Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Polymath257]

Gas tends to expand instead of contract. To form a star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and put tremendous pressure so that the interior is compressed and becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start. Most gas clouds have a tendency to expand rather than contract. Thus the hypothesis isn't really feasible. Next.

It is often the expansion of gas from one source (say, a supernova) that serves to contract gas at the edge of the expansion (look at the Eagle nebula pictures). This initial contraction, for gas clouds as large as what we are discussing (much, much larger than the solar system) is supplemented by gravity causing further contraction. Again, we *see* this happening today in the nebula I have pointed out. It isn't theoretical.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure what your purpose is? Certainly, you didn't answer my question about where the gold is if Nebula.

The gold and other elements are in the nebula, which was seeded from supernova.

Are you trying to show that this is how earth formed or that what your binoculars are telling you will become a sun or planet? How many billions of years will this take? We can't do time-elapsed photography on it. It's worse than watching paint dry.

The formation of a stellar system like this takes a few hundred million years. And we see the processes happening in the nebula *today*. We see *several* different systems at various stages of formation.

We have some strange wind whipped phenomena on earth, but it's not going to form some huge self-igniting ball that will continue for billions of years..

What?????? Are you thinking before you post something like this? The scale alone is many orders of magnitude off. These nebula are tens of light-years across and have masses of hundreds of times that of the sun.

 

[Segev Moran]

So this is what you suggest:

tiktaalik evolved into to whales and to mammals?
meaning that tiktaalik evolved its limbs (or fins) to resemble the limbs of a land mammal, in the case of whales?
which means, you contradict a big part of the evolution theory.
You'll need to present a better case.
You'll have to present why this evolution process contradicts the evolution process of every specie we have found so far.

 

[james bond]

So this is what you suggest:

tiktaalik evolved into to whales and to mammals?
meaning that tiktaalik evolved its limbs (or fins) to resemble the limbs of a land mammal, in the case of whales?
which means, you contradict a big part of the evolution theory.
You'll need to present a better case.
You'll have to present why this evolution process contradicts the evolution process of every specie we have found so far.

All I have are the fins or lobes which is similar to what the mainstream evos are claiming became tetrapods of land animals with arms and legs. They probably don't like my scenario because the whale is much bigger. However, my scenario fits the evolutionary timeline better.

Instead of the land whales becoming whales, the whales became land whales. The difficulty is not only the limbs change to lobes, but the lungs have to develop a blowhole. The blowhole isn't too difficult, but the lobes from vertebrae is a major change. This conflicts the mainstream evolutionary theory, but I see it fitting in. Just the sequence is reversed. Thus, tetrapods came from whales.

Land whale fossils

The evolution of whales

From Britannica:
"There is near universal agreement that tetrapods originated somewhere within the fleshy-finned or lobed-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii), although total agreement does not exist on which sarcopterygian group is ancestral to them. The difficulty in deciding tetrapod ancestry stems from the inability to determine conclusively which traits are ancestral and which traits arose after one group diverged from another. Furthermore, the diversity of skeletal anatomies among the early tetrapods confuses this issue; when comparing the skeletal features of one group with those of another, it is unclear whether the comparison is between the same elements or ones that appear the same but arose from different ancestral structures. Nevertheless, anatomy share most of the features characteristic of early tetrapods. Fossil fragments of V. curonica—which included parts of a pelvis, a shoulder girdle, and a braincase—have been unearthed in Latvia and dated to 365 million years ago. However, tetrapods emerged much earlier, as indicated by fossil footprints set down in marine rocks dated to 397 million years ago."

Based on physiology, do you think limbs which aren't connected to vertebrae suddenly become functioning arms and legs? The fins help the fish to change direction. It can't walk on land for that very reason. I'll accept the lungfish lungs as it uses lungs and other air breathing amphibious fish. It can slither across land.

