how gravity works

[toobfreak]

Now, we're getting someplace, but can you answer what came first in the overall scheme of things?

You need to be more specific. I know you are far from being a dummy and I know more than my fair share about astronomy, gravity, and religion having almost gone into astronomy and astrophysics as my profession and having taught it, having served in an adjunct field of physics all my life, and being a devout theist.

 

[james bond]

You need to be more specific. I know you are far from being a dummy and I know more than my fair share about astronomy, gravity, and religion having almost gone into astronomy and astrophysics as my profession and having taught it, having served in an adjunct field of physics all my life, and being a devout theist.

Grumblenuts believes in stuff without hard evidence, i.e. by reading some atheist scientist's paper and I can only guess this convinces him. It doesn't sound like he has the answers that you have. He ignores my questions, so we can't have a conversation but I just end up with his questions regarding my work. It gets tiring, one-sided, and I end up doing all the work.

Thus, it's great that you can answer my questions directed at the atheists here. Thank you.

I have one more comment and I'm not doubting you, but creation scientists say these star formations are not what the atheist scientists state. What you showed are relatively new techniques (circa 2008),

"allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 km (31 miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars. Young-universe creationist physicists and astronomers tend to be skeptical of reports claiming certain stars have recently formed. These claims often make many assumptions including that (1) the age of the star is known based on today’s accepted ideas of millions of years of stellar evolution and (2) that the dust disk surrounding the star had a role in the star’s formation. Evolutionary scientists would often assume the dust disk formed at about the same time as the star, though astronomers were not present to observe such events in the past."

 

[Clyde 154]

Emergent gravity may explain dark matter...

New theory of gravity might explain dark matter
November 8, 2016 - A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, published a new research paper today in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity.


See also:

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

"Might Explain"........is enough reading. What is theoretical physics? There is no such animal....as PHYSICS deal with the physical properties of phenomena and the LAWS of SCIENCE that govern them. There are no laws, no facts derived within the concepts of any theory, its all philosophy (ideology that exist within the confines of human thought). The entire supposed SCIENCE of COSMOLOGY is based upon conjecture, speculation, and assumptions based upon FACTS that are observable and reproducible through scientific experimentation as exist TODAY or within the confines of recorded history.........

One basic tenet of any theory is the assumption that was is observed today must have always been observed in the past....even when the attempt is made to apply these present observations to ENONS past. In reality its a scientific fact that the entire universe is in a constant state of motion and change......nothing stays the same in the universe with the exception of the demonstrable LAWS OF PHYSICS. Theories are theories for a reason..........there is no methodology to derive the facts required to present the suggestion contained in theory to prove it as a fact/law of science.

Some even attempt to declare Radio Carbon Dating as a FACT of science because of what is observed in the present in an application of long dead examples of life......when in reality, it might be a fact that the use of radio carbon dating is used to date extreme examples of past life..........the entire principle is based upon the THEORY of RADIOACTIVE DECAY remaining constant throughout the eons....when its a proven fact that something so simple as WATER LEECHING can drastically alter that rate of decay. Reality: The only source of calibration that can exist in Radio Carbon Dating is that which can be observed TODAY as within the confines of Observable History..........There is no CONSTANT source by which to calibrate this concept based upon ASSUMPTION.

Once you get past the dates in which Radio Carbon Dating can be proven correct...........this supposed science then uses CIRCULAR logic to project any date they wish to target. Example: A fossil is dated by the supposed age of the strata in which its found.........and in turn the strata is then subject to the DATE claimed for the fossils found therein.

I only hope that if my remains are ever uncovered a few thousand years in the future they do not claim that I was as old as the dirt that I was buried beneath.

At best.........this theory is not considered accurate past a few Millennium, certainly its not valid for the millions and billions of years claimed. You should see them scramble in an attempt to explain just how SOFT TISSUE has been found in examples of animal life that was projected to have been extinct for 60 million + years. It was the DIRT that held special properties in preserving those exceptional remains.......yada, yada, yada,

 

[Colin norris]

This is a type of autism
Included in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).
Even assuming they had an IQ of 70, they would not good for the US Marine Corps.

Now you are moving away from your original statement. You made a couple of lies. Stop exacerbating it. You're not fooling me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is theoretical physics?

It's an entire field of physics. They work out theoretical solutions and models. Then the models get tested to get empirical evidence.

 

[toobfreak]

"allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 km (31 miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

That's all right. It is called synthetic aperture, a technical and mathematical way of increasing final linear resolution using multi-scope baseline interferometry.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form.

Naturally as these processes are very slow on human time scales but we have witnessed one or two new black holes being created.

Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

That is a simplification of countless observations and measurements combined with an understanding of the physical processes involved.

Young-universe creationist physicists and astronomers tend to be skeptical of reports claiming certain stars have recently formed. These claims often make many assumptions including that (1) the age of the star is known based on today’s accepted ideas of millions of years of stellar evolution and (2) that the dust disk surrounding the star had a role in the star’s formation. Evolutionary scientists would often assume the dust disk formed at about the same time as the star, though astronomers were not present to observe such events in the past."

