Denial of Evolution VI.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Jun 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I have isolated these words just because they are different to my hypotheses. What I will say please realize that I may not be right either.
    1. "As the the protostar collapses it gains in gravity" I can see what you mean but gravity is dependent on mass, so the amount of gravity must remain the same. But I accept that as the density goes up the gravitation force on each fallen particle will rise also, but this would be balance by the centrifugal forces so to get continuing collapse there has to be loss of heavy particles carry this energy, and lost of heat radiation (so the velocity of the particles slows they lose centrifugal force, gravity moves the masses inwardly then gravity increases due to the increased density, heat energy is removed and so the collapse continues.

    2. "but also increases its spin and increasing the speed of the surrounding matter." The compressing matter has a lower mechanical energy than the matter already flung off, so the transfer of energy by increasing the speed is debated. I will grant that in my hypotheses the radiant energy drives the flung off material further away due to radiant energy so this may slow the collapse of the flung material.

    3. I agree "The centrifugal rings can easily be identified by the composition of objects having the proper mass and speed to remain in orbit....." (Except I wonder if the word is "centrifugal" when speaking of the rings. (annular is that a better word??)

    Thanks again and sorry I didn't get time to research yesterday's unanswered question about the temperature of the inner Solar System.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Consider this. We have to look at these elemental clouds as the result of the Big Bang, which produced an expanding cloud of pure universal energy which, for an instant was too energetic to become matter. Only when the temperature fell enough to slow things down and allow fusion did the first elements appear.

    At no time did any "solid matter" exist, just an enormous dynamic expanding (elemental) atomic cloud. It is perfectly understandable that some areas within this cloud were thinner (less populated) and other areas were more densely populated. As these concentrations increase mass and produce gravity, the cloud immediately begins to cannibalize its surroundings and as the central mass continues collapse, a star may be born. The rest of the cloud (with its own accidental collisions of atoms, forming matter) is too far to feel the effect of gravity or has sufficient momentum to nullify the effect of gravity.[/quote]

    The argument that the sun must have collapsed into a nova in order to produce heavy elements from which the earth was formed, does not meet Ockham's razor, IMO. The sun is a young star and will probably never go nova, it has not enough mass.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Yes, I didn't think that through. Perhaps I was using a black hole as an image when I wrote that.

    3. I agree "The centrifugal rings can easily be identified by the composition of objects having the proper mass and speed to remain in orbit....." (Except I wonder if the word is "centrifugal" when speaking of the rings. (annular is that a better word??)[/quote]

    I associate annular more with biology than physics. We are talking about planetary orbits around a gravitational center of mass.

    IMO the word centrifugal precisely describes the equilibrium reached between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of mass and momentum. All those rings are orbits of material objects with comparable properties, he natural selection and precision of these orbits can easily be seen by their color.

    My pleasure, I am also learning as we go along.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Would you care to explain this? Especially the words "material objects with comparable properties". Are you talking about the rings forming in the proto-planetary disc?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Yes, they are not part of the proto star itself but part of the planetary system that is also forming around the gravitational tug of the developing star. Each rings around Saturn are nothing more than relatively dense collection of cosmic dust and smaller objects (1 mile thick), mostly travelling at the same speed and having similar mass and probably mostly of the same material, trapped in orbit by the equilibrium of gravity from the forming star and the outward momentum of the objects. This is the definition of a planetary orbit. Occasionally another object arrives from outer space and either falls into the star,increasing its mass and gravity or gets diverted and flung back out into space, or becomes trapped in orbit. In case of collisions matter may fuse or scatter, but unless it actually falls into the star or escapes outward without any permanent influence on the existing debris, it will slowly fall inward or be forced outward until it has found a zone of equilibrium and can resumes an orbit which might be some rings over, inward or outward.
    One might cite the orbit a tennis ball attained vs a baseball with greater mass travelling at the same speed, they will never end up in the same orbit. Their orbital equilibrium is attained at different distances from the sun

    Low mass gaseous material which consist of various elements of same atomic weight and traveling at the same speed, will very quickly find their niche on the orbital rings. Note that the gaps between the orbital rings are caused by larger objects such as mini planets which clear the orbital path from anything less massive it encounters, either by absorbing it or just bump it into another orbit, sometimes with catastrophic effects.

    Please note that here I am speaking with intuitive logic of the simplest and therefore the primary candidate for a consistent theorem, a kind of baseline from which undoubtedly other solutions may have produce similar results.

    I have noticed the absence of clarifications by more learned minds than mine. I would love to hear from experts in the field, even if it completely disproves my assumption as a fundamental way in forming proto solar and planetary system.

    My propositions are always posed as probing with a statement, which is either acceptable or should be rejected on the grounds of being just plain wrong.