 

[james bond]

To me, what's important are how these different creatures functioned (physiology and psychology), so I can help them medically. The evolution stuff of common ancestor and what not is for the tests, so one can get a good grade and a degree in biology or other living science. 35-40 millions years ago is okay, but 41 may not be. For example, my daughter is going into biology. She does the eyeroll when I explain what I believe. I don't think knowing a common ancestor helps in relation to ones job (unless teaching evo or what not), and also knowing what not to disagree with. The macroevolution parts are still not settled. Ask people to give you an example of macroevolution and they won't be able to answer. Birds came from dinosaurs. Oh really? How did that happen?

 

[james bond]

I did answer those questions - you just need to take an extra 1:30 out of your response time to at least browse the links that are provided to you...

And you aren't thinking big enough.

How did gold end up on the objects that crashed into the hardened Earth if NOT nebula?


...you don't have to do time elapsed photography. You just need to understand wavelengths and use a little spectrometry.

Proof That Stars Form When Clouds Collide

The formation of stars

Stars bursting into life in the chaotic Carina Nebula

Evidence for recent star formation seen at Milky Way's centre - physicsworld.com

The top image captures visible light; the bottom, infrared.
(Please read at least the Hubble Links)


WHAT?!?
...Why in the world would anyone assume that wind whipping dust up on the surface of a planet would somehow begin the process of nuclear fission and ignite a new star? What are you even talking about?

The gold, I know what I am talking about. In your scenario, the gold would have scattered all over like the other elements. Gold is found in very specific countries and those countries that have it guard it very carefully. It will mean war if you tried to steal their gold. Even Hawking agrees with me that luck played a huge part in the earth being just right for life and it got precious metals (he doesn't mention how the precious metals were spread, but I understand what he means).

As for the Nebula, I'm not disagreeing this happens, but it's not going to form a star or planet. In your example, they say it's a possibility many times. It could be a star formation passing through the nebulae since stars shoot out gas. These are ginormous formations and clouds out there, but just because we see a large flat very dense cloud doesn't make it so. One question I have is why are there stars or planets forming all the time according to these studies? Couldn't they just as well be being destroyed?

As for the strange pheonomena that occurs on our planet, here are some examples:

While this could make the fire grow, spread far away and cause great damage, it's not going to change it's basic nature.

Answer me this since you know so much from reading wiki , what causes the nuclear fusion in these massive clouds (what's holding the cloud together as it spins)? The nebula theory all seems like a nice system to create galaxies, but how can something like this make everything work like our Milky Way galaxy?

 

[Segev Moran]

All I have are the fins or lobes

You mean actual validated fossils of the fins or lobes?

which is similar to what the mainstream evos are claiming became tetrapods of land animals with arms and legs. They probably don't like my scenario because the whale is much bigger. However, my scenario fits the evolutionary timeline better.

You suggested your theory and it was rejected due to not being liked? or were there any scientific claims that contradict your theory?

Instead of the land whales becoming whales, the whales became land whales.

Do you have genuine fossils demonstrating such transitions? that were found in a fitting timeline layer?

The difficulty is not only the limbs change to lobes, but the lungs have to develop a blowhole. The blowhole isn't too difficult, but the lobes from vertebrae is a major change.

Can you elaborate on the lobes?

This conflicts the mainstream evolutionary theory, but I see it fitting in.

See it fitting how?

Just the sequence is reversed. Thus, tetrapods came from whales.

Why is it reversed in the sea? and is it reversed for all other sea mammals?
Can you offer the alternate "tree of evolution" you suggest?


Land whale fossils

The evolution of whales

From Britannica:
"There is near universal agreement that tetrapods originated somewhere within the fleshy-finned or lobed-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii), although total agreement does not exist on which sarcopterygian group is ancestral to them. The difficulty in deciding tetrapod ancestry stems from the inability to determine conclusively which traits are ancestral and which traits arose after one group diverged from another. Furthermore, the diversity of skeletal anatomies among the early tetrapods confuses this issue; when comparing the skeletal features of one group with those of another, it is unclear whether the comparison is between the same elements or ones that appear the same but arose from different ancestral structures. Nevertheless, anatomy share most of the features characteristic of early tetrapods. Fossil fragments of V. curonica—which included parts of a pelvis, a shoulder girdle, and a braincase—have been unearthed in Latvia and dated to 365 million years ago. However, tetrapods emerged much earlier, as indicated by fossil footprints set down in marine rocks dated to 397 million years ago."

