Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Star Formation.
How can clouds of gas in the vacuum of space coalesce to produce the enormous pressures and temperatures necessary to begin fusion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rather like the bumblebee myth, the problem isn't so much that nobody ever believed it or argued it, but the scale of belief in a Flat Earth and its consequences has been massively exaggerated.
Why not pick an example you've done some more research on, to check that your recollection is accurate? A lot of these are common-enough myths, so it's not exactly unusual to fall for and repeat them as fact, but it's also not difficult to find their refutations with a bit of cursory reading.
Why not pick an example you've done some more research on, to check that your recollection is accurate? A lot of these are common-enough myths, so it's not exactly unusual to fall for and repeat them as fact, but it's also not difficult to find their refutations with a bit of cursory reading.
Theland
Problem is you are not getting your information first hand. What you know of God is communicated through men, and that is an unreliable source. If information is being transmitted through men, it can be corrupted, and manipulated.
Science is a series of theories, and evidence is amassed to prove or disprove those theories. Which is why thet are constantly being tweaked. They are not set in stone or scripture, but there to be expanded upon.
Problem is you are not getting your information first hand. What you know of God is communicated through men, and that is an unreliable source. If information is being transmitted through men, it can be corrupted, and manipulated.
Science is a series of theories, and evidence is amassed to prove or disprove those theories. Which is why thet are constantly being tweaked. They are not set in stone or scripture, but there to be expanded upon.
Theland, the universe wasn't a vacuum, there was lots of spread out matter in it. All matter attracts other matter, and so there came about clumps of matter which attracted other matter and the bigger the clumps the more attraction they exerted and so there was a sort of snowball effect. At the same time there was motion and often this was circular or spinning motion. Centrifugal force would exert a force counter to the attractive force of gravity. Sometimes there became a stability, as there is within the solar system, and clumps could circle each other for billions of years. Sometimes the gravity won the battle and the clumps got so big and massive that they became stars and, occasionally black holes.
I have given a lay person's explanation, cos that's all I can do. Others here could surely explain it all much better.
I have given a lay person's explanation, cos that's all I can do. Others here could surely explain it all much better.
sunk: "In our very own solar system we have Jupiter which is a failed star (or an incomplete star)." - it's often called that but it's no more a failed star than the Hindenburg was. Sure it's mostly Hydrogen but it's no where near massive enough even to be a brown dwarf. The sun, is a very un remarkable, relatively small star but it still contains 99% of the mass of the solar system. Jupiter is approx 1000th mass of the sun, not remotely anywhere near forming a star.
// ... prior to the first circumnavigation, sailors believed the earth was flat, and they would fall off it. //
Like I said above, the flaw here is stating a niche belief as universal. Very few sailors, if any, believed that the world was flat in the 1500s. It's simply a nonsense to report this as fact. Ditto the following:
// The first recorded circumnavigation was in 1519 - and there are plenty of maps drawn before then showing the earth as flat and square. //
Again, that's taking too literally what's on a page. The debate in the 1400s in particular was over the size of the Earth, not its shape. For example, the mappa mundi may look flat, but in fact they are (a) not meant to be literal maps, and (b) were still based on the notion of an Earth being spherical.
You're mistaken, then, in implying that the belief of a Flat Earth was prevalent until its refutation via circumnavigation.
Like I said above, the flaw here is stating a niche belief as universal. Very few sailors, if any, believed that the world was flat in the 1500s. It's simply a nonsense to report this as fact. Ditto the following:
// The first recorded circumnavigation was in 1519 - and there are plenty of maps drawn before then showing the earth as flat and square. //
Again, that's taking too literally what's on a page. The debate in the 1400s in particular was over the size of the Earth, not its shape. For example, the mappa mundi may look flat, but in fact they are (a) not meant to be literal maps, and (b) were still based on the notion of an Earth being spherical.
You're mistaken, then, in implying that the belief of a Flat Earth was prevalent until its refutation via circumnavigation.
/15:03 - So I consider the works of God, evidence.
My faith is well founded and secure.//
It may be, if you want it to be theland. But it isn't evidence, let alone proof.
I have no interest in changing your mind. I just wish you would be honest enough to say you "want" to believe it. Rather than pretending it makes any sense.
My faith is well founded and secure.//
It may be, if you want it to be theland. But it isn't evidence, let alone proof.
I have no interest in changing your mind. I just wish you would be honest enough to say you "want" to believe it. Rather than pretending it makes any sense.
Andy@15:15
Yes I do believe God could have created it all with a mere thought.
But should I as a Christian disbelieve the answers that science provides?
Not at all.
God created, and His works are intelligible, and I accept that, without being able to say unequivocally why God did things in this way.