    Note also that I have tried to avoid such variables as may be encountered in other solar planetary systems. I am trying to keep it really basic and simple as that often is the way nature functions. The greatest complexity formed by natural law and constants usually find the way of least resistance in forming a cohesive system.

    Any complicated way of arriving at speculative ropositions, must answer
    to Ockam's razor.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  9. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Seems logical. Very similar to what I had proposed for the proto-planetary disc. When two chunks of the rings of Saturn clash they could break up into multiple smaller bits, so you would end up multiple sized pieces. That is why I was wondering why you said "of material objects with comparable properties", meaning they are totally blended within that ring as a result of untold collisions and rearrangements.

    Do you think a ring of Saturn could coalesce form another moon or is that potential passed?
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. When debris/gas clouds collapse and the pressure increases due to gravity, this moves the materials in the opposite direction of entropy. Entropy increase will spontaneously move toward lower pressure. To maintain the net entropy increase, other resistant kinetics begin to happen such as rotations and orbits. This help to displace the material over a wider range of space. The rings of Saturn has an orbit but little in the way of rotation because the debris field itself defines sufficient entropy.

    One of the main star maker ingredients is water. This is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen gas. Water has a trick up its sleeve which helps star formation. It also has other tricks that help life evolve.

    At the conditions of space, water will exists as ice such as in asteroids. As this ice collects and compresses due to gravity, the ice will contract by about 10%, when it melts due to gravitational work. Water is somewhat unique in that it contracts on melting. This phase change collapse, which get easier with increasing pressure, creates a gravitational collapse jerk, needed for star making. Any other material common in space will expand when it melts and therefore fight agains the collapse of gravity.

    In terms of atoms of the universe, hydrogen is number one, helium is number two and oxygen in number three, which assures a good supply of oxygen and hydrogen, making water very common to the universe.
     
  11. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    He pulled this same stunt in his latest video, but what's spooky is the amount of attention that he receives.

    [video=youtube;U0u3-2CGOMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    IMO, it is during this time of the collapse of the proto star from a more or less chaotic system, that most of the rings begin to form, each particle or object eventually finding its perfect equilibrium relative to the forming star, with heavier objects drifting outward due to their momentum and lighter materials falling inward due to the sun's gravitational pull, until their increasing speed and outward momentum cancels the gravitational pull and equilibrium is achieved.

    But, yes, as long as there are free floating objects in space they may drift into a planetary system, collide or merge and join the ring system. cosmic matter is still trapped by Saturn's gravity, often disturbing otherwise relatively stable rings. This is evident even today where Saturn and Jupiter may well act as guardians of the earth as they trap or deflect incoming space debris away from earth. Seems that a few comets managed to get through and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ield-Earth-catastrophic-comet-collisions.html

    It just occurred to be that even within the ring system the outside and inside of these rings are constantly interaction with matter of the adjoining rings as they collide, diverting matter from their original orbit into another orbit from an alteration in speed and/or direction creating their own rotational momentum and may form mini moon systems, such as the earth and moon and moons orbiting most of our planets. Some of these formed from violent collisions, others from the ring dust coalescing into small moons which then begin their own gravitational dance with larger objects such as planets.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,101
    I singled that out from a recent post as an example of the level of discussion attained as well as the change of subject (we are now in confused contradiction with very basic physics, after dozens of pages of attempts to contradict very basic biology, chemistry, geology, logic, and statistics) - time for a new thread to sequester this stuff into, and archive this one.

    Maybe start it with Trooper's post just above? The topic of evolution denial is a worthy one, intrinsically, and its wide ranging effects and implications suit it for an online open posting forum such as this.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Being that you quoted me I'll respond to your critique. This aside conversation has already been justified by the fact that evolutionary processes occur everywhere, from quantum to gross expressions in reality. We are attempting to illustrate the evolutionary function of everything, including the formation and evolution of planetary systems in addition to Darwinian evolution in biology.. Or do you deny that the conversation did not deal with the function of evolution?
    I have purposely shied away from the deeper science and just posted my interpretation of some very basic principles, without getting tangled up in citing equations and specific calculations. However all of it had to do with evolutionary processes v the assumption that a super intelligent external agent somehow is causal to the evolutionary phenomena which can be seen so clearly by looking up at the stars and galaxies.

    If you want to correct me on a specific example do so. If the above quote was fundamentally flawed, enlighten me where and how and why that example suggest breaking natural law.

    If you want to respond to Trooper, do so. If I can learn from that I'll be happy, but I am afraid that this will again lead to a discussion of intelligent design.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Ok, here is the answer to that completely biased interview of people on the street, who were totally unprepared to answer such profound questions which effectively shows macro evolution (over time).

    I just wish someone had answered the question of birds remaining birds, even as they have different beaks and may not be able to interbreed, with the answer that birds once were dinosaurs.
    from wiki,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds.

