the earth is 13,000 years old not 6,000 right

[Panda]

Ah, now I see your point of contention. No, it doesn't, but it shows that as of now, Science has no way of reconciling such an old Earth and Old Sun on their own forces. And saying that one day they will is just "Science of the gaps". Thus, it's not implausible to say that there is reason to suspect that such "long-ages" are dubious.

This is where you are wrong. We can date the age of the Earth through process like carbon dating of fossils. We have evidence of human existence long before 13,000 years ago. We know how old the Earth is, we just need to understand how it formed.

 

[Quagmire]

Are you deliberately not understanding what I mean or do you really need help understanding what I said? Why don't you try actually answering the question I asked. "What is the major unsolved problem" they are referring to. That would help your misunderstanding. If you don't want to answer this question, how can you possibly expect to stay on track?

Thanks for the lecture professor (people almost always get hyper-emotional once other people start to show them to what extent their pet theories are based on flimsy and, oftentimes, ridiculous, leaps of logic so I won't hold it against you. )

The article actually tells you what the "major unresolved problem" is (helps to read whole sentences if you're going to base your opinions on something).

Here's what the article says: "How this process continues from metre-sized boulders to kilometre-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem".

All this is saying is that science doesn't fully understand how planets are formed in the first place. What does this have to do with you're claim below?

"A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

It's like you took two words--"spiral" and "headwinds"--and based your whole argument on them, ignoring everything else the article is talking about.

 

[Shermana]

This is where you are wrong. We can date the age of the Earth through process like carbon dating of fossils. We have evidence of human existence long before 13,000 years ago. We know how old the Earth is, we just need to understand how it formed.

Well, if you want to change the subject to Isotope dating, I can get into why there's a host of issues in that field as well, starting with the actual varying and exponential rates of decay. But I'm assuming you concede that as of now, there is no scientific theory in Cosmology that allows the Earth to survive past infancy.

 

[Photonic]

So you have nothing to actually say about it, thanks for the ad hominem! So tell me how the Earth formed past Planateismal phase without the gas headwinds crashing it into the sun.

First why don't you explain why you think that gas headwinds have any effect on the gravity of the outer nebula?

Or why you think it would overcome massive angular momentum as it condensed.

 

[Shermana]

Thanks for the lecture professor (people almost always get hyper-emotional once other people start to show them to what extent their pet theories are based on flimsy and, oftentimes, ridiculous, leaps of logic so I won't hold it against you. )

I got emotional? Really?

The article actually tells you what the "major unresolved problem" is (helps to read whole sentences if you're going to base your opinions on something).

Yes it does, its quite apparent you are deliberately ignoring it for some reason as if no one can see what it is.

Here's what the article says: "How this process continues from metre-sized boulders to kilometre-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem".

That would be the Planet Earth in its infancy stages, you know that right?

All this is saying is that science doesn't fully understand how planets are formed in the first place. What does this have to do with you're claim below?

It's saying more than that, it's saying there's a major obstacle of which there's no explanation. Might as well say "Science has yet to prove how humans can fly by flapping their arms".

It's like you took two words--"spiral" and "headwinds"--and based your whole argument on them, ignoring everything else the article is talking about.

[/QUOTE]

And it looks like you have no idea what is spiraling or what a Planetesmal is, as I suspected in my last post.

 

[Looncall]

Well, if you want to change the subject to Isotope dating, I can get into why there's a host of issues in that field as well, starting with the actual varying and exponential rates of decay. But I'm assuming you concede that as of now, there is no scientific theory in Cosmology that allows the Earth to survive past infancy.

You interest me. What evidence do you have for varying nuclear decay rates? I am a professional radiochemist, so that would be important to me. Please provide solid citations.

 

[Shermana]

First why don't you explain why you think that gas headwinds have any effect on the gravity of the outer nebula?

Or why you think it would overcome massive angular momentum as it condensed.

To put it simply, because the Abstract says so and bases its entire thesis on this issue.

As for the angular momentum, I'd have to get into the errors of the Jeans Criteria and Instability factors, both of which are suspect as well.

 

[Photonic]

To put it simply, because the Abstract says so and bases its entire thesis on this issue.

As for the angular momentum, I'd have to get into the errors of the Jeans Criteria and Instability factors, both of which are suspect as well.

Do tell.

Don't omit anything including the mathematics. I can handle that as well.

 

[Shermana]

Do tell.

Don't omit anything including the mathematics. I can handle that as well.

Debunking the Jeans issues will be a project for another day, here's to get you started:

http://journalofcosmology.com/GibsonSchild2.pdf

"The problem with the Jeans Criterion is that its simply wrong".

 

[Quagmire]

I got emotional? Really?


Yes it does, its quite apparent you are deliberately ignoring it for some reason as if no one can see what it is.

Uh hm, in the same way that I "ignore" the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.

That would be the Planet Earth in its infancy stages, you know that right?

Yes. :yes: that's why I said:

Here's what the article says: "How this process continues from metre-sized boulders to kilometre-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem".

It's saying more than that,

But it's not saying what you seem to think it's saying.

it's saying there's a major obstacle of which there's no explanation.

Uh huh. which doesn't mean it somehow validates whatever explanations you choose to come up with.

Might as well say "Science has yet to prove how humans can fly by flapping their arms".

Yes, you might as well.

And it looks like you have no idea what is spiraling or what a Planetesmal is, as I suspected in my last post.

