Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The most astounding fact!

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Just how like evolutionists keep changing their MO every time a creationist points out inherent gaps in their theory?

The only thing you guys have proved is that natural selection occurs on a small stage. There is no evidence that natural selection works on atrophy of limbs or entire biological systems.


WRONG


But again, this thread isn't about evolution. Last warning, I will flag any future posts about evolution as they have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Just how like evolutionists keep changing their MO every time a creationist points out inherent gaps in their theory?

You might be surprised to learn that evolutionists keep testing the system. They are the ones identifying weaknesses. Their task is to do that work. Creationists on the other hand haven't got a clue. I know. I have been to creationist lectures.


The only thing you guys have proved is that natural selection occurs on a small stage. There is no evidence that natural selection works on atrophy of limbs or entire biological systems.

So how do you explain the fossil record showing that at one time there were oceans without a single fish? Now there are fish. That change in life is an example of evolution or change in life here on Earth.

Please don't flag me! Sorry for being off topic.
edit on 6-3-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Please don't flag me! Sorry for being off topic.


Fine...last warning


Here's the line below which no evolution talk is to take place:

______________________________________________________________________




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Well then I'm confused as to why you posted it in this forum.
The video talks about the origins of life it's inevitable that discussion would lead to evolution.


Questions from the video:

1. Why aren't we in a binary star system?
2. Why is our solar systems orbits cocentric?
3. Could supernovas have provided enough to account for all of the heavy elements on Earth?
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
5. How many supernova does it take to account for the abundance of terrestrial heavy elements? Has this been demonstrated ANYWHERE else in the universe?

Again, I don't want mathematical hypothesis I wan't proof that this type of "luck" occurs in the universe.


edit on 6-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Questions from the video:

1. Why aren't we in a binary star system?
2. Why is our solar systems orbits cocentric?
3. Could supernovas have provided enough to account for all of the heavy elements on Earth?
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
5. How many supernova does it take to account for the abundance of terrestrial heavy elements? Has this been demonstrated ANYWHERE else in the universe?

Again, I don't want mathematical hypothesis I wan't proof that this type of "luck" occurs in the universe.

1. Not all stars like ours are in binary systems.
2. The planets are in stable orbits.
3. They did
4. We can detect them spectroscopically
5. Depends on the size of the stars involved

This is not luck. Luck is an attribute assigned by humans.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Well then I'm confused as to why you posted it in this forum.
The video talks about the origins of life it's inevitable that discussion would lead to evolution.


Questions from the video:

1. Why aren't we in a binary star system?
2. Why is our solar systems orbits cocentric?
3. Could supernovas have provided enough to account for all of the heavy elements on Earth?
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
5. How many supernova does it take to account for the abundance of terrestrial heavy elements? Has this been demonstrated ANYWHERE else in the universe?

Again, I don't want mathematical hypothesis I wan't proof that this type of "luck" occurs in the universe.


edit on 6-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)


This section talks about our origins...and given that we consist of molecules formed inside stars, it's relevant to this section. However, that's all the video talks about, the building blocks of life...NOT evolution


1) Why should we be in a binary system? We know binary systems aren't rare...at least not in our visible part of the universe.

2) I think you mean concentric. Having said that, our solar system's planets have elliptical orbits. Not sure what that has to do with molecules being formed when a star dies


3) Definitely yes. Why do I say this? Because suns are MASSIVE compared to bodies around it. To put things into perspective, our sun could fit around 926 Jupiters...and our sun isn't even remarkably large compared to some other suns. Compare our sun to Betelgeuse for example, and you know what I mean: LINK

4) Here are a ton of articles showing why and how stellar nucleosynthesis happens. And here is a graphical explanation (read the description at the bottom) of how it happens. And this summary page has links to various heavy elements and how they are created inside stars.

5) Yes, we have observed it. In fact, the entire stellar nucleosynthesis isn't exactly a new theory, it was part of a 50 year old paper: LINK. The link explains how and why it happens, and how scientists were able to figure it out...for more details I suggest you click the reference links at the bottom of the page


By the way, if you're interested in cosmology and astronomy, I suggest you keep an eye on Reddit. Why? Because Tyson does regular "ask me anything" sessions. The last one lasted around 2-3hrs and got over 10k posts during that time...people are curious


I'm a bit of a Tyson fanboy, and not because he's a great scientist, but rather because he's a great educator trying to foster people's curiosity and knowledge of science and facts. The original video of him answering the "what's the most astounding fact" question had 837 views when I posted it...it's now more than 500k views. Apparently I'm not the only one who's amazed


Here's a very entertaining interview with him and Stephen Colbert. One of the very few occasions where you get to see Colbert out of character btw:

(Start 8min into the video...)
edit on 6-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Here's a great article explaining the maths behind the concept in a bit more details...the guy has more papers about the subject: LINK



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


1. Well with the hypothesized size of the nebula that formed our solar system why wasn't a binary star system the result? Most star systems are binary Link

2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.

