[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

Well, that was easy.

I rest my case.

Point of order: Before you rest a case, you have first have had to make a case, which you did not. Nice try though...

[PrecisionRifleman]

Originally Posted by muscogee

They're used to preaching to the choir which praises them for their insights. They can't grasp how their "insights" look to those not predisposed to agree with them. They don't understand your opposition so they repeat the same arguments over and over. Eventually what you're saying begins to get through. These people stop posting because they know the answers they're going to get. Some of them go on spiritual journeys and reevaluate what they know in light of what they have learned. Some of them come back, some of them don't. However, all of them are changed by what they learn here. It's difficult to accept that your worldview is incorrect.

Spot on, truth!

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

With you I will, but yet excuse me, but your moniker on GT is Animal Mother, namely, your moniker is not "Lone Wolf8634," so understanding, I was addressing Lone Wolf8634 on THE RULE: Only ONE item, topic, subject and or theme at a time please.

You see -am-, in my estimation, you're an internet thread dilbert that wants to dominate and control every facet of the threads you decide to participate in. Sorry charlie, not gonna happen here. Just look at how you have responded in the single thread. I have addressed others and you have consistently "grabbed our interactions" as if they were yours. I'll get to you, I promise, as my usual practice is to get to every authentic response, but your an idiot if you think I am going let you control the direction or theme of this thread. Back up, wait your turn, and deal with it. Capisce?!?

Luckily, your estimation is, at best, of negligible importance. Your disappointing habit of feigning offense in place of providing a substantive response to questions you are asked is hardly a new tactic but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out and emphasized every time you attempt to employ it.

As a side note, in case the reality has escaped you, this is a public message board. Anyone can respond to any post. If that somehow makes you feel uncomfortable, incapable, or unable to formulate a coherent response perhaps you should retreat to private messages where no one can point out your failures.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Geko45

So much fail in this one. 100 Interwebs to the person that can explain why Boyle's Law is not applicable in this scenario.

Actually, I'd argue it's incumbent upon PW to explain how Boyle's law applies in the formation of stars.

From his vague, nonsensical posts, it appears he believes the formation of stars takes place within a closed system, despite the evidence to the contrary offered by the simple mechanism of looking into the cosmos.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Point of order: Before you rest a case, you have first have had to make a case, which you did not. Nice try though...

The irony is strong in this one.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You've never heard of Boyle's Law? ...

Sure, I'm familiar with Boyle's Law.

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Actually, I'd argue it's incumbent upon PW to explain how Boyle's law applies in the formation of stars.

From his vague, nonsensical posts, it appears he believes the formation of stars takes place within a closed system, despite the evidence to the contrary offered by the simple mechanism of looking into the cosmos.

This is what I'd be interested in as well.

Peace Warrior,
Boyle's Law is based on a closed system which ISM is not.

So, would you care to show any refereed paper's that conclude that star formation is impossible (with or without reference to Boyle's Law)? Astrophysicists must not have your understanding, because arxiv.org that I previously mentioned is full of papers describing how star formation occurs.

So back to your claim that "all available research [you] could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves". Can you share the research that reaches this conclusion?

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

... As a side note, in case the reality has escaped you, this is a public message board. Anyone can respond to any post. ...

True, so true, and a personj such as myself can simply choose to ignore the incessant ramblings of an obsessive, possibly psychotic individual. Thanks for reminding me -am-.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Actually, I'd argue it's incumbent upon PW to explain how Boyle's law applies in the formation of stars.

From his vague, nonsensical posts, it appears he believes the formation of stars takes place within a closed system, despite the evidence to the contrary offered by the simple mechanism of looking into the cosmos.

No, actually, I base my post on the research and studies of 100's of scientists whose only claim to the cosmos being able to formulate/create a star is to have 20 stars nova (i.e., blow up) pretty much simultaneously, and "nearby one another," in order to have even a small chance of forming a new star.