No, the physics do not support that. Though not perfect, the understanding of entropy, matter, stellar dynamics and gravitation makes certain that science is on the right track. Some of this has even been confirmed in experiments aboard the ISS: gas and dust attract each other forming dense molecular clouds in space that when hit with expanding shells from various stellar explosions send volumes of matter into condensed regions where gravitational attraction starts inevitable contraction and rotation forming new stars and their orbiting bodies. If I had more time, they have even imaged stars literally emerging from the nebular condensation! I mean some of this is far better researched and documented than many of the man-made climate change claims!

I have no doubt of it. That said, none of this conflicts with a supreme being or original cause; the problem with creationism is that it was invented by a small group of people trying to invent an explanation that bridges the gap between thousands of years old biblical understanding and explanations to account for recent science discoveries and they just can't. Sorry, but there is just no way the universe is only a few thousand years old. It is sheer lunacy to think that God's six days of creation actually relate to our length of day. For all we know, one of God's days could be hundreds of millions of years long! Even the chemical make-up of stars confirms this is the case. Hope this answered some of your questions.

 

[james bond]

Naturally as these processes are very slow on human time scales but we have witnessed one or two new black holes being created.

Yes, and that's the problem. I can believe you saw a black hole being created because you have expertise in the field and others who saw it, too. However, that's different from a star being created. If that takes millions of years, then no one can see it.

That is a simplification of countless observations and measurements combined with an understanding of the physical processes involved.

Maybe so, but I know you didn't see a star form if it took a million years.

Moreover, the creation scientists state, "Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks. Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”

...

"So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, for example, gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear."

I'm deliberately leaving out creation from the above, so we can just look at the atheist scientist's view and evaluate.

Full article here

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/aid/v3/star-formation-creation.pdf

 

[james bond]

No, the physics do not support that. Though not perfect, the understanding of entropy, matter, stellar dynamics and gravitation makes certain that science is on the right track. Some of this has even been confirmed in experiments aboard the ISS: gas and dust attract each other forming dense molecular clouds in space that when hit with expanding shells from various stellar explosions send volumes of matter into condensed regions where gravitational attraction starts inevitable contraction and rotation forming new stars and their orbiting bodies. If I had more time, they have even imaged stars literally emerging from the nebular condensation! I mean some of this is far better researched and documented than many of the man-made climate change claims!

I have no doubt of it. That said, none of this conflicts with a supreme being or original cause; the problem with creationism is that it was invented by a small group of people trying to invent an explanation that bridges the gap between thousands of years old biblical understanding and explanations to account for recent science discoveries and they just can't. Sorry, but there is just no way the universe is only a few thousand years old. It is sheer lunacy to think that God's six days of creation actually relate to our length of day. For all we know, one of God's days could be hundreds of millions of years long! Even the chemical make-up of stars confirms this is the case. Hope this answered some of your questions.

Oops, forgot the more difficult stuff to understand .

I can't argue whether or not the science is on the right track as I don't understand what you are talking about. Basically, how do you know the stars are forming? I don't think we know for certain because we can't see what happened if it was a million years of time. There's no way we can keep track.

I don't think any of it conflicts with God and creation in six days except for the timeline, i.e. young vs old. We know from the Bible that God made a mature universe, Earth, and everything in it. (The only baby was Baby Jesus.)

What about our solar system formation? How can everything form the way it did and stay in its place? I had the visualization of gravity in another post and the larger mass sun attracted the smaller mass planets and other bodies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't argue whether or not the science is on the right track as I don't understand what you are talking about.

Yes.... continue... follow this path you have found...

 

[james bond]

Yes.... continue... follow this path you have found...

You couldn't explain for years and had to let someone else provide the evidence which doesn't show what you desperately want it to show. Once he did, you jumped to conclusions like a shocked monkey that was shocked so good.

The creationists can easily show proof that the universe was created because it had a beginning and began to exist. Occam's razor. It wasn't the eternal universe that the atheist scientists claimed. Are you shocked now?

 

[Hollie]

The creationists can easily show proof that the universe was created because it had a beginning and began to exist.

That's pretty darn funny. Pounding your bibles and screeching. "because the bibles say so'', is not 'pwoof' of anything.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Earth was made first with some water on it but not shaped like it is now, then outer space with nothing. The galaxies, solar systems, black holes, and other things that fill the universe came three days after.

Really? No cheese? So what was the Earth shaped like back then? What do you mean by "outer space"? Aren't "black holes" empty? How can they "fill" anything?

 

[james bond]

That's pretty darn funny. Pounding your bibles and screeching. "because the bibles say so'', is not 'pwoof' of anything.

Science says that and it backs up what the Bible stated. Prior to that the atheists and their scientists claimed an eternal universe. Instead, we know there was a beginning with the big bang. It grew out of Einstein's general ToR. This goes to show you didn't know the science. We're in S&T.

 

[james bond]

Really? No cheese? So what was the Earth shaped like back then? What do you mean by "outer space"? Aren't "black holes" empty? How can they "fill" anything?

What do you think happened? We should have some overlap even though the timing and other things may be different.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, and that's the problem. I can believe you saw a black hole being created because you have expertise in the field and others who saw it, too. However, that's different from a star being created. If that takes millions of years, then no one can see it.

