Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,355 members, 7,780,952 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 06:18 AM

Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' - Religion (3) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' (8273 Views)

A Pastor Said I Was A Witch Because Of My Big Eyeballs During Deliverance - Lady / Please Tell Us,how You Got The Thought "There Is No God Almighty / Daddy Freeze: "Pastor Said I Will Die In 24 Months Over Tithe, Free The Sheeple" (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by shadeyinka(m): 7:39pm On Aug 25, 2017
AgentOfAllah:
Scientific theories are propositions with predictive powers that can explain several bodies of independently observed facts and natural phenomena. For a theory to be accepted as scientific, it must therefore, be supported by a large body of testable facts, and it must, itself, be falsifiable. As such, for anything to be called a theory in scientific pedagogy, it must have been subjected to, and withstood rigorous scrutiny. A "theory" in colloquial parlance may be "JUST" something, but a scientific theory isn't "JUST" anything. The "many other theories" you've referenced are, in fact, hypotheses, not theories as far as science is concerned. So when I explain something to you using established scientific theories, be rest assured that it isn't just some conjured speculation from scientists.

Now, I have numerically outlined my explanation, so it would be more productive if you pick the parts you feel aren't supported by facts and experiments; and I would be happy to address them. What isn't helpful is just saying "this isn't true" without clarifying what exactly isn't true.

What are the several theories of the atom?


Is your god theory supported by testable facts? Is it falsifiable? If your answer to both questions is yes, then tell me how. If your answer to any is no, then it is not a valid scientific theory.

If you don't agree with my explanation, you will have to show that the science is faulty. I mentioned that the cooling of the universe led to the transition of the dense energy from one excited state to another, which included the synthesis of baryonic matter. This aspect of the theory is supported by the observations of a constantly expanding universe, nearly uniform CMB and the decomposition of atoms into many excited energy states in every experiment ever carried out in a particle accelerator. If you believe atoms did not come about in the way I have described, you will either have to falsify any one of these mutually exclusive observations or present an alternative falsifiable theory that can explain every one of them without exception.

This is NOT a limitation of science. It is a limitation of the present scientific theories, which I have openly highlighted.

Hubris! I don't think you, or anybody else is qualified to say what is or isn't scientifically possible.

I never said such a thing. In fact, I have readily and repeatedly admitted that I don't know the state of the universe before the big bang. Don't you understand what is meant by my statement that "there is no known theory that describes the state of the universe at any time preceding Planck's epoch"? Stop misattributing straw men to me, please.

Nowhere have I said god is impossible, nor have I claimed that any kind of matter predates time.

I don't disagree that it is fallacious to use quantum theory to explain creation. You're preaching to the choir!

Apologies if I left you with the impression that I was far from this reality. For the avoidance of doubt, my position has always been that I am ignorant of the preceding state of the universe before the known laws set in. I was sure I made this very clear from my initial post. Anyway, now you know!

As far as science is concerned, Christianity is presumptuous.

I am an atheist, and I've never said whatever "that thing" is cannot be god, nor have I called anything "super-matter". In fact, super-matter is a coinage I am hearing for the very first time today, so it is just as vague to me, as the word "god".

No they can't, but then again, your question wasn't about the origin of the universe, your question was about how the big bang brought about oxygen. Are we now shifting the goal post? The big bang isn't necessarily the origin of the universe, it is the origin of the present physical laws!

I don't know what you mean here.




Yes you used the word "equal", and qualified it with almost. I have quoted you as a reminder. Even with your qualification, you're still wrong!

But its physical behavior changes. I fail to see your point.

They are somewhat ordered, yes, but as they grow bigger, they become increasingly disordered. The only real order in atoms is their proclivity to minimise energy. Just like the permutations of a mathematical set becomes more complicated and disorderly as the set grows larger.

What are you saying?

Okay, but why are you being defensive? Did I accuse you of being opposed to science? Or what has this got to do with the origin of oxygen?

I'm still not sure how a discussion about the origin of oxygen digressed this far, but if it puts your mind to rest, I'm not one who assumes being spiritual is equivalent to being anti-science. It's not one's attitude towards spiritualism that makes one pro/anti-science, it's one's attitude towards scientific claims that makes them pro/anti-science.