But it seems to be His purpose for us to investigate and understand His creation, all the better to enrich our lives, and realise a greater appreciation of God.
I am no expert, either on the bible, or on Christianity, but find myself cautiously progressing towards an ideal.
(Not always successfully I confess).
Yes I do believe God could have created it all with a mere thought.
But should I as a Christian disbelieve the answers that science provides?
Not at all.
God created, and His works are intelligible, and I accept that, without being able to say unequivocally why God did things in this way.
But it seems to be His purpose for us to investigate and understand His creation, all the better to enrich our lives, and realise a greater appreciation of God.
I am no expert, either on the bible, or on Christianity, but find myself cautiously progressing towards an ideal.
(Not always successfully I confess).
Pixie, Ouch! You question my honesty? Ouch again!
I neither ever compromise my honesty or integrity, at least not knowingly!
By all means think me a fool, but at least an honest one!
Mind you, I care not one iota what people think of me, but I do care what God thinks of me.
Never more so than now, given recent events in my life.
(Of course, I don't believe for a moment you meant any offense).
I neither ever compromise my honesty or integrity, at least not knowingly!
By all means think me a fool, but at least an honest one!
Mind you, I care not one iota what people think of me, but I do care what God thinks of me.
Never more so than now, given recent events in my life.
(Of course, I don't believe for a moment you meant any offense).
While you're taking the time to acquire some understanding of 'how God made the stars', perhaps you might take a moment to ask yourself, "In what universe did God acquire the vast knowledge required to create one?"
All of our knowledge, however limited, we have acquired through logically fitting together and assembling the bits and pieces of the puzzle presented to us through observation and establishing the relationships that exist in our universe. Without a universe to study we could never acquire any knowledge about literally nothing. Before we can know anything there must first be something to learn about and a means and process for doing so.
Before presuming a creator perhaps you might consider the preconditions essential to creativity.
All of our knowledge, however limited, we have acquired through logically fitting together and assembling the bits and pieces of the puzzle presented to us through observation and establishing the relationships that exist in our universe. Without a universe to study we could never acquire any knowledge about literally nothing. Before we can know anything there must first be something to learn about and a means and process for doing so.
Before presuming a creator perhaps you might consider the preconditions essential to creativity.
mibn, somehow I don't think that your kind of reasoning wil get through to people like Theland. It misses the point that God is his own answer and doesn't rely on mere human logic and reasoning. I mean, let's face it, he is the answer to all our doubts and worries; saves us the bother of thinking for ourselves, which is after all a bloomin' headache.
// I used the famous example of the fact that for hundreds of years, the flight of the ..... fly, when clearly it does.//
"and so altho science says it cant fly - - it CAN!" is not really the target of science - which is to explain nature and not to show nature is impossible when it occurs outside
you didnt get a science o level did you?
I mean god it is like saying - covid cant mutate ! or vaccination doesnt work !
to ge back to three impossible things before breakfast
there is one insect whose wings are 'too small' and the muscle is not fast enough so shouldnt fly
but that just means the model is wrong - you need a new model
and that is that the insect thorax is deformed ( stores energy ) and in going back to normal it transmits energy to the wing ( to up the beat frequency)
classroom - ruler- desk. you can boing the rule by holding it over the desk edge. It boings. No muscle ( 'so it cant do that') and the beat frequency is audible. Same principle to the insect wing
[o flap their wings, the chest muscles pull the wings forward while the shoulder muscles pull the wings backwards. While these muscles are antagonistic, they do not show stretch activation and so this .... "from how does a bumble bee fly"]
now a four leaf clover - that IS impossible ( not a Fibonacci number)
"and so altho science says it cant fly - - it CAN!" is not really the target of science - which is to explain nature and not to show nature is impossible when it occurs outside
you didnt get a science o level did you?
I mean god it is like saying - covid cant mutate ! or vaccination doesnt work !
to ge back to three impossible things before breakfast
there is one insect whose wings are 'too small' and the muscle is not fast enough so shouldnt fly
but that just means the model is wrong - you need a new model
and that is that the insect thorax is deformed ( stores energy ) and in going back to normal it transmits energy to the wing ( to up the beat frequency)
classroom - ruler- desk. you can boing the rule by holding it over the desk edge. It boings. No muscle ( 'so it cant do that') and the beat frequency is audible. Same principle to the insect wing
[o flap their wings, the chest muscles pull the wings forward while the shoulder muscles pull the wings backwards. While these muscles are antagonistic, they do not show stretch activation and so this .... "from how does a bumble bee fly"]
now a four leaf clover - that IS impossible ( not a Fibonacci number)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles64 mins ago
ChatterBank71 mins ago
ChatterBank76 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News84 mins ago
