Author Topic: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.  (Read 2492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2011, 03:19:48 AM »
Thermodynamics, JP Holman, 1980, McGraw-Hill, Inc.  I refer to chapter 6.  Bottom line:  you need to apply work to compress a gas, there is not enough gravitational force between the molecules to do it.  In fact, without an outside force, they tend to go further apart toward a higher entropy.  Heat is generated if you compress a gas, the heat generated will try to make it to expand.  The heat of compression is greater than the gravitational forces that exist between the molecules.  It won't happen given the laws of Thermodynamics.  That is the laws we use to build cars, jets, refrigerators, etc.

The physical principles we use today for observational science had to be different during planet formation according to your world view.

This isn't just wrong, or even willfully ignorant......it's willfully stupid.

In a forming star only the atoms at the center are being compressed at all.  ALLL of the outer layers of collapsing gas aren't compressed, but are still falling inwards.  Those outer layers ARE THE BOTTLE and they weigh MUCH MUCH more than the weight of the gas that is being compressed.  They contain the inner section which is trying to expand.  As the inner gas get compressed more and more, it trys to expand outward (as you so astutely observe) but can't get out of the "bottle".  Eventually, steady-state is achieved where the inner (outward) force balances the outer (inward) force and you get (wait for it) ......a star!

jtp's terrible thermodynamics example treats the core of the star as if it's the entire star and it ISN'T.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2011, 03:29:00 AM »
bm
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2011, 07:23:49 AM »
You state: "no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age."  How can that be?  You misunderstood my question.  If the Big Bang happened like an explosion (which all [or at least most] scientists agree) then how is one part of the universe not the same age as the other?  If I'm a twin, can my twin be a different age than me?

So using your island analogy, the islands were populated, abandoned, and repopulated over the course of billions of years?  Who were the first settlers?  Can not we be them?

Holy mackerel, man.  That's not right... that's not even wrong.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2011, 07:35:37 AM »
jtp56,

I have to agree that you have slipped into trolling mode.  You are arguing from a perspective of ignorance of science, and what are the most widely accepted explanations for the ages of objects within the universe.  And you are not providing anything to support your claims.  This is a discussion forum, not a platform for you to spout assertions that have no basis in fact or evidence.

Please stay on topic, stop trolling, and start supporting your assertions with actual evidence that other members can verify on their own.

Jetson

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2011, 07:51:00 AM »
JTp56:

You shook my tree, so I came out to play. I thot you were one of those knuckle-dragging Orangutans and that you  wanted to learn the secret to man’s red flower. The alpha said we had to go forage, and when I get back, I find out you are one of those pesky bonobos that’s always trying to yank my banana.  And I thot we were gonna play with matches! You not only didn't bring any matches the other monkeys couldn't teach you how to rub 2 sticks together.

Translation:
I am interested in science topics. So I thought I'd explore current cosmos hypotheses and theories with you and the forum. Had to go to a dinner party, and when I got back I saw it was all a farce.  I was hoping to learn something. But your a Yetti with no intention of learning anything. I did learn some stuff from the others posts, but I can see a conversation with you on this is pointless.

ADDED:
Quote
For crying out loud monkeymind, you know me....."In the beginning, God created......"  and the last word is "Amen".

Actually no. I confused you with-jtk73
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 08:03:01 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #92 on: December 31, 2011, 08:17:03 AM »
.......a drop, is definitely not a measure of success.

A drop can be a loss (as in IQ).
A dead drop is a covert message exchange in espionage.
Sabotage is an espionage tool,
Trolling is sabotage.
But sometimes, a tool is just a tool,
And a dead drop is not needed,
As a public message will serve.
So the dead drop is a dead loss
when the tool (the troll)
can be told, on the thread
to drop dead.

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #93 on: December 31, 2011, 08:26:26 AM »
JTP, regarding the age of the universe.   You do realize that no one thinks every entity in the universe is the same age, but that the matter they are made of is the same age?  You really must learn the science before you argue against it.  Like the atheists that learn the religion before they criticize it.  It has to be a two way street, or you're just just being an object of ridicule to those of us who spend the time to know what the hell we're talking about!

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #94 on: December 31, 2011, 08:55:32 AM »

Your every statement is a load of garbage....oh wait a minute...did you say that?