What thing are you talking about?
Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor patience to answer you point by point.

However, this is my conclusion on this:

1.Quantum Physics cannot exist without the Physical Constants. The Physical Constants are products of the Physical Laws.
2. The Physical Laws breakdown as we approach the time of big bang

Therefore:
1. Quantum Physics break down as we approach the big bang
2. Quantum Physics can therefore NOT be used to explain the Origin of the Universe.

Stay Blessed

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by GoodMuyis(m): 7:39pm On Aug 25, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
Masking yours with biblical quotes is what?

Reference!
or you did not learn that at school?

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Ranchhoddas: 7:43pm On Aug 25, 2017
shadeyinka:

Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor patience to answer you point by point.

However, this is my conclusion on this:

1.Quantum Physics cannot exist without the Physical Constants. The Physical Constants are products of the Physical Laws.
2. The Physical Laws breakdown as we approach the time of big bang

Therefore:
1. Quantum Physics break down as we approach the big bang
2. Quantum Physics can therefore NOT be used to explain the Origin of the Universe.

Stay Blessed
I believe he has already said this.

2 Likes

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Ranchhoddas: 7:47pm On Aug 25, 2017
GoodMuyis:


Reference!
or you did not learn that at school?
If you actually went to school; a real school, you'd have come across such a thing as "appeal to authority", but you did not, so I can't really blame you.

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by butterflylion: 9:57pm On Aug 25, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
Oh please.
You don't even understand what is being discussed.

I have noticed you never have anything remotely sane or intriguing to contribute on any thread. All you do is roam mentally and verbally.

I chose not to partake in the discussion because shadeyinka is handling it excellently and do not wish to overwhelm super agent of MuhamMAD which I am well able to do in a whiff.

You on the other hand should try and break loose from your circle of mental and verbal roaming and challenge your thought process to prove itself by enabling you to voice out intelligence in the form of intriguing contributions.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Ranchhoddas: 10:42pm On Aug 25, 2017
butterflylion:


I have noticed you never have anything remotely sane or intriguing to contribute on any thread. All you do is roam mentally and verbally.

I chose not to partake in the discussion because shadeyinka is handling it excellently and do not wish to overwhelm super agent of MuhamMAD which I am well able to do in a whiff.

You on the other hand should try and break loose from your circle of mental and verbal roaming and challenge your thought process to prove itself by enabling you to voice out intelligence in the form of intriguing contributions.
I prefer your traumatologist persona.
This one is just terrible.
Admit it. You did not understand the discussion.

2 Likes

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by butterflylion: 10:54pm On Aug 25, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
I prefer your traumatologist persona.
This one is just terrible.
Admit it. You did not understand the discussion.

Traumawetin Wetin? They do say weed is a terrible drug and I am seeing that claim is true with you. Which one be persona and traumatologist? How dat one take concern me?
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Ranchhoddas: 11:04pm On Aug 25, 2017
butterflylion:


Traumawetin Wetin? They do say weed is a terrible drug and I am seeing that claim is true with you. Which one be persona and traumatologist? How far one take concern me?
Save it.
I am not interested.
Now don't derail the thread.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by butterflylion: 11:19pm On Aug 25, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
Save it.
I am not interested.
Now don't derail the thread.

See this apere lasan dey tell me to save it. Where have you made any meaningful contribution on any thread? See you see thread. cheesy

Oponu po tea.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by butterflylion: 11:40pm On Aug 25, 2017
AgentOfAllah:

Don't mind the otutupoyoyo! grin

Sorry o. I never knew you were Babalu Aye.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Ranchhoddas: 11:55pm On Aug 25, 2017
butterflylion:


See this apere lasan dey tell me to save it. Where have you made any meaningful contribution on any thread? See you see thread. cheesy

Oponu po tea.
Yimu
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Jfrankination(m): 1:02am On Aug 26, 2017
Benekruku:
Rubbish!

So is God that created oxygen?

Everything about the God is all fiction!