Based on physiology, do you think limbs which aren't connected to vertebrae suddenly become functioning arms and legs? The fins help the fish to change direction. It can't walk on land for that very reason. I'll accept the lungfish lungs as it uses lungs and other air breathing amphibious fish. It can slither across land.[/QUOTE]
Can you simplify this explanation please?

 

[james bond]

You mean actual validated fossils of the fins or lobes?

You suggested your theory and it was rejected due to not being liked? or were there any scientific claims that contradict your theory?

Do you have genuine fossils demonstrating such transitions? that were found in a fitting timeline layer?

Can you elaborate on the lobes?

See it fitting how?

Why is it reversed in the sea? and is it reversed for all other sea mammals?
Can you offer the alternate "tree of evolution" you suggest?


Land whale fossils

The evolution of whales

From Britannica:
"There is near universal agreement that tetrapods originated somewhere within the fleshy-finned or lobed-finned fishes (Sarcopterygii), although total agreement does not exist on which sarcopterygian group is ancestral to them. The difficulty in deciding tetrapod ancestry stems from the inability to determine conclusively which traits are ancestral and which traits arose after one group diverged from another. Furthermore, the diversity of skeletal anatomies among the early tetrapods confuses this issue; when comparing the skeletal features of one group with those of another, it is unclear whether the comparison is between the same elements or ones that appear the same but arose from different ancestral structures. Nevertheless, anatomy share most of the features characteristic of early tetrapods. Fossil fragments of V. curonica—which included parts of a pelvis, a shoulder girdle, and a braincase—have been unearthed in Latvia and dated to 365 million years ago. However, tetrapods emerged much earlier, as indicated by fossil footprints set down in marine rocks dated to 397 million years ago."

Based on physiology, do you think limbs which aren't connected to vertebrae suddenly become functioning arms and legs? The fins help the fish to change direction. It can't walk on land for that very reason. I'll accept the lungfish lungs as it uses lungs and other air breathing amphibious fish. It can slither across land.

Can you simplify this explanation please?[/QUOTE]

I mean compare lobes which are connected to a fish's muscle tissue. What if your arms are connected to muscle tissue instead of your vertebrae? Let's say they come out of your chest. They may help you in the water, but not on land so much ha ha. That's what I mean by a major evolution or macroevolution.

I didn't say it was rejected, but not the popular theory. If my theory was rejected, then why not reject the preferred theory? This common descent business is for the birds if you ask me.

It's the same as the ones claiming tetrapod to whale.

Lobes on tiktaalik and coelacanth are similar to fins on a fish. They help change directions and for the coelacanth help it swim in all directions such as upside down and backwards. Imagine you had lobes connected to your chest and lower sides of your body and can move them back and forth. You'd be able to swim like the coelacanth.

No need to offer another tree. It just grows the opposite direction. Anyway, the fossils tell you about the creature itself and not so much the common descent since the atheist scientists found fossils that were similar to the specimen they had. What other evidence do you have besides fossils?

 

[james bond]

I'm stuck at home today on a weekend, unfortunately. The fortunate thing is I get to share once again my views and take in what I can and hear about other views from everyone here. The one thing I did get from discussing things with you, Polymath257, is I need to understand quantum physics better. I was scarred by talking to a quantum physicist before. What's weird is 1) I met one of the smartest people in the world who teaches and does this; He's famous, 2) took an interest in Stephen Hawking and 3) can now explain it and probably do some of the math. What we do see is similar (not saying equivalent) occurrences on earth. With quantum physics, we can understand better how something like this will behave. That said, it doesn't explain how an entire solar system can be placed the way it is. Gravity does not explain it. Stephen Hawking agrees with me that luck was supreme for our Milky Way galaxy, but in this case I don't think it was luck. If it was up to chance or God plays dice, then it would happen again. However, Hawking needs another universe and then some to do it. Thus, I don't think he's right nor is the Nebula.