Well, you see, the moment a star lights up internally, there is a delay in that light even getting to the surface. The sunlight you see outside right now was likely created thousands of years ago and has been trapped in the dense solar matter slowly working its way to the surface. Then the other problem is that the star is buried deep within the solar nebula, the torus of gas and dust around the star not consumed by it waiting to condense into rocky and gaseous planetary bodies the excess of which will be pushed away and eventually cleared up by the solar pressure of the star once it fully ignites. So it isn't like someone flicked a switch and BAM, a star appears! But here is one such star making its first appearance outside its nebular torus:

But it isn't conjecture either. You don't see a cornstalk or a tomato plant grow neither yet you know they come from seed. Step by step you first see the seed sprout, then you see the dicotyledon emerge, then the stem then the first set of leaves. You come back the next day and see more leaves, then over weeks, you see the plant grow and bear fruit. There is no doubt the plant grows from seed yet if you sit there all day long and watch the plant, it just sits there doing nothing. There is no doubt about the life and development of stars and planets.

Moreover, the creation scientists state, "Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago.

I'd love for anyone to explain to me the physical processes of how that works! Pure hypothetical conjecture by pseudoscientists.

The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.

Again, I need someone to point out a Pop II star that fits that description.

Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”

For one thing, I have to laugh at whoever wrote the above calling a star just 10 to 100 million years old an "old" star! There are stars in the sky billions of years old. Further, stellar production is a very complex process with many variables and it is completely understandable to find a "young" star with no accompanying gas cloud, but again, I can't argue vagaries, I need a specific star and situation to see just how "young" the given star is and its particular circumstances! Without specifics, everything presented so far amounts to so much bloviation.

So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, for example, gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear."

Now this is getting tiresome. You can't argue in a vacuum, for all I know, the star has a high proper motion and wandered into the nebula, or the gas is actually being ejected, coming from the star itself! Or maybe a planet broke up or two collided 15,000 years ago leaving a cloud of dust around the star. This is all pure pseudo science crap and not worth responding to. If you want to know a little about stellar formation, try these:

A Review of Stellar Formation Theory

Here I review some of the naturalistic theories of how stars form. I discuss many topics never described in the creation literature before.

answersresearchjournal.org

Star formation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stellar evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

Basically, how do you know the stars are forming? What about our solar system formation? How can everything form the way it did and stay in its place?

JB, read my other post. Looking about this thread, no one here seems to have even a basic grasp of physics as a basis of common understanding to relate to. It takes years of study to really understand stellar physics, so, I can't PROVE anything to you balancing on one foot. Astronomers study new star formation every day, most every galaxy shows it along planes of gravity waves within its arms, it borderlines on sheer lunacy to doubt it, even our own planets move around, at one point Jupiter likely wandered inward close to the Sun long ago then moved back out near Saturn. For anyone to suggest our universe is but a few thousand years old formed in place with a million million million million things already in place and that God somehow arranged myriad obscure and subtle clues in everything so that one day man would evolve science a few thousand years later to discover them all suggesting a false pattern of very complete evolution and chemistry going back billions of years that is unreal just to cling to archaic, outmoded biblical notions is beyond hilarity! It is to say that 99.9% of all the work God did in creating the universe was all done just to make complete asses of mankind fooling him thousands of years in the future with the most elaborate gag.

God wove a trillion trillion trillion clues deep within the fabric of creation not to make fools of us misleading us, but so that one day we could find them to unravel the true reality of how things really work for our continued survival.

 

[Hollie]

Science says that and it backs up what the Bible stated. Prior to that the atheists and their scientists claimed an eternal universe. Instead, we know there was a beginning with the big bang. It grew out of Einstein's general ToR. This goes to show you didn't know the science. We're in S&T.

Actually, nothing in science "backs up" the gods waving their magic wands and magically creating the known universe.

 

[james bond]

Actually, nothing in science "backs up" the gods waving their magic wands and magically creating the known universe.

What's weird to me is you and Grumblenuts can't answer my questions. If my side was mythology, then you would've disproved it with your answers. Instead, science backs me and the Bible up while you and your side just complain and beotch.

 

[Hollie]

What's weird to me is you and Grumblenuts can't answer my questions. If my side was mythology, then you would've disproved it with your answers. Instead, science backs me and the Bible up while you and your side just complain and beotch.

You didn't pose questions, you simply reiterated fundamentalist religious dogma.

No one has any burden of "disproving" specious religious claims. Your screeching about "the Bibles say so" is not an argument. Your specious claims that "science backs up the bibles" is undemonstrated nonsense.

 

[james bond]

You didn't pose questions, you simply reiterated fundamentalist religious dogma.

No one has any burden of "disproving" specious religious claims. Your screeching about "the Bibles say so" is not an argument. Your specious claims that "science backs up the bibles" is undemonstrated nonsense.

Heh. More excuses and more no answers. Might as well take your reply to mean that you admitted you lost and lost badly. You haven't even mentioned gravity. Explaining how it works would be too hard for you and make your head explode.