    Placing Faith in creation based on absolutely no evidence on the same terms as Knowledge of speciation, because no one could off-hand cite an example of speciation, is patently absurd and duplicitous. Can we see quantum? If not does that negate QM or place it on par with the guiding hand of God?

    But if you want an answer to speciation see below;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlfNvoyijmo

    Now I challenge any theist to provide the same type of illustration, which clearly shows the Divine process of the creation of species from dissimilar blueprints. or better still from nothing.

    6 days creation of all species just won't do it for me. How about you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I've been wondering what sort of physics background you have, would you like to tell me? PM me if you want to keep it private please. I thought some of the physics in the first 2 paragraphs a bit rough but I get the picture.
    Accretion to me is dependent on stickiness. Like it would be more likely to occur if there there was condensation of some liquid material on the surface of the rocky dust ring material. The energy in the impact can then be lost as heat and they wont just collide and bounce off each other. So that goes back to the issue of the temperature of the inner solar system, for planets to begin forming the dust needs to be "sticky" with some sort of volatile material. The temperature therefore should have been quite a bit cooler, either that or the pressure temperature ratio sufficient for the presence of condensed volatiles, even if it was a tar like material.
    I don't totally disagree with what you have said.

    I agree, but I am also a theist, but I see evolution at work for I understand biology.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Bob, I often stipulate my lack of formal education. However I do read extensively and try to find a fundamental truth from the narratives accompanying the in-depth physics (from reliable sources) and my "opinions" are derived from my understanding of the "basic" principles of the presentation, rather than detailed mathematical analyses.

    I do apologize for my lack of scientific terms which may tend to confuse the "learned' readers. All I ask if I am understanding the principles involved rather than being able to explain them scientifically. I do have a better than average IQ, but as English is my second language, my arguments may seem awkward at times.
    This is why I always try to provide an authoritative link, which does have the proofs to confirm my intuitive understanding.

    I often get chided for my less than detailed presentations, but I believe that there have been only a few times where I was forced to completely change my interpretations. I never try to argue against accepted science or introduce a "new theory". I just don't have that authority.

    But I rather discuss and gain knowledge of the world from knowledgeable people on these fora than on Twitter and I beg a little leniency when reading my missives.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Thanks Write4U - I was surprised when you said English was your second language , you have mastered it really well. I like your logic, OK based on reading and thinking the problem through. We could be right in the long run. Thanks for sharing.
    I haven't been on Twitter for ages. So you could discuss science on Twitter. OK???
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Theoretically, this could happen if we apply Einstein's relativity and assume a time dilated reference was being used to count the days. Show me were in the bible it says timing is based on the earth reference? Doesn't earth reference appear after the fall?

    In physics they have the twin experiment, where one twin moves near C (speed of light) and the other twin stays on earth. When the twin in motion returns, he is younger than his brother, because time moved slower in his reference. This has been proven. I like to figure out how this could possible, using 21st century science; relativistic reference, rather than limit myself to 19th century science, so it looks like a done deal for the evolutionary traditions.

    The original act of the Genesis play is; let there be light? This starts at C (speed of light). One day at C- could take a billion years in our reference. If you look at the days within Genesis, and what is accomplished, and compare this to the time table of geology and evolution, while assuming relativistic reference, the observation reference would have to be a reference starting close to C and then slightly slowing but remaining near C.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    If I am able to contribute anything of interest or value to these conversations, I am well pleased....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I'm going back to see if they solved the origin of the Murchison Meteorite.
     
  22. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Why bother making excuses. Find the solution and be done with it.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    I have used the question of "how long is one of god's days" often when talking to strict fundamentalists. But I do not believe that citing a theoretical possibility as proof of Intentional Creation.

    I also believe in the Wholeness of the universe (even as a pseudo intelligence). But rather than addressing it as God as an external entity outside of the universe, which IMO just further complicates an already very complicated subject, I prefer to use the term "condition of Potential" a concept which is demonstrably true.

    Unless we are willing to consider the entities of Earth and the Sun as gods (they both exhibit pseudo intelligent behavior), why would we assume that the entire universe is a god? What is so essential about the concept of God that it is an essential requirement for the formation and evolution of the universe?

    It always comes down to the "definition of God" and I totally reject the unscientific interpretations of natural phenomena as "the hand of god" as described in the OT. It is just plain wrong, no matter how one tries to analyze and interpret the intellectual philosophical brilliance of goat herders.

    And lest I offend, I have been a farmer myself and raised goats, as well as sheep, chickens, pigs, and horses, but these are hardly scientific endeavors except for intentionally engaging in the "accelerated" evolution of farm animals. Even then the bible and its fundamentalist adherents reject natural evolution as a "proven fact".

    When I see a theist museum with a diorama depicting early man riding dinosaurs, I cringe at the thought that the Flintstones is considered an historical documentary.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page