Walked on water, healed the sick, woke the dead, fed a million, converted water to wine, patched a ear and none has been replicated by its believers except staged!

Who doesn't know where oxygen comes from or how it can be produced

All this sheeples sef! God created Oxygen and who created Carbon mono Oxide? Devil? grin

Mental slavery!
bro before u believe dat dia is no God, ask yourself "All these secret cults, wat is d force/power behind dem" if there's no God and Hell don't u think life will be unfair? wat will happen to those that died of rituals? d lives DAT boko haram kill unjustly? i have seen miracles, not even a church make believe something, naw wat is behind dat miracle? i my self i am confused about these whole thing
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Nobody: 1:28am On Aug 26, 2017
Jfrankination:
bro before u believe dat dia is no God, ask yourself "All these secret cults, wat is d force/power behind dem" if there's no God and Hell don't u think life will be unfair? wat will happen to those that died of rituals? d lives DAT boko haram kill unjustly? i have seen miracles, not even a church make believe something, naw wat is behind dat miracle? i my self i am confused about these whole thing

Isn't life already unfair. What exactly is fair about this life?
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 1:37am On Aug 26, 2017
AgentOfAllah,

It's very funny watching you tout those pile of fairy tales and speculations and armchair calculations as the truth about the formation of Oxygen. For starters, Prof. Martin Harwit(an evolutionist) has proven by his research that gaseous atoms don't clump together in space.

Go and tinker your fairytale.

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by AgentOfAllah: 2:43am On Aug 26, 2017
DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

It's very funny watching you tout those pile of fairy tales and speculations and armchair calculations as the truth about the formation of Oxygen. For starters, Prof. Martin Harwit(an evolutionist) has proven by his research that gaseous atoms don't clump together in space.

Go and tinker your fairytale.

Thanks! Could you, perhaps, cite the specific research you've referenced? It's difficult to tinker anything without the right tools!

Meanwhile, as you provide the reference, I want you to indulge me a little by thinking about these 4 things:

1) Consider the ideal gas equation (PV = nRT), what's the effect of high and low temperature on interparticulate pressure?

2) What's the temperature in space?

3) Consider the force of gravity (F=G m1 m2/r2), would you say there is attraction between two objects with masses m1 and m2 in space?

4) Finally what happens to F as the number of objects grow? And, will this cause the objects to clump together (assuming any repulsive force is negligible)?

4 Likes

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 12:09pm On Aug 26, 2017
AgentOfAllah,

Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet.
https://jrcooper.org/tag/big-bang/

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 12:16pm On Aug 26, 2017
AgentOfAllah:
Thanks! Could you, perhaps, cite the specific research you've referenced? It's difficult to tinker anything without the right tools!

Meanwhile, as you provide the reference, I want you to indulge me a little by thinking about these 4 things:

1) Consider the ideal gas equation (PV = nRT), what's the effect of high and low temperature on interparticulate pressure?

2) What's the temperature in space?

3) Consider the force of gravity (F=G m1 m2/r2), would you say there is attraction between two objects with masses m1 and m2 in space?

4) Finally what happens to F as the number of objects grow? And, will this cause the objects to clump together (assuming any repulsive force is negligible)?

Pressure is directly proportional to temperature. We don't have to neglect any repulsive force. As a matter of fact, physicists are not unanimous as to whether gravity has to be always and only attractive.

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 12:24pm On Aug 26, 2017
More quotes, AgentOfAllah:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense." *Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, August 18, 1981, p. 413.

*Harwit continues to plague the cosmologists with scientific facts:

"The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That's 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." *Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 12:52pm On Aug 26, 2017
AgentOfAllah,
I think this is a reference to that particular research by Prof. Harwit:
M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.
Just do a search on that reference.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by AgentOfAllah: 11:22pm On Aug 26, 2017
I don't really like your fragmented responses because they will eventually lead to too many branches of the same discussion. I have sewn them back all together in this reply. As much as possible, let's avoid fragmentation, thanks!
DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.
DoctorAlien post=59842494:
AgentOfAllah,

I think this is a reference to that particular research by Prof. Harwit:

M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.