A supercell is basically a stronger, more tornado-enabled version of a regular storm cell. This is because—much like tornadoes—supercells have the tendency to spin around a lot, but also—and more importantly—because supercells can actually create tornadoes.

22 Ridiculously Cool Rare Natural Phenomena That Happen on Earth

So, we get these storms in outer space and through quantum physics and observation be able to explain and predict what will happen. Thus, a random meteorological event such as a CME or meteor shower in outer space can be explained. However, we can't say that a sun or planet was formed due to some super space weather. What are some super weather that has an effect on earth? Usually, it's great damage or catastrophe.

 

[Segev Moran]

Can you simplify this explanation please?

I mean compare lobes which are connected to a fish's muscle tissue. What if your arms are connected to muscle tissue instead of your vertebrae? Let's say they come out of your chest. They may help you in the water, but not on land so much ha ha. That's what I mean by a major evolution or macroevolution.

I didn't say it was rejected, but not the popular theory. If my theory was rejected, then why not reject the preferred theory? This common descent business is for the birds if you ask me.

It's the same as the ones claiming tetrapod to whale.

Lobes on tiktaalik and coelacanth are similar to fins on a fish. They help change directions and for the coelacanth help it swim in all directions such as upside down and backwards. Imagine you had lobes connected to your chest and lower sides of your body and can move them back and forth. You'd be able to swim like the coelacanth.

No need to offer another tree. It just grows the opposite direction. Anyway, the fossils tell you about the creature itself and not so much the common descent since the atheist scientists found fossils that were similar to the specimen they had. What other evidence do you have besides fossils?[/QUOTE]
Evolution is not based on fossils alone.
We have DNA,
We have micro evolution and adaptations.
We have "evolution" happening in many purview that are not biology (like language and culture)
We have predictions that are validated.
We have a theory that provides explanations that can be tested, observed and validated over and over again.

 

[Polymath257]

As for the Nebula, I'm not disagreeing this happens, but it's not going to form a star or planet. In your example, they say it's a possibility many times. It could be a star formation passing through the nebulae since stars shoot out gas. These are ginormous formations and clouds out there, but just because we see a large flat very dense cloud doesn't make it so. One question I have is why are there stars or planets forming all the time according to these studies? Couldn't they just as well be being destroyed?

Yes, in fact, it *will* form a star and planets. Again, look at the pictures of the Eagle nebula (the Pillars of Creation). You can see one volume of gas pushing up through another. At the edge is where the stars are being formed. We know these are young stars because of the characteristics of their spectra.

Furthermore, we see 'EGGS' where there are protoplanetary disks of the same sort that we see around other, closer stars. In those closer stars, we see young planets, just like the Nebular hypothesis predicted 200 years ago.

Stars *do* get destroyed. Supernovas are one way this happens. But because they are gravitationally bound (a fact that encourages their initial compression), they tend not to be affected by the waves you see in these pictures. In fact, most of the nebula you see in these pictures is far, far less dense than the best vacuums we can get in the lab. That won't destroy a star, but it can spark the contraction and development of one.

Answer me this since you know so much from reading wiki , what causes the nuclear fusion in these massive clouds (what's holding the cloud together as it spins)? The nebula theory all seems like a nice system to create galaxies, but how can something like this make everything work like our Milky Way galaxy?

First, I point to Wiki because I very much doubt you would be able to read the technical stuff that I usually read. The wiki articles I point to are accurate.

Nuclear fusion doesn't happen until the gas has contracted enough to produce pressures and temperatures high enough to spark it. Fusion is not happening in the overall cloud, but only in the newly formed stars.

