Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Native]

What rubbish. Again.

Magnetism has generally nothing at all to do with absorption of light. It is an electric dipole process in almost all cases.

And whether you "like" it or not, absorption is what it is called.

--------------
"Generally"? "Almost"? When the electromagnetic light from the Sun shines on everything, magnetic fields are working on everything too. The added energy is not absorbed but transferred into increase the activity in the objects.

 

[Native]

As an example, the Earth and Moon have their own masses, and therefore have different gravity. And due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, it has notable effects on the sea and ocean tides. That caused by gravity of the Moon, and it’s relative positions on the Moon’s orbit.

It is Moon’s gravitation fields that effecting the tides, not EM fields or EM radiations.

Again, I seriously think you should go back to school and learn physics, or attend university lecture on astronomy or astrophysics.

------------
I´ll at least give you this: You are excellent in uncritically quoting the conventional dogmas

 

[exchemist]

--------------
"Generally"? "Almost"? When the electromagnetic light from the Sun shines on everything, magnetic fields are working on everything too. The added energy is not absorbed but transferred into increase the activity in the objects.

The interactions by which light is absorbed can be electric dipole, electric quadrupole, magnetic dipole or magnetic quadrupole interactions. (Possibly on very rare occasions, higher multipoles too.) All are described in quantum mechanics. The electric dipole interaction is the strongest by several orders of magnitude and is responsible for most of what we observe. Electric dipole transition - Wikipedia
The exceptions arise in such things as faint spectral lines from transitions are are classed as "forbidden" according to the standard electric dipole selection rules.

Re absorption v. transference, it is the light that is absorbed, because, after it has been absorbed, it has ceased to exist. It is the energy carried by that light that is transferred (due to conservation of energy), to the electrons (electronic excitation) or to the motion of atomic nuclei (vibrations and rotations). But I expect that, to you, light, energy, force, current, field etc are all interchangeable terms. I mean, who gives a ****, right?

 

[Native]

He think he is right and everyone else who disagree with him are wrong. He believed in the same stupid mass conspiracy theory that all scientists are plotting against his belief.

So he has the same foolhardy, ignorant paranoia of those Christian creationists and those Muslims who believed in “scientific miracles”.

I really care if he believed in myths. I loved myths, and I loved good storytelling. But for someone who tried to mix science with myths, and then tell us that we are wrong, because of some conspiracies or indoctrination, it just show us how arrogant he is.

.
-------------
Blame yourself for not taking cultural Myths of Creation for granted, even when these are logically and holistic interpreted and put in logical contexts with some of the modern science.

And don´t you place "Strawmen" as "Christian creationists" and "Muslims who believed in "scientific miracles". I´m NOT a creationist and I focus on ALL ancient myths and religions. This reply just reveals how your emotional feelings get the better of you.

I used to have one person in my ignore list, but has long since taken him off, because I generally don’t like to use the ignore list. But at this moment, his constant accusations of accusing me of being indoctrinated, I am this close of just using the ignore button again.

------------
iI´s your free choice.

 

[Native]

If physicists were really good, they would explain why energy exists at all as opposed to nothingness. Just give us one good miracle and we can explain the rest is what the physicists say.

-------------
OH, but the cosmological scientists already have given a nice example of miracles: Big Bang

 

[gnostic]

Blame yourself for not taking cultural Myths of Creation for granted, even when these are logically and holistic interpreted and put in logical contexts with some of the modern science.

Taking myths for granted is the exact opposite of thinking logically and critically, Native.

You don’t know how to think logically as demonstrated by many of your recent replies, not just to me, but to everyone else.

Every time anyone disagree with you, you bring up dogma. Every time anyone tried to correct your misunderstanding in regarding to science, by explaining things to you, you become irrationally paranoid, because you accused them of being indoctrinated.

I thought we could get along because we both shared common love for myths. But your incessant accusations of dogma and indoctrination, clearly show your ego is too big for to admit any error on your parts, not just because people disagree with you, but because you cannot not seen what you have said or written being wrong.

Now I am done conversing with you in this topic.

I won’t put you in the ignore list, but I am done with your paranoia.

 

[Native]

Re absorption v. transference, it is the light that is absorbed, because, after it has been absorbed, it has ceased to exist. It is the energy carried by that light that is transferred (due to conservation of energy), to the electrons (electronic excitation) or to the motion of atomic nuclei (vibrations and rotations). But I expect that, to you, light, energy, force, current, field etc are all interchangeable terms. I mean, who gives a ****, right?

