Evolve

[gnostic]

When the original stars exploded as supernovae, and collapsed into a black hole, they spewed out much of the elements that those massive nuclear reactors had created, seeding the surrounding galactic gas cloud.

Sorry, but that’s also incorrect.

Either the massive star experienced gravitational collapse, and then go nova or supernova, expelling debris in every direction, thereby creating a nebula (either a planetary nebula or supernova remnant.

Or a very massive star, experienced a gravitational collapse, but instead of exploding like a supernova, the star gravitational attraction are so great, that all layers of star will collapse into the star’s core, making the core even more massive and denser than before, as well as pulling all other objects, including planets and moons, into a blackhole.

It the mass of the star that will determine the types of collapse that will occur, once it run out of fuel to fuse.

Stars that have similar mass as our sun, will not go supernova, and will certainly not become a black hole.

Stars that have masses between 1.5 and 2.7 times the mass of our sun, could go supernova.

And stars that have 3 times Solar mass or more, might become blackholes.

Noticed that I used the word “might”. Because in some cases, stars will become neutron stars.

The differences between neutron stars and blackholes if the dying stars are massive enough to overcome the neutron-degenerative pressures or not.

If not, then it will become a neutron star.

If it does, then it will become a blackhole.

The sun, on the other hand, have mass too low to go supernova, to become neutron star or blackhole.

Instead...when sun run out of hydrogen nuclei at the sun’s core, to fuse into helium atoms, it might turn into red giant star, in which case, the size of the star will grow, large enough to swallow Mercury, and maybe even Venus.

There are two possible ways for the stars, like our sun, to become red giant stars.

1. If there enough heat and pressures at the core, then it could start fusing helium nuclei into carbon atoms.
2. Or if the core generate enough heat to the outer layers, it could trigger the hydrogen nuclei in these upper layers into fusing them into helium atoms.

In either cases, the stars will become larger in size and volume, but eventually the outer layers or shells will collapse and break up the red giant stars, leaving only the stars’ core behind. This core remnants will be luminous, that they become white dwarf stars.

According to the current estimate of our sun’s core, it still have hydrogen fuel to last another 4 to 5 billion years. So the sun won’t become a red giant any time soon. But that’s the fate of our sun - it isn’t massive enough to become blackhole or go supernova.

But you thinking that star will go supernova and then into blackhole is wrong, it is not possible.

 

[The Anointed]

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven.

Science (meaning science in general, not just talking about Evolution) rely on evidence, NOT PROOF, so in science, it is not about proving the hypothesis or theory, but testing them.

Proving isn’t testing.

What I find creationists seem incapable of learning, is that proof isn’t evidence. They (creationists as well as any one don’t have much education or experiences in science-related fields) frequently use proof and evidence, synonymously, when to both mathematicians and scientists, these two have very distinct meanings.

Knowing and understanding what they mean, will at the very least provide you some basics of what they mean.

As you would know, a hypothesis or a theory is a model that explain a particular natural phenomena you are investigating.

Proof is also a model, often communicated in the forms of mathematical statements...statement that you often see in science textbooks as mathematical equations or formulas, filled with numbers, variables and constants.

And when mathematicians and physicists (especially theoretical physicists) speak of “PROVING” or “DISPROVING”, they are not talking about evidence, they are talking about any equations. For instances, proving can involve simplifying a complex equation into simple one, or using multiple equations to derive a single equation, or do the opposite, using a single equation to make multiple equations, and so on. Proving is trying to mathematical solution to any problems.

So, for instance, Einstein’s famous equation - mass-energy equivalence is written as

E = m c^2​

Where c is a constant of the speed of light in a vacuum.

That equation is PROOF. That’s what a proof looks like, The Anointed.

What it isn’t...that equation isn’t evidence.

Evidence is anything that can be observed, measured, quantified or tested. Evidence is observation, that is testable.

Not all observation can be seen with your eyes, but the evidence can be real. You can use device that can detect, quantify or measure for you.

For instance. You cannot see radio waves, but you know they are real, because you can listen music or talk show on the radio. The evidence of radio waves, is that radio station will convert audio signals into electrical signals, which in turn convert electrical signal into radio signal. This radio signal is transmitted to radio tower that is then broadcast through the end.

