BS: One for the astrophysicist

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:33 AM

Regarding the initial question; stars have always been formed with or without a nearby galaxy in a region of high density hydrogen gas in conditions of near zero energy we simply call mind numbing cold.

It is cool to see how such extreme cold will lead to extreme heat of an eventual star by gravity doing its slow and inexorable power.

As for astrophysicists, their job is to measure as much as they are ale to understand the nature of the changing universe.
Once they can no longer measure qualities of the universe that do not interact in measurable ways the cosmologist is better suited with the knowledge of the measurers to flesh out the unseen unmeasurable universe.

the evolution of the universe offers clues to the unseen cosmos and predicts what may be next.

Thread drift into the creationist viewpoint I view as answers for the least curious, least wondrous AND lazy, yet still valid to the point that the unseen does exist and poses forces greater than our 3D CORNER OF THE UNIVERSE.

I am glad this discussion has flowered despite my previous attempts to spur the fascination of how close we are to immense understanding thanks to the efforts of the measurers throughout the millennia and especial the 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:58 AM

Pete, I think you would do better with Gethsemene

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:51 AM

Romans 8:34New International Version (NIV)

Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Where does it say "pray". To intercede is to act as an intermediary, to arbitrate, moderate or conciliate.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:31 AM

Yes ". Guest " , Romans 8 vs 34.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

Christ prays does he?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:53 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one." "
    Both statements are wrong Jack. Footy calls, but if you do want to get into it I would,despite my better judgment. First what is enlightenment, secondly how is it achieved. I seriously doubt you're that interested, which in turn makes me struggle to discuss it. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:51 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree.
Christ and Christians do so in quiet prayer.

The crucifixion was about something else.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:50 AM

Buddhish is not a traditional religion with a creator deity:

"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."

Wiki

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.

The essential difference between Eastern & Western philosophy is that whilst The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one. In the East they talk of Yin and Yang, the unnameable Tao and Complimentariness; in the West its all good & evil, sin, and the oppositions of heaven and hell.

Maybe it's got something to do with the weather...

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:37 PM

Thanks for that, Dave. I was forgetting certain aspects of geology (which, of course, apply to planets other than earth as well).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:01 PM

Agreed on the magnetic field "dating" - it also helps determine directionality in continental drift on Earth over time. Billions of years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:00 PM

One for the astrophysicist
two for the show

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:04 PM

Sorry I hope that was the spellchecker not me, but that should read "residual magnetism in the rocks of the planet's crust", not "motion".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

Don,

The magnetic field leaves an imprint in the rocks on the planet's surface. The NASA spacecraft Mercury Messenger as its orbit decayed was actually in low Mercury orbit, and could measure the residual motion in the rocks of the planet's crust. The conclusion is that the magnetic field is actually older than had been previously thought, about 3.7 billion years old. In 2017 the European Space Agency will launch a probe, BepiColumbo, which will make more precise measurements and will measure more precisely the age and strength of the magnetic field, which, like that of Earth, results from the dynamo effect of the iron core of the planet. But its 3.7 billion years old, to within 10%.

http://earthsky.org/space/an-ancient-magnetic-field-on-mercury

The idea that its less than 6000 years old is pure nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:38 PM

Mercury's magnetic field is young?

And how, exactly, do you date a magnetic field?

You can measure the field strength of a magnetic field, but there is no way you can date how long it has been in existence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:43 AM

right timestamp, I see where you are coming from , however, those certain parameters have not been absolute, and many people have changed. who knows, maybe your mums prayers for you will be answered one day !. nice to chat to you.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 06:16 PM

Pete I'm a Christian too, figure that one out.J.C if he did exist which I think he did,was a spiritually enlightened man.What he achieved we all can.I'm not going to debate you, like I wouldn't my Mother who has the same view as you I would guess,just she never voices it.If like her you gain fulfillment from it you are free to believe what you like for me.We will just have to agree to differ.
          PS If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.Just so as you get where I'm coming from.GL

