then post-AGB phases. Post-AGB evolution generally involves dramatic mass loss, sometimes leaving a planetary nebula, and leaving an increasingly hot exposed stellar interior. If there is sufficient helium and hydrogen remaining, these small but extremely hot stars have an O-type spectrum. They increase in temperature until shell burning and mass loss ceases, then they cool into white dwarfs."


#322

Why don’t you read the article and find out?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:320, topic:36748”]
Star formation has never been observed.
[/quote]

I just showed you an article that demonstrates you are wrong.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:320, topic:36748”]
However, in a typical nebula, the gas pressure far exceeds the miniscule force of gravity.
[/quote]

You are going to need references for this claim.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:320, topic:36748”]
Even if we could compress the nebula sufficiently to the point that the force of gravity was strong enough to prevent the gas from expanding, other effects would kick in, thereby preventing the formation of a star. Clouds of gas always have a weak magnetic field, which would be concentrated if the cloud were compressed. This dramatically increases the field strength. The magnetic pressure would halt a shrinking cloud and drive it to re-expand.5 It’s a bit like trying to push the like poles of two magnets together.
[/quote]

Do you have a real scientific reference for this?


(George Brooks) #323

The fact you think you have figured out star formation better than Einstein or most of the world’s physicists is hilarious to me.

Don’t you think you have a moral obligation to let today’s physics genius’ know about this problem?


(James McKay) #324

Take a look at this video. It shows 100 people aged from 1 to 100:

Star forming regions/stellar nurseries work in exactly the same way. We may not see individual stars through their entire lifecycle, but just as in this video, we see different stars at different stages of their lives.

No it isn’t. Ever come across the ideal gas law PV = nRT?

Incorrect. In space, a sufficiently large gas cloud will form a gravitational potential well — effectively, a gravitational container — by its own mass.

Here’s a fun fact for you: Betelgeuse has a mass of about eleven solar masses (2.2×1031 kg) and a radius of about 900 solar radii (6.2×1011 metres). This means that its density works out at a mere 2×10-5 kg/m3 — about one sixty thousandth of the density of the earth’s atmosphere! Yet even so, that still gives it an escape velocity at its outer extremity of about 70 km/second.

Bottom line: a large enough gas cloud will collapse to form a star.


(Phil) #325

That is fascinating, I had no idea it was so gassy. I guess the embarrassment is why it turns red. Probably blames it on the dog.(canis major)


(George Brooks) #326

And 70 km/second , @Bill_Smith, turns out to be pretty dang fast !!! Thanks for the scenario, @jammycakes.


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #327

Tangential to your point, but what an oddly riveting video. Thanks for sharing.


#328

My question was rhetorical. It is obvious that they didn’t watch it for millions of years. They just made up a silly story and try to fit the pictures into their story.

I gave you one. It is from an astrophysicist. I think his doctorate is from Cornell. I am sure that he knows the physics pretty well. I am sure that he would be happy to answer questions that you have if you ask him.


#329

You have great faith in men and their ideas. Try reading a science book from a hundred years ago. I am sure the astrophysicist I quoted knows the physics.


#330

So you make up a silly story and try to fit what you see into the story.

Yeah, and I am sure the astrophysicist I quoted is also.

Write the author and ask him if you think he is wrong. I have studied some physics. The creationists arguments sound correct to me. Why do you think that astronomers believe external forces are necessary in most cases to form a star?


#331

I am just guessing here, but maybe the mistake you are making here is in assuming that a large enough gas cloud could form in a small enough volume to get enough mass close enough to itself. In other words, you may be assuming the gas is already in a state that overcomes the repulsive forces, but the problem is you need to show how it could overcome the repulsive forces to get that dense in the first place. I assume that is why astronomers try the theory of exploding external stars to push the gas together. I would have to research it more, but if you really want the answer quickly, just ask the astrophysicist whom you are claiming does not understand the physics involved as well as you do.