Anyone with radio, can tune in to that radio frequency and listen to the broadcast, which captured radio signal with the radio antenna. The radio then convert radio signal back to electrical signals, and that electrical signals will convert into audio signals that is playback through speakers as sounds.

The same principle is used for TV station and TV set, mobile phones, wi-fi network, etc.

My point is that while radio waves or signals, cannot be seen, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean they don’t exist...all it need is a device that can detect the signals , use it, and convert into something that can be useful.

The radio signal analogy is example of observation using devices capable of being detected, measured and tested.

That’s what evidence is.

Science rely on evidence, not on mathematical proofs.

It is the evidence/observations that will either debunk or verify theory or hypothesis, not equations or formulas. It is the evidence that make or break a theory or hypothesis.

Don’t get me wrong. Proofs (maths) can be useful, but it isn’t what scientists are seeking.

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven. And therefore remains a theory, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

 

[gnostic]

Would you classify the 'Big Bang' theory as a fact?

Some parts of the theory remain theoretical, while other parts we have managed to observe and test.

Lemaître (1927) and Robertson (1924-25j both independently predicted that the distant objects, eg galaxies, that are observed to be redshifted, are moving away from each other, hence it can considered that the universe is expanding.

Redshifts were discovered in 1929, by Edwin Hubble.

Gamow and Alpher predicted in 1948 that atomic nuclei were formed around protons and neutrons, which started about 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and lasting for 20 minutes, thereby creating ionized hydrogen, deuterium and helium atoms (atoms with no electrons, so these atoms were positive charged atoms). This period or epoch was known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) or Primordial Nucleosynthesis.

At the same time (in 1948), Alpher and Herman predicted that 377,000 years after the Big Bang, which started the Recombination Epoch, where electrons will bond with the atomic nuclei, creating neutral stable atoms. This in turn cause the decoupling of photons, in which we can observe and measure residual temperature, which would you know it as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

CMBR wasn’t discovered until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The discovery was accidental, when they picked up noises with their radio antenna for their radio astronomy experiment, noises that didn’t come from the sun or other stars.

This discovery verified both BBN and CMBR predictions, and turn the Big Bang hypothesis into scientific theory, but it also debunked the rival model in physical cosmology - the Steady State Model of Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (1948-51).

 

[The Anointed]

Response to post #201.

The supposed Big Bang started the Universe as a hot murky soup of extremely energetic photons, which are the quantum of electromagnetic energy (See definition of Photon) that was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees. Those photons are generally regarded as discrete elementary particles and are also called wave particles, but they are not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge, and yet carrying angular and linear momentum.

As this infinitely hot energy spread out, it cooled. One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material. But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles. As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

The Universe stayed dark, without any luminous sources, until gravity, condensed the mainly hydrogen, with helium, and the trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron, into the first stars. All stars, including these first- generation stars, act as chemical factories, synthesizing almost all of the elements that make up the world around us.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit, in which massive nuclear reactors the heavier elements were created.

When the original stars exploded as supernovae, and collapsed into a black hole, they spewed out much of the elements that those massive nuclear reactors had created, seeding the surrounding galactic gas cloud.

Subsequent generations of stars that formed in the surrounding Gas cloud, which were created from those elements, incorporated the elements that were created within them, and steadily increased the chemical abundances of their surroundings, which was the evolving Galaxy, that was anchored in space by the central Black Hole, around which, THE GALACTIC NEBULA had begun to revolve.

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere kilo-metres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, Our sun will eventually burn up all its lighter elements and move on to the heavier material and blow out as a Red Giant, when this happens, it will expand outward and get so large that the orbit of the earth will actually be inside the sun, and the earth’s crust will be melted into an ocean of lava.

Eventually, there will be nothing there to burn and all that will be left of our sun will be a compact White dwarf of carbon and oxygen about the size of today’s earth, and a thimble full of material from the White Dwarf would weigh anything up to a ton.