Just do a search on that reference.
Thanks for the reference. I have now acquired two revisions of the book, Astrophysical Concepts. The book is now in its 4th edition, published in 2006. I acquired this edition because I expect it is fairly up to date with respect to current trends in astrophysics. I also acquired the 2nd edition, published in 1988, because it's the closest thing to the first edition (1973), which is available for download on Springer. The discussion you referenced is on page 415 in the new 4th edition. I absolutely recommend the book. It makes for a great read, technically and qualitatively. It comes at a hefty price though, but I have privileged access, so I can send you my copy by email, if you wish to add it to your collection!

The discussion is titled: Formation of Molecules and Grains [in Space].
Now, I know that you've just copied and pasted this discussion word for word from some young earther's website, but for simplicity, I prefer to directly address you in my rebuttal.
To start with, this is not some ground shattering research result as you've made it out to be, in fact, it is no research at all. It is merely the introductory statement in the above titled section - explaining how molecules and grains form in space - which you have completely taken out of its intended context. If you read the whole section, you will see that the conclusion you have drawn from it is contrary to the goal of the section. Secondly, this section was not referring to Hydrogen specifically, but all (electrically neutral) molecules and grains. I will now clarify it for you:

In order to explain the formation of grains that eventually lead to protostars, Harwit proceeds from a well-acknowledged fact: The average density in interstellar space (~1 atom m-3) is too small to cause large scale clumping. He then shows, mathematically, how it would take a period much greater than the age of the galaxy to form a particle with radius ~10-5 cm, as you have described. This was where you stopped, but not him. He continues by showing that this time drops to around 3 million years in interstellar dusts approaching atomic densities of ~ 103 atoms m-3. I will quote below, an excerpt from the part you missed out:

"Of course, there exist regions in space where the number density of atoms like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and iron is ~1 cm-3. The Orion region is about that dense. If there were no destructive effects there, grains could perhaps form in a time, 3 x 106 years...Furthermore, if the temperature in a dense cool cloud could become low enough so that hydrogen could solidify on the grains without rapid re-evaporation, the growth rate could be still higher by two or three orders of magnitude."[1] The rest of the section then describes events that could aid (such as dust winds) or disrupt the formation of grains(such as ionization, collisions and evaporation).

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet.
https://jrcooper.org/tag/big-bang/
In so far as you have not cited Novotny's research, I cannot effectively respond to it. There's a lot of missing detail; like what kind of gas was used? What was the temperature inside the vacuum chamber within which the experiment was conducted, its pressure? Were there sources of interference such as light or electric field?

DoctorAlien:


Pressure is directly proportional to temperature. We don't have to neglect any repulsive force. As a matter of fact, physicists are not unanimous as to whether gravity has to be always and only attractive.
Yes, pressure is indeed directly proportional to temperature! So at low temperature, interparticulate (repulsive) pressure decreases, allowing gravitational attraction to take preponderance. Even the part of Harwit's text which you poorly interpreted above demonstrates this much. And yes, if a particle is electrically neutral, such as Hydrogen molecules or Helium, you can absolutely neglect repulsive force at low pressure! As for repulsive gravity, until such a time as you've experienced spontaneous ejection from the earth, it's a non-issue. If you survive the ejection, we can sit and talk about it.

DoctorAlien:
More quotes, AgentOfAllah:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense." *Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, August 18, 1981, p. 413.
I've now read this paper. Again, you have unnecessarily misunderstood the quoted text above. The publication isn't so much about star formation as it is about the origins of life. Its goal is to account for some absorbed lines in the infrared spectra of stardust. The paper proposes that these absorbed lines are suggestive of high density of microbes in stardust. In order to rule out silicate matter as the dominant cause of this absorption, the author rightly noted that silicate matter ought to have condensed to big enough grains across the nebula to cause these absorbed lines. However, mineral grains cannot condense in space because they are cold solids! This is a factual statement that has nothing to do with the process of star birth.

*Harwit continues to plague the cosmologists with scientific facts:

"The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That's 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." *Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.
I have now read this reference. The publication is titled Star Formation. This statement, like all the others you've referenced, has been taken out of context, plus, it is severely outdated! You can read the full version HERE. You may find the up-to-date edition in Harwit's Astrophysical concepts 4th edition (pp 10-12, 441), under section 10:1 with the same title.