-------------
Thanks for your elaborations on the "dipole and multiple pole issue"

"Existence" is a matter of observing everything holistically and observe how the "force of creation" affects everything by making motions and objects, dissolving these again and re-create everything in an eternal process, thus obeying the law of energy conservation.

Your expectations are correct: One force which works in everything.

 

[Native]

Taking myths for granted is the exact opposite of thinking logically and critically, Native.

----------------
Not in my opinion it isn´t. Facts are based on logical and critical investigations and when confirmed by "looking at both sides", they are facts.

In the case of discussing ancient myths of creation and the ideas of modern science, you and I have to investigate both areas critically and logically in order to see what is truth or not.

You just cannot ignore the myths and I just cannot ignore factual discoveries from modern science if we shall understand each other.

 

[Native]

This is silly, Native.

If you don’t understand what a star do and how star work, then how can you ever expect to know and understand what a galaxy is and how galaxy work?

------------
Sorry for bringing this #342 reply up right now. I simply missed the reply in the first place.

1) Do wee agree that our Solar System is an integrated part of the overall galactic orbital motion?
2) Is it logical and plausible to assume that the formation of stars in galaxies are formatted in the same methodical way as the Sun and planets in our Solar System was/are formed?
3) If so, what are the most logical way to understand how a star is made and how it works?
4) To study it´s central birthplace or to take a random cloud of dust and gas which is disconnected to everything around it and make speculations how it is formed?

The main sequence stars or dwarf stars, spent the large part of its life, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, most of this occurring at the stars’ cores. This process of nuclear fusion is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

There are several different types of Nucleosynthesis involving stars, as well as Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

----------------
You can try again explaining how it is that a "supernova" can explode/change luminosity several times after another and then we can take it from there.

I simply refuse fusion by gravity the weakest force of all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

------------
Sorry for bringing this #342 reply up right now. I simply missed the reply in the first place.

1) Do wee agree that our Solar System is an integrated part of the overall galactic orbital motion?

helpful hint, try to avoid word salad. It makes for shorter clearer posts. That being said what are you asking here? Is the motion of the Soar System part of the galactic orbits? Yes.

2) Is it logical and plausible to assume that the formation of stars in galaxies are formatted in the same methodical way as the Sun and planets in our Solar System was/are formed?

Again, less salad. The formation of the Sun etc. would have been similar to that of other solar systems.

3) If so, what are the most logical way to understand how a star is made and how it works?

Gravity.

4) To study it´s central birthplace or to take a random cloud of dust and gas which is disconnected to everything around it and make speculations how it is formed?

Strawman, that is not how the formation of state is explained.

----------------
You can try again explaining how it is that a "supernova" can explode/change luminosity several times after another and then we can take it from there.

I simply refuse fusion by gravity the weakest force of all.

so because you are ignorant of basic physics you refuse to listen to those that understand the subject. Now that makes a lot of sense


Let's go over the four forces. The two Nuclear Forces drop off very fast outside of the nucleus. Much faster than gravity's inverse radius squared. The force on a single charge drops off as an inverse square relationship too. But it is a balanced charge. Large charges do not exist on their own for long. There are positive and negative charges. They tend to cancel each other out. Even if you had two large charges, which I am unaware of the existence of such, they would form a dipole and it's force drops off at roughly an inverse cubed rate. A rate faster than gravity falls off. As a result over long distances gravity is the strongest force since it only adds.

To understand physics you need to understand math. But you only need calculus to understand what I just brought up. That you should have at least touched on in High school.

 

[gnostic]

------------
Sorry for bringing this #342 reply up right now. I simply missed the reply in the first place.

1) Do wee agree that our Solar System is an integrated part of the overall galactic orbital motion?
2) Is it logical and plausible to assume that the formation of stars in galaxies are formatted in the same methodical way as the Sun and planets in our Solar System was/are formed?
3) If so, what are the most logical way to understand how a star is made and how it works?
4) To study it´s central birthplace or to take a random cloud of dust and gas which is disconnected to everything around it and make speculations how it is formed?


----------------
You can try again explaining how it is that a "supernova" can explode/change luminosity several times after another and then we can take it from there.

I simply refuse fusion by gravity the weakest force of all.

You don’t get it do you?

I am fed are with you, so I am no longer interested in answering any of your idiotic questions in this thread, because you are too stubborn to understand what I have to say, or trying to switch topic on me.