So knowing, if it takes 20 stars blowing up in order to have the processes in motion so as to form a new star, wouldn't this actually deplete the number of stars in the cosmos? Lose 20 to gain 1?!?

Hey, this logic would be great sell to the American public so as to eliminate debt, but it will NEVER work to harmonize what is observed in the universe with the Big bang theory.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Wow, just wow.... so gas laws and or gas properties are not applicable to star formation. Wow, just wow....

If you read it more carefully, you will see that there are certain prerequisite conditions that must be present for Boyle's law to hold true.

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

From his vague, nonsensical posts, it appears he believes the formation of stars takes place within a closed system, despite the evidence to the contrary offered by the simple mechanism of looking into the cosmos.

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Peace Warrior, Boyle's Law is based on a closed system which ISM is not.

This is exactly right. The coalescing of gases in a nebula is not a closed system. Boyle's law does not apply. 100 interwebs for each of you.

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Actually, I'd argue it's incumbent upon PW to explain how Boyle's law applies in the formation of stars.

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

This is what I'd be interested in as well.

Certainly, I agree. But I think we all know that if we sat here and waited for PW to figure out the flaw in how he has misapplied his limited scientific knowledge the stars that could have never formed in the first place would all burn out. It's not like he ever understood the argument he was presenting to begin with. He's quite obviously repeating something he read/heard from a creationist apologetic source.

[Peace Warrior]

-am-, or geko45, (ETA) or artificial grape, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

Thanks...

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

-am-, or geko45, (ETA) or artificial grape, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

Thanks...

Here is the best layman's explanation I've heard which explains why the universe didn't just stay as a thinly distributed gas medium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DECAorZYErk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DECAorZYErk

The gravity brings the gas together as described above which increases pressure, which increases heat and eventually the right conditions for a nuclear fusion reaction emerge and a star is formed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EnBBIx6XkM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EnBBIx6XkM

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Geko45, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

...Certainly, I agree. But I think we all know that if we sat here and waited for PW to figure out the flaw in how he has misapplied his limited scientific knowledge the stars that could have never formed in the first place would all burn out. It's not like he ever understood the argument he was presenting to begin with. He's quite obviously repeating something he read/heard from a creationist apologetic source.

Response pending.

[Peace Warrior]

Okay, Ill be back later.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Geko45, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

Not even sure what the heck you are talking about here with "comological" and "terrestial" heat, seems nonsensical. There is only heat and if it makes you feel any better, yes, heat can only be transfered from matter to matter via physical contact.

I would also point out that Boyle's Law does not take into consideration the effects of gravity. Or, to say it differently, Boyle's Law is only valid in a system where gravitational effects are so negligible as to not be worth calculating.

[Glock36shooter]

Guys... I think we should let this one go. Peace Warrior is obviously mentally disturbed or challenged or something. I'm not even saying this to be funny or make light of him. It's just going to lead to the insanity posted by the other crazy fellas that think the Devil conducted genetic experiments that gave rise to the dinosaurs. You simply cannot reach this level of intellectual dysfunction with reason or logic. Doesn't matter what the facts are. Doesn't matter what reality is. Peace Warrior just going to keep living in his fantasy world where he thinks he knows what he's talking about. People like Peace Warrior, Snow Bird and that crazy fella with the lion and lamb avatar that talks about the devil covering up all signs of creation to hide it from scientists, I think, just come here so that SOMEONE... ANYONE will pay them some attention and listen to their nonsense. You ever been in Waffle House at 3am after a concert or going out partying or something and there is always that one creepy dude that obviously comes there every night because the staff all know him. No one who knows him wants to talk to him so he comes there to talk to strangers who will be too polite to tell him to go away. And then he'll waste all your time talking about nonsense like how he's had all this bad luck because he tricked the devil once and now the devil is trying to get revenge... or how he was a navy seal sniper in vietnam and they still call him for missions every once in a while... That guy? Yeah... that's the kinda guys we're dealing with here.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

No, actually, I base my post on the research and studies of 100's of scientists whose only claim to the cosmos being able to formulate/create a star is to have 20 stars nova (i.e., blow up) pretty much simultaneously, and "nearby one another," in order to have even a small chance of forming a new star.