References

[1] Harwit, M. Astrophysical concepts. 2nd edn, 394-395 (Springer-Verlag, 1988).

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DoctorAlien(m): 2:53am On Aug 27, 2017
AgentOfAllah,

While you referred to Prof. Harwit's quote as "severely outdated", you did not show me the "up-to-date" view on his quote. The link you gave contains nothing in it.

Well, a more recent statement has it that "...astronomers have never witnessed [even]a high-mass star being born, and hotly debate how they form.” Eric Hand, “Mega-Array Reveals Birthplace of Giant Stars,”Nature , Vol 492, 20/27 December 2012, p. 320

Space.com says that scientists "aren't exactly sure when and how the first stars formed." Note the "when".

I also have a question for you: according to your theory, how cold did the environment get for gravity to overcome pressure? For two gaseous atoms rushing out from a common centre, the distance between them increases with each kilometer they move from the centre. F=Gm1m2/r2 decreases then, as the gaseous atoms rush out. What changed the direction of the atoms and brought them together?
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by Deicide: 6:00am On Aug 27, 2017
Hahahaha

3 Likes

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by prinzfavian(m): 7:24am On Aug 27, 2017
Benekruku:
Rubbish!

So is God that created oxygen?

Everything about the God is all fiction!

Walked on water, healed the sick, woke the dead, fed a million, converted water to wine, patched a ear and none has been replicated by its believers except staged!

Who doesn't know where oxygen comes from or how it can be produced

All this sheeples sef! God created Oxygen and who created Carbon mono Oxide? Devil? grin

Mental slavery!
Lol, so oxygen just happened?
With your logic I might as well say, you're just a fiction to me.... I don't know if you exist, I can't see you... Just your posts here on a faceless Nairaland.

Why not drop your error inspired knowledge or whatever you believe in a imagine what God can do if his son could do all that!

Where does oxygen come from my dear, and how is it produced?

Lol, can't you see a CO has a combination of two gases... So because science discovered it, it means they created it? Common think!

Mental Slavery! You say.... Na! It's common reasoning.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by prinzfavian(m): 7:43am On Aug 27, 2017
dalaman:


If his oxygen mask goes off he'll die. Why must it take death to see God? Sounds like a fraudulent scheme.
It doesn't take death to see God, but in extreme cases like his (not believing God exists) , being at the point of death.... When suddenly the fear of what lies ahead engulfs him and he feels his spirit gradually going out... Feeling totally helpless for once in his entire life, fighting hard to accept the fact that he can't save himself or get back his life because all his life he hadnt acknowledge the one who gave it to him in the first place.... That's the only time, he will tend to admit that there is God.
It's not a fraudulent act dear, cos for those that believes in God and walked with him with the entirety of their life, what they feel at the point of death is Joy.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by hopefulLandlord: 8:02am On Aug 27, 2017
prinzfavian:

It doesn't take death to see God, but in extreme cases like his (not believing God exists) , being at the point of death.... When suddenly the fear of what lies ahead engulfs him and he feels his spirit gradually going out... Feeling totally helpless for once in his entire life, fighting hard to accept the fact that he can't save himself or get back his life because all his life he hadnt acknowledge the one who gave it to him in the first place.... That's the only time, he will tend to admit that there is God.
It's not a fraudulent act dear, cos for those that believes in God and walked with him with the entirety of their life, what they feel at the point of death is Joy.

I've been helpless before, I've gone through life threatening situations but not once did I call on an imaginary friend

Even if some atheists do pray in foxholes (life threatening situations), so the fork what? It doesn't prove there's a god. It doesn't even prove that the atheist secretly believed all along. All it proves is that desperate people are desperate, to which I can only say: No sheet, Sherlock.
Deathbed conversions are meaningless. Foxhole conversions are meaningless. People are not themselves when they're being traumatized, or when their brains are in the process of shutting down, or they are being pumped full of drugs. These are the same kinds of events that cause PTSD. They don't reveal a person's true self. They distort, or sometimes even completely destroy it.
When Christians praise deathbed/foxhole conversions, they are admitting that they will accept conversions elicited via torture. They won't actually kidnap you and waterboard you 'til you love Jesus (anymore) because nobody would accept that conversion as genuine (anymore). But if the torture is coming from an impersonal source like cancer, or an outside source like wartime, or in this case being lost in space hooray! You secretly knew there was a God all along! It's despicable.

