tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post3832955538299592107..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Of Gravity and AtomsW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-18782512480681017542015-05-03T20:55:30.754-04:002015-05-03T20:55:30.754-04:00...continued from above.
In "Crystalline vs ......continued from above.<br /><br />In "Crystalline vs Amorphous Structure, Stellar Metamorphosis", you state that crystalline structures cannot form in space, because it needs pressure & time. Your example is the Thomson structures found in meteorites. Did you bother to do even the most basic research on this topic?<br /><br />The Thomson structure, also called the Widmanstratten pattern (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widmanst%C3%A4tten_pattern" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>), are commonly found in iron meteorites (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_meteorite" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>) These meteorites are fragments of larger asteroids, Those asteroids are differentiated by heating from radioisotopes such as Al-26 and Fe-60.<br /><br />All you've done is construct a narrative about as useful as the stork model for babies (<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_storkism" rel="nofollow">RationaWiki: scientific storkism</a>).<br />A number of your claims can be demonstrated wrong by students with training in introductory physics and astronomy classes.<br />Your efforts here are merely an attempt to use my blog to promote your nonsense. <br /><br />Short of you actually addressing the problems with your claims (such as the six question from the original post) noted above, <b>which are basic misconceptions/flaws in your reasoning which must be corrected immediately</b>, there is no point in posting any more of your repetitive comments.<br /><br />Other questions which you must be able to answer:<br />* Estimate the stellar energy and lifetime based on electrochemical and thermochemical energy sources?<br />* Estimate the temperature and pressure in the center of a star of one solar mass? Of ten solar masses?<br />* Estimate the temperature and pressure in the center of a planet of one Earth mass? Of one Jupiter mass?<br /><br />You must show your work, equations used, physical parameters used.<br /><br />The mainstream scientists whom you condemn must do this as part of their training. Claiming you are exempt from a similar requirement means <br />- we have no reason to think you are competent;<br />- makes your content indistinguishable from silliness of any random online madman;<br />- reinforces the view that you're just scamming for attention;<br />- makes your claims useless for doing anything in the Real World.<br /><br /><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wolynski" rel="nofollow">RationalWiki: Jeffrey Wolynski</a><br /><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis" rel="nofollow">RationalWiki: Stellar Metamorphosis</a>W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-54503226050291392832015-05-03T20:53:05.008-04:002015-05-03T20:53:05.008-04:00Mr. Wolynski,
You are no significant challenge. ...Mr. Wolynski,<br /><br />You are no significant challenge. Your comprehension of the science appears to be stuck at around the elementary school level, if that high. <br /><br />The 'problems' you identify in your video are just re-iterating the same so-called 'problems' which I addressed in the main post. I illustrated just some of the errors you've made with examples, and you have addressed none of them.<br /><br /><i>Claim: For gravitational collapse forming star, nothing is pulling material into center. Where is object?</i><br /><br />Where's the object pulling stuff in? As stated above, there are many objects, called atoms. They each have mass, and so each respond to gravity. The claim is nonsense.<br /><br /><i>Claim: Gravity does not heat matter. The non-existence of a 'gravity torch' or 'gravity welder' is 'proof' it cannot.</i><br /><br />Suppose the welder gets its electrical power generated by hydroelectric dam? The turbines get hot when the water flows through. This doesn't happen for level water, only between water of different levels where gravity can act. Gravity applies energy to particles which can be converted into heat. Re-entry heating of spacecraft is another example of how gravity can generate heat.<br /><br /><i>Claim: Astronomers always start with star already formed.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure how this is relevant. When we compute a spacecraft trajectory, we start with the assumption that a spacecraft has been built to fly the trajectory. Similarly, many issues in stellar astrophysics can begin with a star of specific mass, composition, and luminosity.<br /><br />In "Root Assumptions: Establishment vs. GTSM", you<br /><br /><i>Claim: standard model assumptions are assumed without evidence.</i><br />Our current understanding of stellar evolution comes from a long chain of evidence (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Star Formation</a>).<br /><br />You claim that stars are powered by electrochemical & thermochemical reactions. You have apparently not bothered to compute the amount of energy, and lifetime of a star, if powered by thermochemical and/or electrochemical processes. This was actually done over a century ago. The lifetime of the sun fit into the biblical creationists framework, so I can see your idea will have some appeal in that community. This is also occasionally an exercise in introductory physics and astronomy classes.<br /><br />Your planet formation claim is not that different from the old Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlin%E2%80%93Moulton_planetesimal_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>) which has been demonstrated as unworkable since around the 1940s. When I was a kid, this was still being taught in a number of elementary schools.<br /><br />to be continued...W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-60518319935680547452015-04-13T13:23:41.963-04:002015-04-13T13:23:41.963-04:00Here, I overview some of the root assumptions that...Here, I overview some of the root assumptions that mainstream astronomers/astro people make. <br /><br />It is very easy to understand, unfortunately it will probably conflict with your education.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44WRbRTcAuI<br /><br />As well, here is a video which I overview how backwards mainstream astronomy is. They have rocks and minerals formed in the vacuum, absent heat, pressure and the lengthy time requirements to form such structures such as the Thompson structures found in meteorites. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu21UM9oDuA<br /><br />These are basic flaws in reasoning and need to be corrected immediately. <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Jeffrey Wolynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10076459469307753505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-43212597237365998662015-04-12T21:01:09.227-04:002015-04-12T21:01:09.227-04:00To Jeffrey Wolynski,
In the video you make the sa...To Jeffrey Wolynski,<br /><br />In the video you make the same errors as above.<br /><br />As for there being 'no object' in the center to gravitationally pull the material in, there are *many* objects, called atoms, all with mass and creating gravitational attraction.<br /><br />What's the gravitational force on an object at the center of the cloud?<br /><br />What's the gravitational force on an object 1/2 between the center and boundary of the cloud?<br /><br />What's the gravitational force on an object at the boundary of the cloud? <br /><br />The other problem with your charge 'solution' is while opposite sign charges attract, like-sign charges repel. What is the net force?<br /><br />These are questions that a Physics 101 student should be able to answer, as well as any engineer designing spacecraft trajectories.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-41192943095683169212015-04-10T15:54:34.688-04:002015-04-10T15:54:34.688-04:00Here, I have actually made a video which overviews...Here, I have actually made a video which overviews the three problems astronomy has:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkGn6SqvUFY<br /><br />Jeffrey Wolynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10076459469307753505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-82122763319931578932015-04-10T15:50:49.363-04:002015-04-10T15:50:49.363-04:00Thanks! The additional exposure to the ideas which...Thanks! The additional exposure to the ideas which I present is highly valuable! <br /><br />Please overview stellar metamorphosis as well. I assure you astronomy has made great errors which have not yet been corrected. That is, if you are up to the challenge.<br /><br />I do not care for labels if you should know, calling me a "crank" really doesn't do much. I've been at this for 3 1/2 years so yea. <br /><br />Jeffrey Wolynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10076459469307753505noreply@blogger.com