It's just that it's frustrating arguing over and over again that 3rd generation star stuff makes planets when it is fact that the heat of compression will not allow gasses, dust, star stuff, etc. to form a solid mass similar to an earth.  And no one provides an argument contrary wise.  Thus, my comment that the physics had to be different through out all of cosmic history for your theories to be correct and that's not even getting into evolution, which requires all modern scientific observable scientific evidence to be turned on its head to be true.  Any you guys claim to be the champions of science.

ripped out of wikipedia:

Cloud collapse

An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[13] If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.[2] This coincides with the typical mass of an open cluster of stars, which is the end product of a collapsing cloud.[14]

In triggered star formation, one of several events might occur to compress a molecular cloud and initiate its gravitational collapse. Molecular clouds may collide with each other, or a nearby supernova explosion can be a trigger, sending shocked matter into the cloud at very high speeds.[2] Alternatively, galactic collisions can trigger massive starbursts of star formation as the gas clouds in each galaxy are compressed and agitated by tidal forces.[15] The latter mechanism may be responsible for the formation of globular clusters.[16]

A supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy may serve to regulate the rate of star formation in a galactic nucleus. A black hole that is accreting infalling matter can become active, emitting a strong wind through a collimated relativistic jet. This can limit further star formation. However, the radio emissions around the jets may also trigger star formation. Likewise, a weaker jet may trigger star formation when it collides with a cloud.[17]

As it collapses, a molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces in a hierarchical manner, until the fragments reach stellar mass. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas radiates away the energy gained by the release of gravitational potential energy. As the density increases, the fragments become opaque and are thus less efficient at radiating away their energy. This raises the temperature of the cloud and inhibits further fragmentation. The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[18]

Complicating this picture of a collapsing cloud are the effects of turbulence, macroscopic flows, rotation, magnetic fields and the cloud geometry. Both rotation and magnetic fields can hinder the collapse of a cloud.[19][20] Turbulence is instrumental in causing fragmentation of the cloud, and on the smallest scales it promotes collapse.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation


So, there are two things your compression-work logic doesn't realise : (1) energy can be radiated out of a gas (2) there are heavier elements which are not elastic gasses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 09:09:43 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12237
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #95 on: December 31, 2011, 12:23:17 PM »
Just so it's obvious what I was talking about in my earlier response to you, jtp:

And this is consistent throughout the globe?  That is, all granite intrusions are 1.06 billion years old?  Or just the ones you are studying?
The neighbouring, more deformed granite intrusions are older,

This was right there in my post, jtp.  It's not loaded with jargon.  It's simple English.  And it directly answers your question.  So why did you ask the question in the first place?

Of course it's not the same throughout the globe.

What country do you refer to?

That was in the linked paper.  This part of the Grenville province lies in Ontario, Canada.

Are all deposits rich in nuclear energy?

No.  If they were, then:
1. Finding and mining decent grades of uranium ore would be really easy (it's not).
2. A lot more people would have cancer from radon exposure.

Why are some preferred over others (economically of course)?  And why is that?

Because some have enough uranium to produce ore minerals, and others don't.

As for why:  Different parts of the crust were formed through different processes, and are enriched (or depleted) in different elements.  Mudstones are relatively rich in elements like aluminum, potassium, uranium.  Sandstones are rich in silicon.  Etc.  When these are melted to form magma, the magma's chemistry reflects what was being melted.

Are parts of our globe older than others?

If by "our globe" you mean the crust, then yes.  Even in the same location, different rocks will have different ages.  For example, the magmatic rock that intruded the marble in my area is necessarily younger than the marble itself, otherwise the magma would have had nothing to intrude.

Are these deposits you are studying consistent on the sphere?

This question makes no sense as written.

Why is it that when the 3rd generation star stuff decided to form a globe was it distributed non-uniformly?

I have no reason to believe that it was.  This deposit isn't a result of initial planetary formation.  I doubt any rocks on the planet, anywhere, are quite that old.  My deposit is a result of the Grenville continental collision and mountain-building event that took place just over a billion years ago.  The Andes are a modern-day example of it.

By no means am I a geologist.  Just asking.

Your knowledge base is pretty slim for someone who wants to debate the topic with other people.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1347
  • Darwins +65/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #96 on: December 31, 2011, 01:51:53 PM »
Quote
By no means am I a geologist.  Just asking.

You're not just asking, you're trying to find a hole where you can cram your god.

As luck would have it, I think most of us agree that you have a hole where you can cram your god.
Denis Loubet

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #97 on: December 31, 2011, 08:27:43 PM »
http://s1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb473/genesis_is_shit/   <<------ photos of God creating the universe, the Hebrew way

JTP, before criticizing other people's cosmologies, you should have a look at your own. Jesus warned about people who had beams in their eye, while other people only had splinters.