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:18 PM

well dave, these papers are peer reviewed....but not by the mainstream committed to evolutionism review bodies , who would discount them a priori.    however, as you mentioned yourself, creationists have done work in your department. dr russel Humphreys made scientific predictions in 1984 which were validated when messenger flew by mercury in 2008. he states that these predictions were from a calculation assuming a 6000 yr old universe.
mercurys magnetic field is young! creation.com

its encouraging, timestamp, that you recognize the importance of the spiritual. the YEC debate may seem pointless to you , but I beg to differ, and see it rather as a conflict of paradigms..
what God has revealed vs mens unproven opinions..
and such questions have a bearing on the here and now, as well as the hereafter , as far as the my Christian faith is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:34 AM

" I currently think there never has been "nothing" 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:31 AM

Last night I spent a bit of spare time getting up to speed on this because it interested me and to confirm the sense Dave was making.I was taught Stars appeared first then after a shed load of time galaxies formed and that a collection of Stars was a galaxy.The word galaxy was implied to have a certain definition ie a cluster of Stars. In Henriettas defence I would imagine that's what the majority would assume without specifically researching it.Anyway a post of Dave.O/Dave (can't remember which one) has cleared up the OP's question (for me) so onto the thread drift 8)
            Religion,Spirituality whatever you want to call it needs science to keep it honest and relevant.If Religion is just a set of moral laws to live by then it should be relegated to the status of similar like AA or BoyScouts, current Masonry etc. If it is trying to deliver something else, then this something needs to be properly investigated and put under scrutiny.You see this thing that Religion is supposed to deliver becomes something else once spoken about.Science could one day explain most of what's occurring and give it more relevancy. It's not too much of a leap to see that at their heart Science and Spirituality are just parallel paths (up to a point) and both need to recognise this. Religion should not fear Science, most rational people don't. Science has got a lot wrong and will keep getting things wrong, but at least it looks to recognise its errors and evolves as more is understood and tested. I personally hope these great Religions get relevant as my worry is they will vanish and for me that would be a loss. Unfortunately in their current form most aren't much use and a mass of contradictions especially when voiced by some of their practitioners.
             Science needs Spirituality. Many reputable Scientists have now come to the conclusion that empirical evidence from the 5 senses is limited and another perspective is needed for us to progress.I'm not going to list them because it's a mighty list,but most of our " geniuses " in science have experienced different states of awareness that brought the disciplines of science on in leaps down through the ages. Both Science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for truth in the physical world, the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness.There should be no conflict and one day in our future when science has mapped consciousness to the extent it has space,time and matter we will be in better shape, and the two approaches will be reconciled some.
             I can never get interested in the young Earth debate as it's pointless imo, but the how can something come from nothing question has always fascinated me.I currently think there has never has been "nothing" there has always been something .. but what is nothing.These folks here in this link explore nothing.I watched this a while back and just going to watch it again.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:30 AM

Where Pete are the peer-reviewed publications by Dr. John Hartnett or anyone else proposing these ideas? If I knew what his mystifying equations were I could see whether they made sense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:41 PM

but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks

No such thing as "evolutionism", jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:17 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:02 PM

Dave, seems to me from my reading that saying that standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail, is somewhat an understatement. Apart from the unobservable dark matter, dark energy and Oort Cloud , I think predictions made have often been falsified by new discoveries.   Starlight in a younger universe is of course a favourite objection. However there are various suggested solutions, including ..starlight, time and the new physics...by dr john hartnett , complete with mystifying equations at the end !.   As I understand it, you have your own light travel problem, ie the horizon problem. I am not a scientist , but thankfully there are the simpler arguments.....which incidentally seem to have been sidestepped. I know a bit more theology though, so if you care to say why the theology is dodgy....?       Yes I know those things are established , some like plate tectonics by observational science, but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks is only established in the sense of being the ruling paradigm.   THAT , truly is a non starter. 0 by 0 = 0 however you do the sum.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:33 PM

The bottom line, we sort of know quite a few things, and there are a lot of interesting speculaions about the stuff we don't know. But there is far more stuff we don't begin to know or even begin to know we don't know.

Which I suppose is why it's all so interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 04:19 PM

I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.