You want me come back to answer you, then apologise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t get it do you?

I am fed are with you, so I am no longer interested in answering any of your idiotic questions in this thread, because you are too stubborn to understand what I have to say, or trying to switch topic on me.

You want me come back to answer you, then apologise.

I couldn't help but to respond. I got tired of his refusing to learn even the basics. Lovers of all woo woo tend to get angry when their flaws are pointed out so I will probably fire of him quickly too.

 

[gnostic]

I couldn't help but to respond. I got tired of his refusing to learn even the basics. Lovers of all woo woo tend to get angry when their flaws are pointed out so I will probably fire of him quickly too.

He not bothering to understand what you, i and others have tried to explain to him, so I no longer give a damn what he have to say in what he believe in.

It is pretty pointless to explain anything to him, and I have wasted enough time with him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He not bothering to understand what you, i and others have tried to explain to him, so I no longer give a damn what he have to say in what he believe in.

It is pretty pointless to explain anything to him, and I have wasted enough time with him.

Sometimes lurkers can benefit from an explanation.

 

[gnostic]

I am not leaving this thread. He didn’t start this thread, so it doesn’t belong to him.

I just won’t be responding to him. He has wasted enough of my time.

 

[exchemist]

-------------
Thanks for your elaborations on the "dipole and multiple pole issue"

"Existence" is a matter of observing everything holistically and observe how the "force of creation" affects everything by making motions and objects, dissolving these again and re-create everything in an eternal process, thus obeying the law of energy conservation.

Your expectations are correct: One force which works in everything.

Yes if you are sufficiently vague, you can come out with some sort of woo statement like that, I agree. Forces, energy, matter, fields, magnetism, it's all like recycling this like eternal stuff, man. Pass the bong.

Very insightful.

 

[exchemist]

This is silly, Native.

If you don’t understand what a star do and how star work, then how can you ever expect to know and understand what a galaxy is and how galaxy work?

Clearly you don’t know how stars produce light, heat and other radiations, that come through the stars’ process of nuclear fusion.

So I will just focus on the following illustrations on nuclear fusion:

1. I will not include the formation of new stars, nor will I focus talk of the stars’ final stages in the life cycle (eg so no red giants, white dwarfs, supernovae, neutron stars and blackholes).
2. I will only focus on main sequence stars; in fact I will only on one typical main sequence star - our Sun, since it has been the most observed star because of close proximity to us.

The main sequence stars or dwarf stars, spent the large part of its life, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, most of this occurring at the stars’ cores. This process of nuclear fusion is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

There are several different types of Nucleosynthesis involving stars, as well as Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

Basically, Nucleosynthesis is forming heavier elements from lighter elements.

But let’s just focus on the Sun for now.

The type of Nucleosynthesis that currently occurring at the Sun’s core is known as “proton-proton chain reaction”, where the core fused hydrogen atoms into helium.

So if you really want to understand what I said so far, look up Stellar Nucleosynthesis and proton-proton chain reaction.

Now, if you remember your high school chemistry and the periodic table, a single hydrogen nucleus has only one proton, but no neutron. While a helium nucleus has 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

Since we are talking about nuclear fusion and nucleosynthesis, there are no needs to bring in electrons.

The Sun composed mostly of hydrogen, as well as lesser of helium, and as a Population I star (current and youngest generation of stars) it has some trace elements of heavier atoms (eg carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc). Second generation (Population II) stars have less heavier elements, and first generation of stars (Population III) have none.

These heavier elements (all elements heavier than helium) are called “metals”, should not be confused with metals on Earth. These elements come from debris of past stars that have gone “supernova”, produced by Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

For nuclear fusion to occur, it needs the right amount of heat and pressures, and the Sun’s core is hotter than outer layers (Radiative Zone and Convective Zone) and surface (Photosphere).

As I have been saying fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium occurred at the Sun’s core and the core consisted of mainly hydrogen, and the total number of hydrogen required to produce one helium atom is 6 hydrogen atoms.

And the proton-proton chain reaction (Nucleosynthesis) takes 3 stages.

To better illustrate my point, here is a diagram from Wikipedia article on

The first stage occurred when each set (2 sets of 4 hydrogen atoms, right with 2 hydrogen and left with 2 hydrogen) has fused 2 hydrogen atoms together into hydrogen with one proton and one neutron (2H). The neutron is produced when it release a positron. The fusion also caused neutrinos to decouple from both set.