A neutron star is what is left over when a very heavy star explodes. This explosion is called a Supernova, the gravitational collapse of those bigger stars, create a fast spinning body no bigger than the earth, which is so dense that even a thimble full of their material, would weigh anything up to about 100 million tons.

Atoms have a certain weight, but the weight is almost all in the nucleus. The nucleus inside an atom is so small that if you made a model of an atom that was the size of a large house, the nucleus would still only be the size of a grain of salt. An atom, apart from its nucleus, is almost all space.

In a neutron star, all of the atoms have been crushed together so tightly by the force of gravity that their nuclei are touching. If you can imagine the amount of space needed for a billion large houses to occupy, then reduce that to the space needed to house a billion grains of salt, which still weigh almost the same as the billion houses, then you have some idea as to what a neutron star is. But unlike a Black Hole neutron stars do radiate beams of energy.

As previously stated, according to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a regular Schwarzschild black hole, which is a non-rotating black hole as opposed to a rotating Kerr black hole. Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light, the mass within a black hole warps the fabric of space, as the internal mass increases by the objects falling into and being devoured by that gravitational anomaly, it begins to form a funnel like tunnel in space.

Any object going into a black hole would be ripped apart by the intense gravitational force inside the black hole and reconverted to the photons from which it was originally created.

In 1963, New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr, calculated an exact solution for Einstein’s field equations representing a Kerr black hole. The special feature of a Kerr black hole is that it rotates. So far as scientists know, all objects in the universe rotate, including stars, so when the star collapses into a black hole, it’s likely that it too will rotate.

In Kerr’s solution, it’s actually possible for the electromagnetic energy from which this universe and all herein was created, the quantum of that energy, being photons, to travel through the rotating black hole and could come out of the white hole at the other side.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done: ‘Beam me up Scotty?’ (The great rapture.)

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics

Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

 

[The Anointed]

Continued from post #204.

A Black Hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, even light from escaping. But how many Black Holes are out there in the boundlessness of the eternal cosmos? How much dark matter is hidden within those Black Holes? Nobody knows, science is still coming to grips with Black Holes, which are believed to be at the centre of all galaxies, and Black Holes devour everything of lesser mass that comes in contact with them.

Our Milky Way galaxy is said to be anchored in space by a super Black hole, which has a mass of over three million suns, and around the Super Black Hole at the centre of our Galaxy, orbits many other black holes, which were once at the centre of other lesser galactic bodies that have merged with ours.

The larger Magellanic Cloud (Nebecula Major) and the smaller Magellanic Cloud (Nebecula Minor) are two galaxies that are orbiting our Milky Way galaxy which orbits the central Super Black Hole to which those Magellanic Clouds are being gathered and will one day merge with our galaxy.

The earlier explanations as to a mysterious stream of Gas, which appeared to stretch from them to our galaxy, was the result of gravitational interaction between the two Magellanic clouds, and so, was thought to be coming from them. But researchers from the Leibniz institute for Astrophysics in Germany, taking into account, the best understanding of the diffuse hot Gas that surrounds our Milky Way [Its Corona] couldn’t get that stream of Gas to form. So they came to the conclusion that they simply don’t understand the Milky way’s corona very well, But another possible explanation put forward by them, is that, rather than originating from the Magellanic Clouds, that stream of Gas could be coming from a different Galaxy altogether, which is being devoured, as it plunges into our Milky Way.

The Super Black Hole at the centre of our being will continue to grow as it devours the other lesser black Holes, dying stars, and planets within this galaxy. And yet our galaxy is but one of billions of galaxies that are falling in toward the super gravitational anomaly that is called the ‘Great Attractor’.

And even that which is called the ‘Great Attractor’ is flowing toward the Shapley Supercluster? Is there something at the core of the ever growing Shapley Supercluster that is pulling all the galaxies in our particular section of this boundless cosmos to itself?

Or is it simply the gravitational attraction of the galaxies to each other that has caused the Shapley concentration to grow to the size it is today and continues to grow, as the other galactic clusters in our region are being gathered to it, while the more distant clusters appear to be accelerating away

As I had already posted in Post #186. In this link which is not really the one that I was looking for but will suffice for now, it is written; "We could witness a system where, the entire universe is swallowed into a single black hole at an alarming speed, and a singularity appear." Not that I believe in a singularity, but that the universe is swallowed by the Ultimate Black Hole and ripped apart and reconverted to electromagnetic energy from which it was created and accellerated along the worm hole, or Einstein Rosen bridge to speeds far, far in excess to the speed of Light and spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, out of the White Hole, far beyond the cosmic horizon, where the old universe is resurrected.