In the Beginning... there was, and is, and always will be, HUMAN SPIRITUALITY - which is common to each and everyone of us & defines our very Humanity. It's there in our sense of Beauty, Awe, Mystery, Awe, Joy, Love, Sorrow, Numinosity, Empathy, Togetherness, Ethics, Wonder and Ecstasy. All these things precede and transcend religion; they exist without any need of either God or the Supernatural. Indeed, religion exists solely to exploit them, much as pornography exists to exploit our sexuality. Ergo - Religion is spiritual porn.

We began, however so many thousands of years ago, with poetic metaphors for a cosmos we weren't at all equipped to understand, a cosmos of which we a part and yet, of a sudden, by dint of language, art, cognition, culture & aforementioned spirituality, apart. Thus we started making things up. We told stories and personified Nature in terms of what was benevolent or malevolent to our interests. We made metaphors and created allegories. The roots of the GOD CONCEPT is in POETIC ALLEGORY MADE UP BY HUMAN BEINGS IN TIMES WHEN WE KNEW NO BETTER. All great fun, but RELIGION came along, gathered up all these things and took them LITERALLY.

So, as well as being spiritual porn, religion is a spiritual void. Believing in a creator is to discount all cosmic mystery. The more science reveals, the more mysterious and wondrous and awesome it gets. Simple and elegant and perfectly GODLESS.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:59 PM

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions, and then other set out to test these predictions. Biology isn't my subject, but standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail (like whether there is dark matter or not), and the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old if falsiifed by numerous experimental observations, ages of the stars, redshifts of the galaxies, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, a very long list. Its a non-starter. I also don't see why people would need it. Even the theology is pretty dodgy.

Evolution, maybe modified by punctuated equilibrium is established.

Big bang cosmology, maybe with dark matter, maybe with out, is established.

Stellar nucleosynthesis, and the timescales involved in that, is established.

Plate tectonics, and the age of the Earth (to with maybe 10% accuracy) is established.

And I havn't even seen that your stated creationist scientists have argued against any of these things, at least not in anything indexed by the NASA Astrophysics Database. And I did look.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:58 PM

challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.

Well, pete: You may believe a lot of nonsense, but you don't KNOW shit.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 11:56 AM

You have a funny way of not getting drawn into it , dave.
so to answer your points, and you can choose if you want to come back on it or not.....
it is irrelevant how many people believe it, unless it can be demonstrated to be the only interpretation of the data. science would be severely stunted if we had been satisfied with a theory just because most people believe it.
whether a scientist is at the very top of his profession or not is not the crucial point.   but , they are up far enough not to be discredited. the arguments validity is paramount.
the scientific and logical challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.
and, it seems to me, your jumping off a cliff analogy seems irrelevant to the argument.    jumping off cliffs is experimentally verified as likely to be fatal!. there is nothing experimentally verified about the general theory of evolution, so I feel like I am on safe ground in questioning it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:47 AM

Pete,

Not going to get dragged into this, I have had my arguments with creationists in the past and I have them in the family, and I know well that you can refute every single argument but it will never satisfy them. The vast, vast majority of scientists think it is rubbish. The vast, vast majority of Christians think it is rubbish, I don't know so much about other religions (particularly Islam) but probably they do too. Every mainstream church thinks it is rubbish. Darwin's (and Wallace's) ideas, like Newton's, were ground breaking but no scientific hypothesis is ever the last word, and other ideas have been put forward (for instance by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge). But to say that because of these ideas you question the whole premise of evolution is as stupid as saying that because Einstein's ideas modify Newtonian gravity you don't have to worry about jumping off a cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:35 AM

Not been following previous threads, don ?                   There are plenty of evidences, but I have just used the ones I can get my head around.    For example, the many cases of preservation of soft tissue that should not be there under measured rates of decay. Same for reported DNA persisting past it's sale by date. That will do for starters. So , in return, what evidence you got for evolutionism ?. Darwin had conceded that his own ideas were not the only interpretation of the data. Has anything changed ?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:30 AM

Well I had never heard of Hartnett or Faulkner, so I looked them up on NASA ADS. Hartnett has done some nice work with Tobar on crystal oscillators, and some papers on Carmeli's metric. Faulkner is harder as its a more common name, but he seems to be someone who works on eclipsing binaries. But they both seem to be people with about 20 papers and about 200 citations. But lets face it, and not wishing to be unkind, not people at the top of the profession.