Like you, I payed little attention to what Genesis actually said, because I could not make physical sense of its gibberish. Then somebody made a remark, and it all became clear how the Hebrews thought the world was created, and how totally childish it was.

A careful observer will notice that

1) God creates day and night, 3 days prior to the sun, moon and stars. This is scientifically moronic. The Hebrew who wrote Genesis believed that day time was a property of the upper heavens, and that you could have 3 cycles of day and night, before God needed to create the sun.

2) God created the blue sky by separating water, using a "firmament". The heavenly daylight, then shone through the upper water, and made the blue sky. The Hebrew was not aware that the sun creates the blue sky, by oxygen scattering.

3) God created plants one day prior to the sun

4) The sun and the moon merely "rule" the day and night, respectively. Genesis never notes that the sun causes day, and the moon is reflecting sun. The Hebrew who wrote this, believed that the moon was luminous, and stayed in the night time. Also, he makes no mention of planets, because they were not understood back then.

5) The sun moon and stars are in the firmament, below the water.

6) Genesis 20 says that the fowl also fly in the firmament. So, presumably, fowl can fly to the sun, but not through the upper water.

7) Genesis 30 says that all humans and animals are vegetarian

8) Genesis 27 says that man is made in the image of God. So, we have no idea of what this human even looked like.

If you were to believe that this description in Genesis had anything to do with the real world, then I can only suggest you get your head amputated, because that is the only thing that will save you intellectually. NASCAR is not good enough. You have to remove your whole head.

Having demonstrated that Genesis is describing the formation of a different planet, perhaps in a different universe, I put it to you, that you should not ridicule science's attempt to find out what happened in this universe.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2011, 10:51:23 PM »
The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.

To quote Calilasseia on the Rational Skepticism board:
Quote
...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #99 on: January 01, 2012, 11:43:33 AM »
The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.

To quote Calilasseia on the Rational Skepticism board:
Quote
...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?

Point me to this board, I miss Cal!

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #100 on: January 01, 2012, 12:12:30 PM »
Point me to this board, I miss Cal!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

You should ask him to post here every now and then or at least ask him if his "CREATIONISTS-READ THIS" list can be reposted here.

By the way, if you go to the Pseudoscience forum there you can see Neal Adams (the comic book artist) starting to really go unhinged because no one is buying into his expanding earth fantasy. :lol:
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #101 on: January 01, 2012, 02:06:26 PM »
Point me to this board, I miss Cal!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

You should ask him to post here every now and then or at least ask him if his "CREATIONISTS-READ THIS" list can be reposted here.

By the way, if you go to the Pseudoscience forum there you can see Neal Adams (the comic book artist) starting to really go unhinged because no one is buying into his expanding earth fantasy. :lol:

Thanks!

He is a member here, and has posted in the past.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=868

Offline Poseidon

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Darwins +24/-0
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #102 on: January 01, 2012, 04:01:16 PM »
Marginally interesting commentary here. Way back in the exchange someone correctly mentioned ..."bringing a knife to a gun fight".  That was a most deliciously descriptive remark. 

It has been amply demonstrated that we can not budge the theists in spite of our presentations of logic.  Aren't we flogging a dead horse? 

 

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #103 on: January 01, 2012, 05:08:30 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

If Jesus was real, then it is entirely possible that you have breathed some of the same molecules of air that he exhaled.  Is that good enough?

If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Jesus Myth Theory. 

Science doesn't rely ONLY on historical observation.  It also relies on observable implications.  For example, if you are in your living room and smell pancakes while your brother is in the kitchen, you can reasonably think that he is making pancakes.  Test this over and over and you're doing science.

You earlier said that Creation stands up to the Scientific Method?  Please elaborate here.

The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.

Erroneous.

First, please address my original query: Show me how creationism holds up to the scientific method, please do not again simply reiterate that you think it does. 

Second, you must be kidding that young earth holds up to the fossil record.  Everything about the fossil record supports the old Earth, speciation and various epochs. 

Please try to make a thoughtful retort instead of typical foolish dogma.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #104 on: January 01, 2012, 05:57:25 PM »

Please try to make a thoughtful retort instead of typical foolish dogma.

From a creationist perspective, he has absolutely no choice in the matter.  There is no science at all involved in creation, it is all a matter of supernatural, god driven creation.  End of story. 

Now, I will say that the OP should drop the attacks on actual science, as it continues to make him look so foolish, it almost hurts to read.