3. Well then besides the moon what other bodies in our solar system have been analyzed and shown to have radioactive elements? (None)

4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.

5. It would take millions:




The end result is that the solar nebula, if it existed, would have required components from a supernova (whose remnant is mysteriously undetectable today) that once existed as an ABG star. Moreover, somehow all the radionuclides either became incorporated in the earth's crust or else landed on the surface of the moon or are part of the moon's five-meter-thick regolith. The nebula theory predicts a nearly uniform distribution of transferric and trans-lead elements throughout the earth's crust and deep in the bedrock of the moon. Project Apollo did not drill that far, so the latter assumption remains untested—but the first assumption has already been falsified: radioactive ores are found on the continents, never on the ocean floor. Continue reading on Examiner.com The origin of heavy (and radioactive) elements


www.examiner.com...

edit on 6-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


1. Exactly, they're the most common which would make US the exception.

3. Where was the likely location for the star(s) that created our solar system?

The fact of the matter is that the amount of r-process radionuclei needed to account for the abundance of heavy elements on our planet would be MASSIVE! Our solar system would have needed just the right amount. So over 20 million years we would have had to have been bombarded by literally millions of r process material from type 2 stars. Astrophysicists can't even point out one likely candidate

EDIT: And I like Mr. Funk, he used to be my favorite commentator on "The Universe"
edit on 6-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.

You're about four years out of date with this claim:


In November 2008, the first two widely-accepted direct detections of planets around main sequence stars were announced -- one orbiting Fomalhaut (Kalas et al. 2008) and three in concentric orbits around HR 8799 (Marois et al. 2008).
(Emphasis mine.)

Link.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Jameela
Theory is not fact


Here's what a scientific theory is...not far from the colloquial use of "fact"


In this case, we have actually observed and tested this, so we KNOW how those molecules come to be.
edit on 5-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Hi, I wouldn't agree with this just because you pulled it off wiki to supplement your explanation. Scientific theory or theory can be explained as this: theory is the best possible way to explain something that is rather unknown to us. So technically theories cannot be classed as facts.

As for the video, its mostly trying to tell/teach idealism (the universe with in you...) which is not at all a bad way to accept the universe. In fact its one of the Hermetic principles that is highly logical. I must say I am an idealist.

As for your signature, I wouldn't agree either. Evolution only seems to provide solution to only part of the universe mainly the animals. What about the rest? The fact remains that the entire affair is a product of intelligent design but NOT some being like so called god BUT rather a universal under pinning force, an algorithm, that everything adhere's to. Off course that IS the mystery. Just have a look at the bacterial flagellum, geometry, golden ration etc etc and you'll understand what I mean.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



1. Well with the hypothesized size of the nebula that formed our solar system why wasn't a binary star system the result? Most star systems are binary Link

2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.

3. Well then besides the moon what other bodies in our solar system have been analyzed and shown to have radioactive elements? (None)

4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.

5. It would take millions:


1. The link is for all stars. Our Sun is not a typical star. Stars link our Sun are in binary systems less than half the time.
2. All orbits are elliptical. A circular orbit is simply an elliptical orbit with e=0. Orbits that are not concentric lead to changes in orbits where transfer of momentum makes the orbits less eccentric.
3. False. Mars.
4. False. www.eso.org...
5. There are billions of stars now and there have been many that have existed before our solar system

Seriously, don't you check things out first?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bakup725
 



The fact remains that the entire affair is a product of intelligent design but NOT some being like so called god BUT rather a universal under pinning force, an algorithm, that everything adhere's to. Off course that IS the mystery. Just have a look at the bacterial flagellum, geometry, golden ration etc etc and you'll understand what I mean.

There is no evidence for ID. That is just creationism with a new coat of paint.

PS, the flagellum is not the pretty item shown by creationist sites.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



1. Well with the hypothesized size of the nebula that formed our solar system why wasn't a binary star system the result? Most star systems are binary Link

2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.

3. Well then besides the moon what other bodies in our solar system have been analyzed and shown to have radioactive elements? (None)

4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.