What are the names of these scientists? What are the titles of the papers they have published on this topic?

So knowing, if it takes 20 stars blowing up in order to have the processes in motion so as to form a new star, wouldn't this actually deplete the number of stars in the cosmos? Lose 20 to gain 1?!?

No one, other than you, knows any such thing.

Hey, this logic would be great sell to the American public so as to eliminate debt, but it will NEVER work to harmonize what is observed in the universe with the Big bang theory.

Rather than making a completely baseless assertion, why don't you try producing some evidence in support of your claims, for variety if nothing else.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

-am-, or geko45, (ETA) or artificial grape, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

Thanks...

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Geko45, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide some supporting references from the scientific literature so we could endeavor to understand what you're talking about.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Point of order: Before you rest a case, you have first have had to make a case, which you did not. Nice try though...

Not if someone makes it for me............

Pssssst.....That would be you.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Geko45, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

You're thinking of convective and conductive needing a medium to transfer. Convective needs a medium to set up convective currents in and conductive needs a medium to conduct through. Only radiant heat (infrared radiation) can travel through a vacuum. Nothing to do at all with whether the heat comes from the earth or the cosmos.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

-am-, or geko45, (ETA) or artificial grape, just so as to make our respective points more clear and on even keel with one another, please remind me, or if i am wrong please inform me, when it comes to cosmological heat, or terrestrial heat, these types of heat are the only forms of energy that have to have a medium in which to disperse or dissipate in? Is this not true? If so, all well and good as this is a benchmark upon the position I am taking on this issue, but if not, please correct me as I do want to know the truth.

Thanks...

For the avoidance of doubt, why don't you clearly state your specific assertion and provide the evidence to support it, and we can take it from there.

-ArtificialGrape

[Geko45]

I find the sound of crickets soothing...

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I find the sound of crickets soothing...

It's been crickets since June 15th, 2011 when this exchange took place:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Could you please provide links to both the research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and the research indicating they were "created"?

-ArtificialGrape

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Not even sure what the heck you are talking about here with "comological" and "terrestial" heat, seems nonsensical. There is only heat and if it makes you feel any better, yes, heat can only be transfered from matter to matter via physical contact. ...

Okay, heat has to have a medium in which to "move."


Terrestrial heat and cosmological heat are two different concepts, which is why I differentiate them. As well, some people have argued with me that cosmological heat would somehow "act differently" than heat here on the Earth under extremes of gravity available in outer space. I was asking you the question so as to avoid later confusion.

Originally Posted by Geko45

... I would also point out that Boyle's Law does not take into consideration the effects of gravity. Or, to say it differently, Boyle's Law is only valid in a system where gravitational effects are so negligible as to not be worth calculating.

This is strikingly similar to what others have argued with me as well. So let me ask you, "Boyles Law only applies to gases when they are in a confined space and not affected by gravity?" This is what you are saying?

[Peace Warrior]

Gases here on earth neither "condense," "contract," nor "clump together" on their own. There is not enough gravitational pull from gas atoms to cause them to condense.

Now, lets put these gases into outer space. HELLO! Space is a vacuum! If gases here on earth do not "contract," how are they going to do so in a vacuum such as is outer space? However, a star does certainly draw gases into its matter, but it is ALREADY a star. It is a fantastic undermining of Science in general to believe that a star could simply form by the way of gravitational pull.

Lastly, again, ALL OF THE GAS CLOUDS IN OUTER SPACE ARE SHOWN TO BE EXPANDING. How do you magically get one part of a cloud to contract? Sorry, it has never been observed as it never happened. In physical Science, we learned that any gases introduced into a vacuum would immediately expand. Stars forming by themselves won't ever happen based on actual Science.