You are jumping scales here. Galaxy formation happens on a *much* larger scale than star formation. The nebulas I have pointed to are *within* the Milky Way galaxy. We see similar clouds in other spiral galaxies. But the galaxies themselves form from a very different process that is much earlier that what we have been discussing. Remember that the sun is NOT a first generation star: there was at least one previous generation that went supernova to form the elements we see. But all this happened *within* our galaxy.

At this point, we are still collecting evidence for how the first galaxies were formed.

 

[james bond]

Yes, in fact, it *will* form a star and planets. Again, look at the pictures of the Eagle nebula (the Pillars of Creation). You can see one volume of gas pushing up through another. At the edge is where the stars are being formed. We know these are young stars because of the characteristics of their spectra.

Furthermore, we see 'EGGS' where there are protoplanetary disks of the same sort that we see around other, closer stars. In those closer stars, we see young planets, just like the Nebular hypothesis predicted 200 years ago.

Stars *do* get destroyed. Supernovas are one way this happens. But because they are gravitationally bound (a fact that encourages their initial compression), they tend not to be affected by the waves you see in these pictures. In fact, most of the nebula you see in these pictures is far, far less dense than the best vacuums we can get in the lab. That won't destroy a star, but it can spark the contraction and development of one.




First, I point to Wiki because I very much doubt you would be able to read the technical stuff that I usually read. The wiki articles I point to are accurate.

Nuclear fusion doesn't happen until the gas has contracted enough to produce pressures and temperatures high enough to spark it. Fusion is not happening in the overall cloud, but only in the newly formed stars.

You are jumping scales here. Galaxy formation happens on a *much* larger scale than star formation. The nebulas I have pointed to are *within* the Milky Way galaxy. We see similar clouds in other spiral galaxies. But the galaxies themselves form from a very different process that is much earlier that what we have been discussing. Remember that the sun is NOT a first generation star: there was at least one previous generation that went supernova to form the elements we see. But all this happened *within* our galaxy.

At this point, we are still collecting evidence for how the first galaxies were formed.

>>Yes, in fact, it *will* form a star and planets<<
I saw one vid before this one from Spitzer telescope and they talked about the Pillars being destroyed by a supernova explosion (?). Not sure what was destroyed. All I saw were dust, gas and ice particles with reddish or bluish color and hue and its light shift. I found this one from the Hubble which is very nice. What should I be looking for to validate what you say or is there another youtube?

Creation scientists say that,

"The nebula is believed to have flattened to a spinning disk of gas, dust, and ice known as the accretion disk. Over millions of years, gravity caused the planets and other objects to form from this disk, and then excess gas and dust dissipated and cleared away, leaving the solar system as we see it. An important concept in this origins model is that all objects in our solar system, which are bound by gravity to our Sun, were made from the material in this original nebula. So, this nebula becomes the common source from which everything in our solar system formed.

However, this long-age view of our solar system involves many scientific problems, which can be listed in three categories, namely chemical change problems, heat problems, and dynamics problems."

Young solar system - creation.com

>>First, I point to Wiki because I very much doubt you would be able to read the technical stuff that I usually read. The wiki articles I point to are accurate.<<

Are you in astronomy or physical science? Which one? I was very green and worked for the company that built the Hubble in the 80s. In fact, Hubble was right next door to where I worked. However, since it was top secret, it was moved around. Our little joke was where is Hubble today and we all point in different directions like the 3 Stooges when they say to point left at the same time. I dislike wikipedia because it's biased and inaccurate. I use it for their links on serious topics. Primarily, I'll use wiki for current events and entertainment. It's good for the non-academic stuff, bad for politics and religion unless it's to look up some fact. If I am forced to use it, then I'll look up the same subject in conservapedia to balance it out. It has less depth, but more accurate. It should not be accepted as a source in academia. For an encyclopedia, I am finding I like Britannica online much better. Many of the more popular serious articles are available online for free. I'm hoping my next project has more research involved and I can get a contract for data scientist, and then I'll spring for a subscription. It's about $70/year.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you in astronomy or physical science? Which one?

