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

Infall towards protostars

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    I know you've been asked this a dozen times before but how do you do science without relying on materialism?

    Maybe once you'll finally muster up the courage to answer.
    I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.

    If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

      You could always address Jim's point, then run off.
      Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.
        The empirical evidence says otherwise.

        If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

        Jorge
        OK, we'll mark down yet another day when you couldn't muster up the courage to back up your claim.

        One thing I will say though - when it comes to fleeing questions you are consistent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks Jorge
          Your reply to me is not the same thing as you addressing Jim's point, Jorge. That you are unable to understand simple points like this, is always mind blowing.

          So when did you or anyone actually observe a giant redwood tree grow from seed to maturity?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.
            Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?

            As for your continued claim that "We can observe it happening", apparently your reading comprehension disability worsened over the last year. I distinctly addressed the "we can observe it" point in my last post. Still the same ol' O-Mudd ... that's too bad!
            We do observe it happening, in the very same way we observe Giant Redwoods growing. We observe multiple instances of the same process at different stages of developments. If I can look at gas cloud A and B, and the only difference is that A is a little denser and a little hotter than B, and so on for 100 different stages of stellar evolution, all in accord with the laws of physics , it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are watching the stepwise development of a star in much the same way we derive the life cycle of a tree that lives 4000+ years by observing different trees in the same forest at differing stages of development.

            As I said, you are demanding (for stars, but not for trees) that we be able to observe the entire process in a single instance before you will admit it is possible as a natural event. And that is an absurd standard which you apply much like a game of "Calvin ball".



            Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.
            Claiming to have proven something is easy. Actually doing it is hard. Oh but wait - could I not accuse you of 'conveniently' relying on the disappearance of TWEB if I so desired?



            Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted.
            Oh Brother. What I said above. I'm not moving the goal posts. I just don't use the Jorge Dictionary of Random Yet Personally Convenient Meanings. (i.e. Calvin Ball).

            I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.
            The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.




            All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see. For instance, have you stopped to consider the number of problems with the model that you believe in (the "Gas Model")? Let's just take one: if, as you say, "planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars came from", then you have to explain why their individual composition is so radically different (e.g., compare Earth vs. Sun vs. Moon vs. Mars vs. Saturn vs. Jupiter vs. Venus and so on). Yes, there are plenty of conjectures about why this is so (and I've already stated that) but no one really knows. The conjectures are just-so stories with a sprinkling of science (to make them believable and publishable) ... there is no consensus on ANY conjecture.
            Planets differentiate for obvious reasons Jorge. The rocky planets are closer in because it's hotter closer in and things like methane ices and so forth can't survive there. The vapor pressures of the gases are higher and the individual nucleation bodies are smaller because most of the material is falling into the star. The gas giants form farther out and then in many cases may migrate in. But again, we can see the process in action. And the more we learn about the systems (as we observe them, again, in various stages of formation) the more we will learn about how they form. And indeed, how common or rare our particular system is. We have found over 1000 systems out there Jorge, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. We can SEE in the Orion Nebula star after star forming, and almost all of them have dust disks around them with more than sufficient material to build a solar system. Planets and Stars forming naturally right before our eyes ... for those that can stomach it any way.

            Try to get a hold of yourself ... use sound logic and science, not pseudo-logic/science as you are now.

            Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

            Jorge
            Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?


            Jim
            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


            • #21
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.


              Jorge could never aspire to such heights. He doesn't do calculations.

              Roy
              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

              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
              48 views
              0 likes
              Last Post shunyadragon  
              Working...
              X