1 Like

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by prinzfavian(m): 9:15am On Aug 27, 2017
butterflylion:


If the nature is unknown then how do you know God exists? I am not understanding. If the descriptive nature of a thing is unknown then how can it exist?
How about Amoeba?
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by prinzfavian(m): 10:28am On Aug 27, 2017
hopefulLandlord:


I've been helpless before, I've gone through life threatening situations but not once did I call on an imaginary friend

Even if some atheists do pray in foxholes (life threatening situations), so the fork what? It doesn't prove there's a god. It doesn't even prove that the atheist secretly believed all along. All it proves is that desperate people are desperate, to which I can only say: No sheet, Sherlock.
Deathbed conversions are meaningless. Foxhole conversions are meaningless. People are not themselves when they're being traumatized, or when their brains are in the process of shutting down, or they are being pumped full of drugs. These are the same kinds of events that cause PTSD. They don't reveal a person's true self. They distort, or sometimes even completely destroy it.
When Christians praise deathbed/foxhole conversions, they are admitting that they will accept conversions elicited via torture. They won't actually kidnap you and waterboard you 'til you love Jesus (anymore) because nobody would accept that conversion as genuine (anymore). But if the torture is coming from an impersonal source like cancer, or an outside source like wartime, or in this case being lost in space hooray! You secretly knew there was a God all along! It's despicable.
You're right, but I noticed on your signature.... 'I ain't gonna live forever"..... I understand why you say so... But tell me honestly, don't you wish you could live forever? This just an honest question, don't intend to annoy or argue... Just want to know. Do you want to live forever if you could?
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by hopefulLandlord: 10:36am On Aug 27, 2017
prinzfavian:

You're right, but I noticed on your signature.... 'I ain't gonna live forever"..... I understand why you say so... But tell me honestly, don't you wish you could live forever? This just an honest question, don't intend to annoy or argue... Just want to know. Do you want to live forever if you could?

No! I don't want to live forever

and my signature is a chorus in the song "It's my life" by the band Bon Jovi
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by prinzfavian(m): 11:03am On Aug 27, 2017
hopefulLandlord:


No! I don't want to live forever

and my signature is a chorus in the song "It's my life" by the band Bon Jovi

Alright.... Thanks Bro
It was nice meeting you.
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by AgentOfAllah: 11:41am On Aug 27, 2017
DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,
While you referred to Prof. Harwit's quote as "severely outdated", you did not show me the "up-to-date" view on his quote. The link you gave contains nothing in it.
Apologies for that sire! The link I gave contains the full article, but you need to be subscribed to access it. I thought it was open access. I will post a .JPG file of it below, and hope it's legible enough. Please read through it to understand how the stellar evolution theory works. In it, he explains with captivating clarity, how tell tale observations helped to formulate the existing theory (it is even more detailed in his book). It is true that there are still several unanswered questions, but that's not a bad deal for Astrophysicists...it keeps them in business. Most importantly, far from falsifying the theory, these unanswered questions propels us to build more sophisticated equipment in our quest to understand the universe. What you must understand, however, is that everyone in the astrophysics community, with no exception, understands the picture painted by this theory to be roughly accurate. Their concern isn't so much that the picture is wrong, as it is about smoothening the rough edges of the picture. Make no mistake though, there are many experimental observations that strengthen this theory, including direct observations of baby stars newly forming in stellar dusts, complete with their accretion disks and whatnots!