I have a PhD in math (Harmonic analysis) and have taken the PhD qualifying exams in physics. My original intention for physics was to get my PhD in astrophysics with an emphasis on dark matter. A number of events, including the death of the man that would have been my advisor intervened. I am also an amateur astronomer, and like to observe variable stars.

 

[Polymath257]

>>Yes, in fact, it *will* form a star and planets<<
I saw one vid before this one from Spitzer telescope and they talked about the Pillars being destroyed by a supernova explosion (?). Not sure what was destroyed. All I saw were dust, gas and ice particles with reddish or bluish color and hue and its light shift. I found this one from the Hubble which is very nice. What should I be looking for to validate what you say or is there another youtube?

OK, you see the three pillars? Up at the top, do you see the bright spots? That is where new stars are forming.

Yes, the pillars have probably been disrupted by a nearby supernova. Since they are 6-7000 light years away, however, we won't see that disruption for a few thousand years. Think of a blast wave coming in from the side that disrupts the pillars we see now.

Here is a decent video:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Gas tends to expand instead of contract. To form a star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and put tremendous pressure so that the interior is compressed and becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start. Most gas clouds have a tendency to expand rather than contract. Thus the hypothesis isn't really feasible. Next.

The Nebular Hypothesis
Nebular hypothesis - creation.com

Pièrre Simon Laplace: The Nebular Hypothesis

Origin of the Solar System
Origin of the Solar System

I'm sure that nobody has told you this -- but gas is actually "stuff." It's matter. Matter has mass. Now, whether it tends to expand or contract depends entirely on some pretty simple math provided by Newton -- but really it's about how much there is, in what proximity, and at what energy level (temperature). Cool clouds of gas molecules in close proximity will begin to attract one another through nothing more exotic than gravitational attraction, and hence the cloud will begin to contract -- and that contraction will continue to get stronger as the matter gets closer together, and weaker as they heat up and push each other away -- until a period (not eternal because mass is converting to energy which is ejected outward) of equilibrium ensues.

Next!

 

[james bond]

OK, you see the three pillars? Up at the top, do you see the bright spots? That is where new stars are forming.

Yes, the pillars have probably been disrupted by a nearby supernova. Since they are 6-7000 light years away, however, we won't see that disruption for a few thousand years. Think of a blast wave coming in from the side that disrupts the pillars we see now.

Here is a decent video:

Congrats on your PhD and good luck in your physics one. Sorry to hear what happened.

I saw that video and was going to post that one, but I accidentally ended up posting a different video. In the video I posted above, Dr. Frank Summers explains matter of factly that this is where the star is forming as he compares the later and clearer pics to the older one (see from 6:42 mark). Dr. Summers says "could" form. And then goes into the "evidence" when stars form, it gives off these jets of radiation. Is he referring to the Nebular hypothesis there? I did find an article in Britannica which refers to the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis and think this is the same.

solar nebula | astronomy

I'm glad you mentioned 6-7000 light years away. This is light we are talking about, so when they say that are they taking into account spacetime and the effects of gravity on the light? It does not seem to me that they do. Next, we look at a photo. Then, isn't that when we are looking at light particles not light waves per the double-slit experiment? I'm not sure if I am explaining this correctly, but am trying to apply what I have learned from quantum mechanics..

 

[james bond]

I'm sure that nobody has told you this -- but gas is actually "stuff." It's matter. Matter has mass. Now, whether it tends to expand or contract depends entirely on some pretty simple math provided by Newton -- but really it's about how much there is, in what proximity, and at what energy level (temperature). Cool clouds of gas molecules in close proximity will begin to attract one another through nothing more exotic than gravitational attraction, and hence the cloud will begin to contract -- and that contraction will continue to get stronger as the matter gets closer together, and weaker as they heat up and push each other away -- until a period (not eternal because mass is converting to energy which is ejected outward) of equilibrium ensues.