I don't think anyone would need a degree in astronomy to recognize that you're taking 2 + 2 and coming up with 22.

 

[Photonic]

Debunking the Jeans issues will be a project for another day, here's to get you started:

http://journalofcosmology.com/GibsonSchild2.pdf

"The problem with the Jeans Criterion is that its simply wrong".

Alright, I'll fill you in on a little something. This man is postulating different gravitational mechanics based on observation that have to do with the proto-universe.

He goes on further to say that planets still form from accretion. His mathematics support that actually. He is also referring to the higher energy state of early universe plasma that breaks down gravitational constructs.

This doesn't support your argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

How so?

The article's abstract doesn't mention your claims.

 

[Scott C.]

i dont see how you can say the earth is 6,000 years old :no: if adam was created 6,000 years ago and he was created on the 6th day thats 6,000 more years that makes the earth between 12,000 and 13,000 years old right:help:

The Fall of Adam occurred about 6000 years ago. There were probably billions of years of the earth's creation/existence before the Fall occurred.

 

[Photonic]

The Fall of Adam occurred about 6000 years ago. There were probably billions of years of the earth's creation/existence before the Fall occurred.

It's just a creation myth, it's not really supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[camanintx]

Because no current model actually has any explanation how the Earth was able to get past the Planeteismal phase and not crash into the sun? That's the point of that whole paper, to give their theory as to the Turbulence.

Actually, the point of their whole paper was to provide just such an explanation. Here is an article from Space.com describing how the mystery was solved.

Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved | Space.com

 

[Shermana]

Actually, the point of their whole paper was to provide just such an explanation. Here is an article from Space.com describing how the mystery was solved.

Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved | Space.com

Have you actually read their "Solution"?

The solution: Together, many boulders can join to fight a cosmic headwind that otherwise would doom them.

Pulverizing problem
Although Mac Low and his colleagues kept planet-forming boulders safe from the gravitational clutches of stars in their simulation, he noted that many questions remain.
"There are enough uncertainties that [planet formation] is not going to be an open and shut case any time soon," he said. "We don't know how that collapse into a planet actually occurs. You've got thousands, millions of boulders swarming together like a bees. In my nightmares I imagine that they grind each other down to dust and it all goes away."
Despite the problem, Mac Low is confident the theory will hold up to future scrutiny.

I hope his confidence is well placed (Cough). It would be less suspicious if they'd be more honest and say POTENTIAL solution found in their headline. But hey, Scientists are allowed to say theories as facts for some reason. As it stands, this "Solution" is just one of many, like on the paper I presented. Perhaps they know that the word "Solution" doesn't necessarily have to mean "Proven solution" and exploit this for the less critically minded. Calling this "Solved" as a title is very misleading for people who haven't actually read the article, it makes it out like they actually figured it out hands down, and people like you who haven't read it actually believe it. Now try reading it and tell me if they actually "solved it" or "think they have a potential solution that hasn't been tested".

Or if they really wanted to be honest, they'd say "Encouraging approach" discovered.

"Overall, the calculations present an encouraging approach to understanding how something happened that we know must have happened, at least for the terrestrial planets,

An "Encouraging approach to understanding" does not make a problem "solved". I wonder if the person who titled the article even read it. The disconnect is glaring. I wonder if this is the reason you didn't actually quote from your article.

But Scientists aren't well known for honesty, have a diet soda if you disagree.

 

[Scott C.]

It's just a creation myth, it's not really supposed to be taken seriously.

No disrespect intended, but as an atheist, you would not take it seriously. As one who believes in God, prophets, and scripture I take it seriously.

 

[Photonic]

I don't mean to be rude, but of course as an atheist, you would not take it seriously. As one who believes in God, prophets, and scripture I take it seriously.

So you believe the universe is only 6000 years old contrary to ALL facts that point otherwise?

Or that Adam and Eve existed physically? Even though the human race has been proven to be far older than that.

 

[Photonic]

Have you actually read their "Solution"?
I hope his confidence is well placed (Cough). It would be less suspicious if they'd be more honest and say POTENTIAL solution found in their headline. But hey, Scientists are allowed to say theories as facts for some reason. As it stands, this "Solution" is just one of many, like on the paper I presented. Perhaps they know that the word "Solution" doesn't necessarily have to mean "Proven solution" and exploit this for the less critically minded. Calling this "Solved" as a title is very misleading for people who haven't actually read the article, it makes it out like they actually figured it out hands down, and people like you who haven't read it actually believe it. Now try reading it and tell me if they actually "solved it" or "think they have a potential solution that hasn't been tested".

Or if they really wanted to be honest, they'd say "Encouraging approach" discovered.
An "Encouraging approach to understanding" does not make a problem "solved". I wonder if the person who titled the article even read it. The disconnect is glaring. I wonder if this is the reason you didn't actually quote from your article.

But Scientists aren't well known for honesty, have a diet soda if you disagree.

So ad hominem instead of a real response. Expected.

 

[Shermana]

So ad hominem instead of a real response. Expected.

Where's the ad hominem? I expected worse, this is just funny. So I'm assuming you don't actually disagree that what I quoted debunks the title? If you think that's ad honinem, you have no idea what ad hominem actually means. Thank you for sharing. Now perhaps you'd like to actually address the facts. Perhaps you'd like to explain how the problem is "Solved" as the title says. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the boulders wouldn't grind each other to dust. In the face of the actual text of the article such as what I quoted. Or you can just brush off my response as ad hominem, that works too.