Well, a more recent statement has it that "...astronomers have never witnessed [even]a high-mass star being born, and hotly debate how they form.” Eric Hand, “Mega-Array Reveals Birthplace of Giant Stars,”Nature , Vol 492, 20/27 December 2012, p. 320
This article was published in 2012, and if you read it, you will find that the question isn't so much about whether stars are born in dusty nebula, as it is what process causes their birth. That stars are born in nebula is a subject that has been long settled. This article was written to advertise the potential of a powerful telescope that was being constructed at the time. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) telescope was fully launched in 2013, and it has since provided several direct observations of newly forming stars. See refs [1, 2]. Notice that these are some of the latest publications (2016 and 2017) in the field.

With respect to super massive stars, we haven't observed them yet for two reasons:
1) They must be the oldest stars in existence, and such massive stars tend not to live long. We however, know that such stars must have existed due to the abundance of heavy elements in pretty much most nebula we have observed. The only stars with appreciably lower metallicity than our sun are the very old ones clustered around the center of the galaxy. See the discussion in ref [3].

2) We don't yet have the equipment to observe their residual light. NASA and Canada are presently building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) which would be powerful enough to detect these residual emissions from said stars. I feel fairly confident that this effort will be just as successful as the ALMA in clarifying some of the contentious points and giving us awesome pictures of the oldest galaxies in our universe.

Space.com says that scientists "aren't exactly sure when and how the first stars formed." Note the "when".
This article mentions that we have a fairly good understanding of how stars form today, but we're still trying to understand how the very first stars formed. This is true! When we talk of astronomical timescales, it is impossible to be exact! The conditions of the very early universe are extremely difficult to simulate, so we depend on theoretical extrapolations and experimental observations. As I mentioned, we are only beginning to build a telescope that can peer to the age of the first stars. Let's see how this helps up paint a clearer picture.

I also have a question for you: according to your theory, how cold did the environment get for gravity to overcome pressure? For two gaseous atoms rushing out from a common centre, the distance between them increases with each kilometer they move from the centre. F=Gm1m2/r2 decreases then, as the gaseous atoms rush out. What changed the direction of the atoms and brought them together?
Great question! Usually, for hydrogen and helium molecules, this temperature is between 4K - 20K, so there must be a heat dissipation mechanism around the core of these gas clouds (this is also extensively discussed in Harwit's text pp. 451 4th Ed.). As I've mentioned before, the inhomogenieties in the CMB meant there were necessarily localised regions in space with more density than others, even from the beginning. So, in so far as the universe was smaller then than it is now, we know that the these inhomogenious densities must have been even higher then than they are now. If the density of gas clouds today are favourable for star formation, there is no reason why they wouldn't have been with even higher densities. Recall that the distance between the two farthest particles in the universe is limited by the volume of the universe.

References:
[1] Lee, C.-F. et al. "First detection of equatorial dark dust lane in a protostellar disk at submillimeter wavelength". Science Advances 3, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602935 (2017).

[2] Andrews, S. M. et al. "RINGED SUBSTRUCTURE AND A GAP AT 1 au IN THE NEAREST PROTOPLANETARY DISK". Astrophysical Journal Letters 820, doi:Artn L4010.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L40 (2016).

[3] Harwit, M. "Population III Stars.", Astrophysical concepts. 4th edn, 600-601 (Springer, 2006).

2 Likes

Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by hopefulLandlord: 1:19pm On Aug 27, 2017
prinzfavian:


Alright.... Thanks Bro
It was nice meeting you.

same here, you can check out that song, you might like it too and its clean, no bad language or seductive words
Re: Epic Response To An Astronaut Who Said 'I See No God Up Here' by DeepSight(m): 3:17pm On Aug 27, 2017
Dear AgentOfAllah

Many thanks for your lucid and well set out responses on the science of the matter and I am particularly delighted at the academic and professional bent you have given to your ripostes.

Whilst I deeply appreciate the effort given to that approach, I only read and follow science but am not a scientist by training. Hence I would like to ask you one 9r two questions which may divert towards the philosophy and cosmological theory of the matter.

First question which will guide my other questions is this: Into what is the universe expanding.

Thank you.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply)

Celestial Church Exposed / Wont They Give Us 2012 Prophesies As Usual? / The Stand Of Women In The Bible

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 105
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.