Next!

Still LMAO.

 

[Polymath257]

Congrats on your PhD and good luck in your physics one. Sorry to hear what happened.

My responsibilities in the math department also increased, so I might not get the physics PhD. Life does this sometimes.

I saw that video and was going to post that one, but I accidentally ended up posting a different video. In the video I posted above, Dr. Frank Summers explains matter of factly that this is where the star is forming as he compares the later and clearer pics to the older one (see from 6:42 mark). Dr. Summers says "could" form. And then goes into the "evidence" when stars form, it gives off these jets of radiation. Is he referring to the Nebular hypothesis there?

Not exactly. New starts produce an incredible amount of radiation. These are the jets we see at the edges of the pillars.

I did find an article in Britannica which refers to the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis and think this is the same.

Yes. Laplace and Kant were the first to formulate this hypothesis. They did so only in very general terms. Now we have actual pictures of that process.

I'm glad you mentioned 6-7000 light years away. This is light we are talking about, so when they say that are they taking into account spacetime and the effects of gravity on the light? It does not seem to me that they do.

There aren't huge gravitational fields between us and these nebula. So, the propagation of light is very straightforward. For stars the size of what we are seeing, the gravitational corrections are very small. You really need a neutron star or a black hole for the gravitational effects to be large.

Next, we look at a photo. Then, isn't that when we are looking at light particles not light waves per the double-slit experiment? I'm not sure if I am explaining this correctly, but am trying to apply what I have learned from quantum mechanics..

ALL light is both wave an particle. The wave description is usually best for longer wavelengths and when the intensity is high enough. The particle description is usually better when the wavelengths are shorter and individual photons are detectable. The reason is that the energy per photon is higher for short wavelength. So even small amounts of energy mean a LOT of photons for visible light. So, for light, even at the dim levels of astronomy, the wave description is usually better. Sometimes the camera will detect single photons, though. This changes significantly for gamma ray astronomy, though. There, the individual photons are important.

No double slit enters into this picture.

 

[james bond]

Moreover, if we look at what's happening when we look at it as a light wave, then we see that the light is moving as a wave in all directions and spreading. We observe when a light particle can be at a specific time and then make some assumption about its spread (?). I'm not sure how it can be depicted in virtual reality. In VR, we see that a particle travels in a straight line. With VR, we see that it is traveling in all kinds of directions including spinning in both directions at once. Thus, the particles can be plotted and then this graph is spread. It depicts how the light particles are traveling in a spiral wave or other types of waves. How can we apply this thinking to the photo we are looking at or how does the photo show this? I don't know if I am making myself clear, but the video below explains the actions of light particles as a wave.

EDIT: I guess what I am getting at is how can we show what's happening in the Pillars of Creation using VR?

 

[james bond]

My responsibilities in the math department also increased, so I might not get the physics PhD. Life does this sometimes.


Not exactly. New starts produce an incredible amount of radiation. These are the jets we see at the edges of the pillars.


Yes. Laplace and Kant were the first to formulate this hypothesis. They did so only in very general terms. Now we have actual pictures of that process.


There aren't huge gravitational fields between us and these nebula. So, the propagation of light is very straightforward. For stars the size of what we are seeing, the gravitational corrections are very small. You really need a neutron star or a black hole for the gravitational effects to be large.



ALL light is both wave an particle. The wave description is usually best for longer wavelengths and when the intensity is high enough. The particle description is usually better when the wavelengths are shorter and individual photons are detectable. The reason is that the energy per photon is higher for short wavelength. So even small amounts of energy mean a LOT of photons for visible light. So, for light, even at the dim levels of astronomy, the wave description is usually better. Sometimes the camera will detect single photons, though. This changes significantly for gamma ray astronomy, though. There, the individual photons are important.

No double slit enters into this picture.

Okay, I can accept this and agree on no double slit ha ha. That's funny.