It is believed that the galaxies are gathered together by their own gravitational attraction, and will one day become so condensed and concentrated that they too will begin to devour each other until only one remains. then the elements within that super massive body of unapproachable light, will become extremely excited, and will burn, and roll up as a scroll with a great hissing noise as it spirals into the centrally condensed system, from which nothing, absolutely nothing can escape, where that energised body will be torn to pieces molecule by molecule, atom by atom, sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle, and reconverted into the electromagnetic energy from which they were created and accelerated along the dark worm hole, or Einstein Rosen bridge, to speeds far, far in excess of the speed of light, where that liquid like Electromagnetic energy is spewed out of a WHITE HOLE in the trillions and trillions of degrees, somewhere far beyond the visible horizon of the boundless cosmos, where, from the cooling quantum of that electromagnetic energy, that universe is resurrected, to which the light from its old position in space-time, would take billions upon billions of years to reach its new position.

From the moment of the explosion of electromagnetic energy from the WHITE HOLE at the end of the Einstein Rosen bridge/Worm Hole, which was connected to the Great Abyss, Black Hole, or seemingly bottomless pit, into which the old universe had descended, the resurrection of that particular universal body began.

Much the same as recorded in the scriptures.

Enoch witnessed the ends of the world. when he witnessed the universe burn up and fall as massive columns of fire, beyond all measure in height and depth into the 'GREAT ABYSS' which he described as the prison of all the stars and the host of Heaven.

Or 2 Peter 3: 10; where it is written; "But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that Day the heavens will disappear with a shrill noise, the heavenly bodies will burn up and be destroyed, and the earth with everything in it will vanish."

And God will create for us a new heavens and a new earth=new universe.

 

[tayla]

How can one accept evolution when it's based on chance?

Why is chance a problem?

For example, when I take out my dogs' leashes from the box on the floor, they are often tangled up in knots. I didn't tangle them, I merely dropped them into the box when I was done with them. It's weird how often they are tangled, but I don't see it as problematic.

 

[gnostic]

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven. And therefore remains a theory, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

It is observation, evidence and test that determine which model is science, NOT PROOF (eg mathematical equations or constants) and NOT PROVING.

It is observation, evidence and test that will also determine which models are factual.

It is evidence, not maths (mathematical proofs), that provide objective tests for any explanatory model.

Proofs (eg equations, formulas, metrics, constants) are embedded in a hypothesis or a theory AS PART OF THE EXPLANATION.

Proofs don't verify or refute a model, because it is part of the model, which needed to be tested.

Like I said in my earlier reply, Creationists seem INCAPABLE OF LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE. Like you, they have trouble wrapping their heads around basic scientific terminology and scientific processes, so they keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

I am afraid that creationists are incapable of learning from their mistakes, which show how little wisdom are involved in their beliefs.

Tell me, in what parts of the bible explain basic biology and biodiversity of life over time?

The Bible explain nothing, only describe natural phenomena in vague terms, and often provide erroneous "knowledge" of the time.

Genesis and the gospels are not science books. It is not only wrong about what it say in biology, but it is also wrong in geology, physics, astronomy. The Bible cannot even get history and geography right, largely because were generations and centuries after the settings of narratives, so the Bible is also unreliable with historicity.

 

[gnostic]

A Black Hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, even light from escaping. But how many Black Holes are out there in the boundlessness of the eternal cosmos? How much dark matter is hidden within those Black Holes?

Now you are confusing blackholes with dark matters.

Well..That's just great.

I really think you should do some more reading and researching in astrophysics and cosmology, before posting more erroneous claims.

It is just free advice. It is just better to understand what you are saying, and not making things up as you go.

 

[The Anointed]

It is observation, evidence and test that determine which model is science, NOT PROOF (eg mathematical equations or constants) and NOT PROVING.

