Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Watching planets form ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    My previous post at you answered what you again ask here. Briefly, the many model parameters that must be set have no experimental, verifiable, repeatable, observable basis.
    Try actually reading the paper before spouting off. With the new ALMA telescope, we have details of the disk, including things like its chemical composition, the sites where different molecules freeze out at various distances from the star, the density of particles at different sites of the disk, etc.

    I made it incredibly easy for you to do something beyond simply restating your pre-canned arguments without bothering to think. What a waste for everyone that you couldn't be bothered.


    And, since you're so hung up on ideology, which involves more ideological content:
    a) The physics we see at present has been in operation for an indefinite length in the past.
    b) There is some break point at which physics no longer applies, based on a specific group's interpretation of the holy book of a single religion. Thereby meaning that only members of that group can possibly do accurate science.

    My vote goes to b.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

      I'm going to be discussing the Chesepeake bay impact this weekend Jorge. I'll be curious to see if you can find a way to explain what I'll present as the consequences of a volcanically derived steam explosion.

      Jim
      Looking forward to it. The Chesapeake impact crater doesn't get the attention of Chicxulub or Meteor crater but it's pretty darn interesting. I grew up in that area and never knew about the crater until after well after I graduated and moved away.

      ETA: I also look forward to Jorge explaining how the huge hole was formed by a Chesapeake Bay blue crab.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
        Looking forward to it. The Chesapeake impact crater doesn't get the attention of Chicxulub or Meteor crater but it's pretty darn interesting. I grew up in that area and never knew about the crater until after well after I graduated and moved away.
        Turns out i spent a lot of time running around on ground zero of an impact crater:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthe...%28New_York%29

        It's funny how much history is under our feet and we're unaware of it.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Then you are saying you DON'T accept that scientists have found ESPs and no qualifications are necessary. Just more of you dodging. Got it.
          Without the qualifications, you "got" nothing!


          Well gee, if it is unidentified and flying and you and I don't know what it is, then yeah, it IS a UFO. so I would indeed accept your conclusion that it was a UFO as far as you were concerned.
          I had my suspicions ... you've just confirmed them.


          You never did answer my question:

          And what IS your position on forming stars and galaxies where we have photographic evidence of various stages?

          Keep dodging.
          Here's a deal for you: as soon as you get past Reading Comprehension 101, we can talk again.



          Roy? Another one for your signature? "It's as if I showed you a picture of a UFO and told you that it is a UFO. I may be very sincere but are you going to take my claim as a fact or as a personal interpretation or opinion?"
          I repeat, first get past Reading Comprehension 101 then give me a ring.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Try actually reading the paper before spouting off. With the new ALMA telescope, we have details of the disk, including things like its chemical composition, the sites where different molecules freeze out at various distances from the star, the density of particles at different sites of the disk, etc.

            I made it incredibly easy for you to do something beyond simply restating your pre-canned arguments without bothering to think. What a waste for everyone that you couldn't be bothered.


            And, since you're so hung up on ideology, which involves more ideological content:
            a) The physics we see at present has been in operation for an indefinite length in the past.
            b) There is some break point at which physics no longer applies, based on a specific group's interpretation of the holy book of a single religion. Thereby meaning that only members of that group can possibly do accurate science.

            My vote goes to b.
            Good freaking grief!!! No thanks to you for wasting my time. C-ya ...

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Good freaking grief!!! No thanks to you for wasting my time. C-ya ...
              And there we have the typical response when Jorge is asked to do anything that's even vaguely scientific.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #97
                Jorge the welcher doesn't know what "UFO" means
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Without the qualifications, you "got" nothing!
                  As I predicted, just keep dodging.



                  I had my suspicions ... you've just confirmed them.
                  That you are dumber than a bag of rocks and have a really bad case of foot-in-mouth disease?



                  Here's a deal for you: as soon as you get past Reading Comprehension 101, we can talk again.
                  Another dodge. You are afraid to answer.

                  What IS your position on forming stars and galaxies where we have photographic evidence of various stages?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    Jorge the welcher doesn't know what "UFO" means
                    Irony is Jorge, who welched on a bad bet made because he didn't bother reading something carefully, demanding someone gain some entry-level reading comprehension.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      OF COURSE I "admit" it - it's true! Been there ... done that.
                      Yes - so models start and then are adjusted based on observation till they can reproduce what is observed. Exactly what has happened over the last several decades in the science of star formation. Observation and model results are compared. So here is a question Jorge:

                      What is the likelihood that a model of star formation, when adjusted based on physical parameters derived from astronomical observations of the physical characteristics of what are believed to be forming stars, will continue to get closer and closer to creating objects that are in fact stars - fully formed stars that also match observation?

                      If the observations are NOT of forming stars, then the parameters derived from them should not help create more accurate models of star formation. Unless the process that 'looks like' star formation is some sort of systematically identical process to star formation but not 'really' star formation. But what sort of process would be systematically identical to star formation yet not BE star formation? Oh wait - there isn't such a thing ... oops.


                      My previous post at you answered what you again ask here. Briefly, the many model parameters that must be set have no experimental, verifiable, repeatable, observable basis.
                      And that just isn't true Jorge. We have literally thousands of places in the sky were we can observe nebula and clouds in various states of collapse, various stages of the star formation process. And we can use those to teach us what the correct parameters are (which is exactly what we do)


                      Likewise for the actual process involved. All of these things must be wholly assumed. And those assumptions are more-often-than-not ideological, not based on hard science.
                      No Jorge - those assumptions are based on observation of systems that show all evidence of being stars in formation. It's like this Jorge, If a gas cloud where to collapse, it would have certain characteristics. We can look for clouds with those characteristics. And we find them, all over the place. It's just a matter of figuring out the processes that led to their formation or that will follow from that state to the next. And we have a huge sample space from which to derive information.

                      The only 'ideology' involved is that matter behaves according to physical law, and that the universe has been around long enough for those physical laws to have had time to work themselves out. That isn't ideological Jorge - that is what the evidence points to as reality.


                      Thus, accepting their output is far more based on ideology than it is on science.
                      There is simply no way around this fact. Yet most people refuse to acknowledge this.
                      Why? Because it wouldn't support their religious paradigm / set of beliefs.

                      Jorge
                      No Jorge - it has little to do with religion ... except in your case.


                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-15-2016, 12:30 PM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                      48 responses
                      135 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Sparko
                      by Sparko
                       
                      Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                      16 responses
                      74 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                      6 responses
                      47 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Working...
                      X