5. It would take millions:


1. The link is for all stars. Our Sun is not a typical star. Stars link our Sun are in binary systems less than half the time.
2. All orbits are elliptical. A circular orbit is simply an elliptical orbit with e=0. Orbits that are not concentric lead to changes in orbits where transfer of momentum makes the orbits less eccentric.
3. False. Mars.
4. False. www.eso.org...
5. There are billions of stars now and there have been many that have existed before our solar system

Seriously, don't you check things out first?


You're very vaguely answering my questions...

2. Really you want to play the semantics game? Okay, ROUGHLY concentric. There is an observable difference.

3.


"The Martian surface is covered with a thin layer of radioactive substances including uranium, thorium and radioactive potassium -- and this pattern radiates from a hot spot [on Mars]


Thin layer on the surface of ONE spot, meaning it's not naturally occurring. They won't find it in it's crust either . The uniformity of the stellar nebula hypothesis requires the roughly even distribution of heavy elements.

4. Yes, but the very small time frame and the massive amount of energy required doesn't fit the hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Interesting article but it doesn't discuss the variability of the orbits of the solar system planets and the extrasolar planets. Also you should note that HR 8799 is very young, about 30 million years old. Compare that to our Sun which is estimated to be 5 billion years old.

From that same article:



Taken as a whole, this diversity of orbital architectures suggests that episodes of dynamical upheaval and orbital reorganization are common during the formation of planetary systems.


Planets still to be made, orbits still to be redefined.

Maybe the majority of planetary orbits start roughly concentric and stretch from there? Hmmm, food for thought.

Thanks for the article though.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



You're very vaguely answering my questions...

I thought you wanted vague answers.


2. Really you want to play the semantics game? Okay, ROUGHLY concentric. There is an observable difference.

I really am not clear as to what you are asking about the orbits. Are you asking why the planets have separate orbits that do not in some sense overlap?


Thin layer on the surface of ONE spot, meaning it's not naturally occurring.

Your claim is without evidence. You claimed there was no other place and that is not true. Now you are making an unsubstantiated claim about it only being in one spot and that the spot is not "natural".

adsabs.harvard.edu...
www.agu.org...

K/Th determined by the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer varies by a factor of 3 on Mars (3000 to 9000), but over 95% of the surface area has K/Th between 4000 and 7000.


Looks like you fail in a big way on this claim.


They won't find it in it's crust either . The uniformity of the stellar nebula hypothesis requires the roughly even distribution of heavy elements.

That is a failure as well. That assume no differentiation processes have occurred since the material accreted. Can you explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface? Can you explain why more iron is concentrated in the Earth's core?

Let's revisit 4. You asked:

4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)

I answered with

4. We can detect them spectroscopically

Your response was:

4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.

I responded with a link describing 3 stars that contain lead. That makes you wrong and now you post.

Yes, but the very small time frame and the massive amount of energy required doesn't fit the hypothesis.

Can you tell me why you are not wrong. It certainly looks like I answered your question and showed that heavy elements can indeed be detected spectroscopically.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Maybe the majority of planetary orbits start roughly concentric and stretch from there?

What are you asking? Are you asking if orbits should be low or high eccentric?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Gravity is [a] phenomenon



yup. no question.

Gravity is an unarguable phenomenon. And we even have an equation (thank you Newton) that describes it's behavior in terms of mass and distance.

But we have absolutely NO IDEA how it arises and our closest actual definition is a precisely carved 1 meter block in some vault. We have no idea how one mass attracts another or why, we can only characterize the forces and write quantitative logic (math) that contains these observations.

observations.
not understanding.

and we base almost all cosmological theory on this non-understanding.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





This section talks about our origins...and given that we consist of molecules formed inside stars, it's relevant to this section. However, that's all the video talks about, the building blocks of life...NOT evolution



Question. How do they know that whatever force formed the stars did not form us from some of the same elements?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'm going to redact my argument a bit. You've made some good points, based upon my own ignorance.



I really am not clear as to what you are asking about the orbits. Are you asking why the planets have separate orbits that do not in some sense overlap?


No, I'm saying why are our planetary orbits essentially perfect compared to observed extrasolar orbits. Don't argue eccentrics, some of our planetary orbits are almost perfect up to TWO decimal places.



That is a failure as well. That assume no differentiation processes have occurred since the material accreted. Can you explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface? Can you explain why more iron is concentrated in the Earth's core?


Does that assumption apply to the nebula theory? I thought it required the uniform distribution of transferric and translead elements. Yes, I can explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface, my God put it there. Can you explain why radioactive ores are found on continents but not on the ocean floor? Can you or the nebular hypothesis explain why mercury is 75% iron?

edit on 7-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join