It is observation, evidence and test that will also determine which models are factual.

It is evidence, not maths (mathematical proofs), that provide objective tests for any explanatory model.

Proofs (eg equations, formulas, metrics, constants) are embedded in a hypothesis or a theory AS PART OF THE EXPLANATION.

Proofs don't verify or refute a model, because it is part of the model, which needed to be tested.

Like I said in my earlier reply, Creationists seem INCAPABLE OF LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE. Like you, they have trouble wrapping their heads around basic scientific terminology and scientific processes, so they keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

I am afraid that creationists are incapable of learning from their mistakes, which show how little wisdom are involved in their beliefs.

Tell me, in what parts of the bible explain basic biology and biodiversity of life over time?

The Bible explain nothing, only describe natural phenomena in vague terms, and often provide erroneous "knowledge" of the time.

Genesis and the gospels are not science books. It is not only wrong about what it say in biology, but it is also wrong in geology, physics, astronomy. The Bible cannot even get history and geography right, largely because were generations and centuries after the settings of narratives, so the Bible is also unreliable with historicity.

gnostic wrote.... It is observation, evidence and test that will also determine which models are factual.

Once a theory is proven to be factual, it ceases to be a theory.

So then gnostic, please reveal which model of the THEORY of evolution has proven to be factual?

BTW, knowing that Black Holes devour any thing with which it comes in contact, you believe that there is no dark matter in Black Holes? Hmmm, Interesting. PROVE IT?

I think it would be wise to ignore any advise you give to anyone.

 

[shunyadragon]

gnostic wrote.... It is observation, evidence and test that will also determine which models are factual.

Once a theory is proven to be factual, it ceases to be a theory.

So then gnostic, please reveal which model of the THEORY of evolution has proven to be factual?

BTW, knowing that Black Holes devour any thing with which it comes in contact, you believe that there is no dark matter in Black Holes? Hmmm, Interesting. PROVE IT?

I think it would be wise to ignore any advise you give to anyone.

No abuse necessary.

Terrible misrepresentation of science, the concept of theory in science, as well as the science of evolution. Fortunately science does not prove anything. Facts are the evidence discovered and researched by scientists over the past 150 years or more. Yes it is the predictabillity of observations and the overwhelming evidence.for the support of the Science of Evolution. No beed to reveal any model. The 150 years plus of discoveries and research has more than demonstrated evolution of life on earth beyond any reasonal doubt.

What education and experience do you have to raise the questions you offer above. What scientific alternative explanation can you offer based on the known scientific evidence that supports evolution?

I am a geologist with more than 50 years experience and traveled around the world.

 

[The Anointed]

No abuse necessary.

Terrible misrepresentation of science, the concept of theory in science, as well as the science of evolution. Fortunately science does not prove anything. Facts are the evidence discovered and researched by scientists over the past 150 years or more. Yes it is the predictabillity of observations and the overwhelming evidence.for the support of the Science of Evolution. No beed to reveal any model. The 150 years plus of discoveries and research has more than demonstrated evolution of life on earth beyond any reasonal doubt.

What education and experience do you have to raise the questions you offer above. What scientific alternative explanation can you offer based on the known scientific evidence that supports evolution?

I am a geologist with more than 50 years experience and traveled around the world.

So, you believe that no past theory has ever been proven to be a fact, and has now ceased to be a theory, do you?

Please reveal why you still refer to the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution?

There may be many facts in the THEORY of evolution, But that theory remains the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

And the theory of evolution without Intelligent design, will be proven to be non factual, when more data is discovered within the boundless cosmos. Which I believe will be found through the work of our Quantum physicists.

 

[Polymath257]

So, you believe that no past theory has ever been proven to be a fact, and has now ceased to be a theory, do you?

That is correct. NO general scientific theory is 'proven to be a fact'. The best you can get is a repeatedly tested theory.

Please reveal why you still refer to the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution?

There may be many facts in the THEORY of evolution, But that theory remains the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

This is wrong. The exact same happens in our 'theory' of gravity. The theory is the collection of scientific explanations backed by evidence. NO theory is ever absolutely proven.