Martin Gaskell is closer, but he insists that although he is a fundamentalist in other respects, he is not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:18 PM

And what evidence is that, pete?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM

101 ?
and bill, also for the whatever time.....
it is all very well saying that creationists are not accepting the evidence, but unless you can present said evidence, there is no evidence up for discussion. and of course, all those evolutionist scientists may be doing good science in their basic job of SCIENCE , but when their evolutionary faith gets in the way......
and if you want to follow the evidence where it leads, I concede that the YEC position cannot be conclusively proved, but I am sure the eons claimed by evolutionists are seriously challenged by the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:06 PM

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:06 PM

. . .Oort cloud. correct me if wrong but since this is not observed it was introduced only to fill the holes in the theory.

Sort of like phlogiston?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:55 PM

one thing I can say about you jack, is you sure is eloquent. I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.   even dawkins inserts a ...probably...to his no.
interesting sideline about newtons other theories now discounted, but we were not talking about them. " muddying the waters" is the term that comes to mind. and I should add, that , though a theory may not be fully explained, as you so very eloquently alluded to gravity, it can be [and in this is] verified by experimental, testable, repeatable ,observational science, and thus there is little debate about its verity. then there is the theoretical, you concede, oort cloud. correct me if wrong but since this is not observed it was introduced only to fill the holes in the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:47 PM

"Doubt everything or believe everything: these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for reflection." - Henri Poincare 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars Link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:32 PM

Well Dave , certainly there are less than those who subscribe to the ruling paradigm. But of course the ruling paradigm has been wrong enough times before. I do know that the list includes just about every discipline, including the one under discussion here. John hartnett and Danny Faulkner are two of which are qualified in this field. I presume they are " creditable" unless they a priori don't qualify by virtue of being creationists !.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 12:28 PM

Pete... for about the 10th time... regarding this:

"...but there is quite a long list of scientists of the current day who also are creationists ,..."

They may be good at their basic job IN science, but when they make assertions about religious beliefs that affect their conclusions, they are no longer DOING science! Science, in order to be called science, must follow where evidence leads. If you reject evidence because it doesn't agree with 'some' interpretations of 'some' versions of 'some' religious documents, you are doing theology...not science. Doing so requires very awkward distortion of how data is understood.

IF a god "made everything", all science is trying to do it follow the details of the process... and many fine Christian scientists do just that while standing in awe of 'his' creativity. This does NOT require cramming all history into 6000-10,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:43 AM

Meanwhile, here on Earth 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 07:21 AM

Why sorry, Dave? It's all part of the same cosmos - complex layers of fluid theoretical thinking inspired by natural reality as revealed to us by science. All is one and one is all, as vast and baffling as that might be. The fact that we can speculate on such things is proof enough of that. To nab a WIKIquote from Feynman:

Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. … The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 06:42 AM

Jack says:

"there is only one Cosmos, and one Science with which we might come to understand it."

Sorry, we don't even know this much. Both in science (the Multiverse hypothesis, brane-worlds) and in religious thought (for instance Hindu
thought) there are those who argue for multiple cosmoses.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 05:58 AM

only serves to demonstrate the scientifically closed minds of those calling them idiots

The term I used was idiocy, Pete - but if the cap fits...

Atheism and Secularism are hard won freedoms that do not demonstrate closed-mindedness. On the contrary - they are a means of transcending the dark superstitions of the past and turning our faces into the light of knowledge that will guide our species into the future. Sadly, the transition isn't painless, but we may take heart that whilst the religious impulse has manifest itself in countless thousands of contradictory ways down the aeons (of which Xtianity is but ONE), there is only one Cosmos, and one Science with which we might come to understand it.