The 2nd stage occurred when a 3rd hydrogen with 2H, so that helium is produced with now 2 protons and 1 neutron, hence 3He, and gamma radiation emitted from this 2nd fusion.

Now you know that stable helium normally have 2 protons and 2 neutrons, but the 2nd stage has only one neutron.

So the 3rd and final stage of nuclear fusion, when the 2 sets of 3He fused together.

What happened here, is that the left 3He and right 3He, will caused 1 proton (1H, hence hydrogen) from each 3He will get knock out, leaving you a single helium (4He) of 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

These 3 stages of fusions produce enormous amounts of energy, hence radiation.

That is called a proton-proton chain reaction of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Perhaps my explanation may confuse you, soeither pick up astronomy textbook that will explain Stellar Nucleosynthesis to you, or looked it up at Wikipedia, since it’s free.

So that you saying the nuclear fusion only occurring at the galactic centre is wrong.

There is another type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis involving stars more massive than our Sun (more than 1.3 of the Sun’s mass), that produced carbon, oxygen or nitrogen through nuclear fusion, known as CNO Cycle. This a lot harder to explain, so I am not going to try, except to say it use both 1H and 4He to fuse into heavier elements.

Nucleosynthesis can also occur when the sun run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse, when the sun turn from main sequence star into red giant. But that another story I won’t get into.

My point is that different Nucleosynthesis can occur with different types of stars, or at stage of any star’s lifecycle.

The bottom line is this, Native. Nuclear fusion occurred because of strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, not EM force. EM force have little to do with any star’s core. Yes, gamma radiation is release at the 2nd stage, but it has no bearing on fusing lighter atoms heavier ones.

Does any of that make sense to you?

Ed:

And btw, as far as I know, there is no such thing as “electromagnetic fusion”.

You can turn electricity into various other electromagnetic radiations, such as light, infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, X-ray, radio waves, by shortening or lengthening the wavelength with some devices, but none of the conversions involved “fusion”.

You are sounding more uneducated in physics than ever before.

Seriously, “electromagnetic fusion”???!!!

Actually, reflecting on this "electromagnetic fusion", I suppose that any chemical reaction involving making larger molecules from smaller one could be said to be a sort of electromagnetic fusion. After all, one takes two systems of charged subatomic particles and merges them to form one larger one, with a change in internal energy due to the way the electromagnetic interactions between them all change.

Chemistry is the world of EM interactions, basically........

 

[exchemist]

If physicists were really good, they would explain why energy exists at all as opposed to nothingness. Just give us one good miracle and we can explain the rest is what the physicists say.

As I have explained a couple of days ago on another thread, for energy to exist there has to be a physical system to which that energy belongs. You cannot have energy on its own. It is a property of a system.

Physics certainly cannot explain the origin of the hypothesised Big Bang, which is thought to be how the initial physical system comprising the universe arose. However I think your expectations of physics are misplaced.

The role of science is to model the physical phenomena we observe so that we can explain them to the point of making reliable predictions of what further observations to expect. However, because science depends inextricably on observation, it is impossible for it to extrapolate very far beyond the observable evidence we have. Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, such as why is there something rather than nothing.

 

[Native]

You don’t get it do you?

I am fed are with you, so I am no longer interested in answering any of your idiotic questions in this thread, because you are too stubborn to understand what I have to say, or trying to switch topic on me.

You want me come back to answer you, then apologise.

-----------
Apologise??? You should instead be grateful that I do the dirty devils advocate work for you of questioning the week links in your favorite theory.

helpful hint, try to avoid word salad. It makes for shorter clearer posts. That being said what are you asking here? Is the motion of the Soar System part of the galactic orbits? Yes.

-------------------
Next time you are trying to answer a question which have more points, try to keep the context and premises together before answering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-------
When reading the dogmas, contradictions, inconsistent statements and ad hoc assumptions in the (Low) Standard Cosmology, I´m much better off having af free and critical mind, thank you.

Your inability to understand and your refusal to learn does not make the claims of others "dogma". Nor are assumptions allowed of the sort that you think there are. In fact everything in your post is ignorant and wrong and only demonstrates once again your lack of education.

You can't find any dogma. You can't find any contradictions. You can't find any inconsistency. and you can't find any ad hoc assumptions. Instead of making false claims about others why not try to learn? Bring up your examples one at a time and I will explain to you why you were wrong. Or were you merely lying and not mistaken and are now afraid to meed a reasonable challenge?