And the theory of evolution without Intelligent design, will be proven to be non factual, when more data is discovered within the boundless cosmos. Which I believe will be found through the work of our Quantum physicists.

You seem to not understand any of the stuff you are talking about. Your posts about the Big Bang and the 'galactic nebula' are just as wrong the second time around as they were the first.

 

[Astrophile]

Sorry, but that’s also incorrect.

Either the massive star experienced gravitational collapse, and then go nova or supernova, expelling debris in every direction, thereby creating a nebula (either a planetary nebula or supernova remnant.

Sorry, but this is not correct. Novae and supernovae are different phenomena. A nova is the result of runaway fusion of hydrogen (or more rarely helium) on the surface of an accreting white dwarf star. It does not produce significant amounts of heavy elements, nor does it create a supernova remnant. Type Ia supernovae are produced by the explosive fusion of carbon in an accreting C-O white dwarf that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit; they produce large amounts of iron, cobalt and nickel but not heavier elements. Other supernovae are the result of the collapse of the core of a massive star (>8-11 solar masses) to produce a neutron star or a black hole; these supernovae produce some of the elements heavier than iron, although the heaviest elements are probably produced by mergers of neutron stars

Planetary nebulae are not related to novae or supernovae; they result from the ejection of the envelope of an asymptotic giant branch star in the last stage of its evolution; the ejection of the envelope exposes the degenerate core of the star, which eventually becomes a white dwarf.

Stars that have masses between 1.5 and 2.7 times the mass of our sun, could go supernova.

And stars that have 3 times Solar mass or more, might become black holes.[

This is also incorrect. Stars with initial masses between 1.5 and about 8-11 solar masses become asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, with degenerate C-O cores and helium-fusing and hydrogen-fusing shells. These stars include the Mira and semi-regular variable stars, and are also the site of the s-process of neutron capture, which produces many of the heavy elements, such as technetium. At the end of the AGB stage, these stars eject their low-density envelopes in a 'super-wind' to form a planetary nebula and to expose the hot degenerate C-O core, which then becomes a white dwarf. This loss of mass in a 'super-wind' explains why Sirius A, with a mass of 2.1 solar masses, has a white dwarf companion, and why there are white dwarfs in the Pleiades, which has stars running up to a mass of about 6 solar masses.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but this is not correct. Novae and supernovae are different phenomena. A nova is the result of runaway fusion of hydrogen (or more rarely helium) on the surface of an accreting white dwarf star. It does not produce significant amounts of heavy elements, nor does it create a supernova remnant. Type Ia supernovae are produced by the explosive fusion of carbon in an accreting C-O white dwarf that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit; they produce large amounts of iron, cobalt and nickel but not heavier elements. Other supernovae are the result of the collapse of the core of a massive star (>8-11 solar masses) to produce a neutron star or a black hole; these supernovae produce some of the elements heavier than iron, although the heaviest elements are probably produced by mergers of neutron stars

Planetary nebulae are not related to novae or supernovae; they result from the ejection of the envelope of an asymptotic giant branch star in the last stage of its evolution; the ejection of the envelope exposes the degenerate core of the star, which eventually becomes a white dwarf.



This is also incorrect. Stars with initial masses between 1.5 and about 8-11 solar masses become asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, with degenerate C-O cores and helium-fusing and hydrogen-fusing shells. These stars include the Mira and semi-regular variable stars, and are also the site of the s-process of neutron capture, which produces many of the heavy elements, such as technetium. At the end of the AGB stage, these stars eject their low-density envelopes in a 'super-wind' to form a planetary nebula and to expose the hot degenerate C-O core, which then becomes a white dwarf. This loss of mass in a 'super-wind' explains why Sirius A, with a mass of 2.1 solar masses, has a white dwarf companion, and why there are white dwarfs in the Pleiades, which has stars running up to a mass of about 6 solar masses.

Thank you for the corrections, Astrophile.

Are you an astronomer or astrophysicist?

If you are one of either, then that’s great, because I would have a lot of questions that you could answer.