Sure, it's an ongoing process; and sure Newton held some crazy ideas (didn't he spend much of his time mad with mercury poisoning as a result of his alchemical endeavours?), but he gave us our fundamental understanding of gravity which underpins everything. That said, whilst we can understand gravity in terms of Newtonian Dynamics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, actually saying what it IS is proving totally elusive. Here we have this fundamental cosmic force of which were all subjects, barely aware of it because it's quite literally the only medium we know - we can measure it, predict it, watch it smashing our coffee cups to the floor or else use it to fling our spaceships to the outer reaches of the Oort Cloud* and yet no one really knows what it is. The nature of cosmic / natural reality is ultimately one of mystery and wonder that inspires a transcendent notion of numinosity that is utterly and empirically Godless. Furthernore, it is totally objective and inclusive of each and every one of us; crucially, it is true whether we choose to believe in it or not, and, most importantly, no one is going to spend eternity being tormented by sadistic demons if they choose not to.

* A theoretical region of the outer solar system which no one has seen; so vast that even flying at 11 miles every second Voyager 1 won't clear it for another 28,000 years. And all held in place by the sun's gravity.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 05:31 PM

Pete,

I really don't think that there is a long list of scientists who are creationists, though there is a much longer list who are Christians. A.S. Eddington for instance, and later people like C.A. Coulson, John Polkinghorne, John Barrow, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, George Ellis, Charles Townes. Of course the Vatican runs its own observatory, and the Jesuit order has many prominent scientists. But I can't think of a credible figure, at least in the physical sciences who is a young earth creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 04:44 PM

Stars are thrown out of galaxies yes, mostly by tidal forces when galaxies pass close to each other. Gas is thrown out of galaxies by "galactic winds", driven by heating of the gas by supernovae. Also, if there is gas there anyway, and a galaxy runs into it quite fast, more is stripped out (gas is sticky, stars are small so mostly pass straight through). But, here is the interesting thing, the gas in clusters of galaxies has lots of heavy elements, and these are only made in stars, so a lot of that gas must have been in stars at some time, and therefore in galaxies).

I don't think stars form in the rarified medium between galaxies, the gas is too rarified and too hot (stars form mostly out of gas which we would call "cold", though its a few hundred degrees). There are stars there, although we can't see a star at those distances even with Hubble, we can see a planetary nebula, which forms at the end of the life of a star, and there are some numbers of these between the galaxies. But I think people believe that they have been thrown out of galaxies by tidal forces.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 04:39 PM

the " idiocity " to which the fount of all knowledge alludes to, certainly was believed by newton , but there is quite a long list of scientists of the current day who also are creationists , and to call such accomplished people idiots, only serves to demonstrate the scientifically closed minds of those calling them idiots. and if certain parties will desist from such jibes, I wont feel the need to call them on it.    meanwhile, thankyou dave for your post. admittedly too tech for me, though I did know that Einstein improved on newton theory. but , I presume that this does not relegate the theory of gravity to non experimentally verified science. ie, it is not generally argued and debated about, as competing cosmology/astrophysics theories are.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:15 PM

Thanks Dave, that is really interesting.
I know stars are often thrown out of galaxies. Could a star actually form in that medium or is it too rarefied?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 09:34 AM

Ok, Keith, there is the Warm-Hot Intergalactic medium (WHIM), I don't know much about this but have been looking it up. This is gas at maybe 100,000 degrees (not as hot as that in clusters of galaxies). It can be found in X-rays by a satellite such as Chandra, or detected by its absorption of light from quasars behind it (by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on Hubble). I am not up with this stuff, but will read up more, but it seems to be that it makes up maybe half or more of the non-dark matter in the universe. There was a big press release from Chandra about 4 years ago saying that they had found loads of it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 05:01 AM

Ok, Keith, the slight issue there is that because any material in filaments and nodes will be cold, it is very hard to detect. In clusters of galaxies it is hot and we do detect it. Where this statement comes from is simulations of the universe (such as the Millenium simulation, though as you can tell from its name its not the most recent project here). In the simulations run on computers, which reproduce very well the distribution of galaxies, though less well their properties, there is very little matter between the filaments. In the real universe it can't be measured because any such material will be cold and unobservable. If its molecular hydrogen especially.

So this statement may be right, but its not verified by observation. In clusters of galaxies we know there is lots of gas, although still at a lower density than in galaxies. But the volume is much higher, and the total mass is greater.