 

[The Anointed]

Sorry, but this is not correct. Novae and supernovae are different phenomena. A nova is the result of runaway fusion of hydrogen (or more rarely helium) on the surface of an accreting white dwarf star. It does not produce significant amounts of heavy elements, nor does it create a supernova remnant. Type Ia supernovae are produced by the explosive fusion of carbon in an accreting C-O white dwarf that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit; they produce large amounts of iron, cobalt and nickel but not heavier elements. Other supernovae are the result of the collapse of the core of a massive star (>8-11 solar masses) to produce a neutron star or a black hole; these supernovae produce some of the elements heavier than iron, although the heaviest elements are probably produced by mergers of neutron stars

Planetary nebulae are not related to novae or supernovae; they result from the ejection of the envelope of an asymptotic giant branch star in the last stage of its evolution; the ejection of the envelope exposes the degenerate core of the star, which eventually becomes a white dwarf.



This is also incorrect. Stars with initial masses between 1.5 and about 8-11 solar masses become asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, with degenerate C-O cores and helium-fusing and hydrogen-fusing shells. These stars include the Mira and semi-regular variable stars, and are also the site of the s-process of neutron capture, which produces many of the heavy elements, such as technetium. At the end of the AGB stage, these stars eject their low-density envelopes in a 'super-wind' to form a planetary nebula and to expose the hot degenerate C-O core, which then becomes a white dwarf. This loss of mass in a 'super-wind' explains why Sirius A, with a mass of 2.1 solar masses, has a white dwarf companion, and why there are white dwarfs in the Pleiades, which has stars running up to a mass of about 6 solar masses.

So what do you hold to be the best theory we have today as to the creation of our solar system?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Theory of Evolution have been tested, not proven. And therefore remains a theory, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

This is completely wrong.

Why don't you read the explanations given to you in this thread as to what a scientific theory is? I've seen several good ones.

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. Like gravity.
Scientific theories are well evidenced explanations for phenomena we observe, like evolution. They're not just guesses, and they're a huge step up from hypotheses.

The germ theory of disease, is a scientific theory. Do you doubt the existence of germs? Of course not. And you do that without germ theory ever being "proven."

 

[shunyadragon]

First you are kind of jumping around and not responing to my previous post.

So, you believe that no past theory has ever been proven to be a fact, and has now ceased to be a theory, do you?

No theories in science have been proven as factul, because scientific theories and hypothesis are falsified and change our knowledg over time as new scientific discoveries

Please reveal why you still refer to the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution?

I do not call it the Theory of Evolution. That is kind 150 years old, but nonetheless in the scientific perspective as a Theory it has been demonstrated far beyond a reasonable doubt by Methodological Naturalism, I call it the Science of Evolution, which over time improves with more research and discoveries. Evolution is some times called 'fact' by some, because it has been falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. I consider facts as the immense amount of discoveries and research supporting evolution.

There may be many facts in the THEORY of evolution, But that theory remains the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

What is your academic background to draw that conclusion?. Hypothesis nor theories are ever provenare never proven. Evolution is the only hypothesis that has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt Or is your religious beliefs that determine your negative perspective to evolution. No other hypothesis fits the evidence.

And the theory of evolution without Intelligent design, will be proven to be non factual, when more data is discovered within the boundless cosmos. Which I believe will be found through the work of our Quantum physicists.

Will be? The hypothetical of what 'may be in the future' claims of your religious agenda is not a coherent arguemtt. At present there is no evidence nor hypothesis for ID that can be falsified based on science.

Again nothing is proven in science. Intelligent Design has never in the past offered a falsifiable hypothesis that can be scientific. It is a Theological assumption without evidence.

One thing that has been clearly demonstrated by science that the sun is older than the planets nor the moons.

 

[shunyadragon]

Response to post #201.

The supposed Big Bang started the Universe as a hot murky soup of extremely energetic photons, which are the quantum of electromagnetic energy (See definition of Photon) that was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees. Those photons are generally regarded as discrete elementary particles and are also called wave particles, but they are not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge, and yet carrying angular and linear momentum.

As this infinitely hot energy spread out, it cooled. One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material. But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles. As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

The Universe stayed dark, without any luminous sources, until gravity, condensed the mainly hydrogen, with helium, and the trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron, into the first stars. All stars, including these first- generation stars, act as chemical factories, synthesizing almost all of the elements that make up the world around us.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit, in which massive nuclear reactors the heavier elements were created.

When the original stars exploded as supernovae, and collapsed into a black hole, they spewed out much of the elements that those massive nuclear reactors had created, seeding the surrounding galactic gas cloud.

Subsequent generations of stars that formed in the surrounding Gas cloud, which were created from those elements, incorporated the elements that were created within them, and steadily increased the chemical abundances of their surroundings, which was the evolving Galaxy, that was anchored in space by the central Black Hole, around which, THE GALACTIC NEBULA had begun to revolve.

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere kilo-metres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, Our sun will eventually burn up all its lighter elements and move on to the heavier material and blow out as a Red Giant, when this happens, it will expand outward and get so large that the orbit of the earth will actually be inside the sun, and the earth’s crust will be melted into an ocean of lava.

Eventually, there will be nothing there to burn and all that will be left of our sun will be a compact White dwarf of carbon and oxygen about the size of today’s earth, and a thimble full of material from the White Dwarf would weigh anything up to a ton.

A neutron star is what is left over when a very heavy star explodes. This explosion is called a Supernova, the gravitational collapse of those bigger stars, create a fast spinning body no bigger than the earth, which is so dense that even a thimble full of their material, would weigh anything up to about 100 million tons.

Atoms have a certain weight, but the weight is almost all in the nucleus. The nucleus inside an atom is so small that if you made a model of an atom that was the size of a large house, the nucleus would still only be the size of a grain of salt. An atom, apart from its nucleus, is almost all space.

In a neutron star, all of the atoms have been crushed together so tightly by the force of gravity that their nuclei are touching. If you can imagine the amount of space needed for a billion large houses to occupy, then reduce that to the space needed to house a billion grains of salt, which still weigh almost the same as the billion houses, then you have some idea as to what a neutron star is. But unlike a Black Hole neutron stars do radiate beams of energy.

As previously stated, according to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a regular Schwarzschild black hole, which is a non-rotating black hole as opposed to a rotating Kerr black hole. Nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light, the mass within a black hole warps the fabric of space, as the internal mass increases by the objects falling into and being devoured by that gravitational anomaly, it begins to form a funnel like tunnel in space.

Any object going into a black hole would be ripped apart by the intense gravitational force inside the black hole and reconverted to the photons from which it was originally created.

In 1963, New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr, calculated an exact solution for Einstein’s field equations representing a Kerr black hole. The special feature of a Kerr black hole is that it rotates. So far as scientists know, all objects in the universe rotate, including stars, so when the star collapses into a black hole, it’s likely that it too will rotate.

In Kerr’s solution, it’s actually possible for the electromagnetic energy from which this universe and all herein was created, the quantum of that energy, being photons, to travel through the rotating black hole and could come out of the white hole at the other side.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done: ‘Beam me up Scotty?’ (The great rapture.)

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics

Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

A lot of disconnected gibberish you do not even understand. Based on science the sun is older than the planets, much older.

 

[Astrophile]

Thank you for the corrections, Astrophile.

Are you an astronomer or astrophysicist?

If you are one of either, then that’s great, because I would have a lot of questions that you could answer.

Thank-you for your post, and I apologise for the delay in replying. I have a degree in astronomy, which included a lot of astrophysics, but nowadays I am more of an observational astronomer (when the weather allows me to be). My understanding of astrophysics is probably out of date, since I obtained my degree in 1973, but I hope that I shall still be able to answer some of your questions.

 

[Astrophile]

So what do you hold to be the best theory we have today as to the creation of our solar system?

So far as I understand it, the current theory is that the Sun formed about 4570 million years ago by the gravitational collapse of a cold dense core of an interstellar cloud, and the planets, asteroids and comets formed in a disk-shaped cloud of gas and dust surrounding the proto-Sun. The planets formed within about 30 million years after the formation of the Sun. Many young stars surrounded by protoplanetary discs ('proplyds') have been observed in emission nebulae, such as the Orion Nebula, and these observations confirm the theory.