Answering the age of the Universe challenges and more

[beskeptical]

This thread is carried over from the following exchange.

I really don't have the time to deal with this person on another forum. (due to exams)
He is basically claiming to be a self taught physicst, but I don't know what the hell kinds of books he's been reading to get this sort of interpretation on things.

Perhaps one of you guys who are more knowledgable and/or bored can give him a talking to?

It's mostly on these two threads:

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/...c&start=45
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/...75&start=0

He's the author of the second thread.

I couldn't open ethical atheist just now so hopefully others can link there later. But no matter because the person in question, Mosheh Thezion, has come here.

ok.. well.. then lets start with the date.. 4.6 billions yrs ago.
Then we will move on to dwarfs.. white and black..

My response was the following:

I would only add to Mosheh Thezion that just because he needs an education in cosmology and/or astronomy doesn't mean his questions are not answerable. He is not asking questions to which there are no answers. He is asking questions that he personally doesn't have the answers for.

This is the same tactic one hears often by those who believe science does not really contradict their world view when science actually does contradict their beliefs. It can be Biblical beliefs but also unsubstantiated medical beliefs or even the astronomy nonsense like the Apollo Hoax. They hear some false premise argument from someone else who claims all sorts of reasons the scientific theories, or evidence based medicine or whatever can't explain xyz therefore the believer's world view is not contradicted by scientific evidence.

It is very tiring to answer these folks because they need a college (or sometimes even a high school) education in order to get all the answers to the questions they may come up with.

Ask Mosheh to provide the evidence for his beliefs rather than to ask his questions. If he were educated in astronomy and/or geology and then asked informed questions it would be different. Instead he asks questions to which there are more than adequate answers to as if there were no such answers.

So to follow through and to respond to MT I put together the following references.

The problem as I said, MT, is when a person questions something such as the age of the Universe, but that person asks question after question, the other person gets tired of responding. The problem isn't that the answers aren't there, it's that a person such as yourself is asking questions as if you have a limited background in the science. You have too many questions which have more than adequate answers. It would help if you would do some reading first. (Being self educated in physics, perhaps a mere review is in order.)

So if you really want the answers to your questions, then start by educating yourself about the basics. Then can you carry on a real discussion of any holes or flaws in the science. Here is a compilation of the science you wish to discuss. If after reading this material, you still have questions that weren't answered there, then ask those questions on this board. We are very happy to debate these issues with you, but we can't educate you to the science of the age of the Universe one question at a time.

BTW, welcome to the BABB. We love discussions such as those you bring here. Don't be put off by my post. Do stay and challenge away, after you at least read the Talk Origins answers to your questions as well as responses here.


Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/deba...earth.html#c14

A talk.origins Age of the Earth Debate
[Last Update: February 27, 1992]
(includes carbon dating discussion)

Then read this because it is an excellent discussion from a

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544
RWiens@Prodigy.Net

And here are lots of specific responses to specific Creationists claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#creacrit

Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

Claim CF210:
Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
Response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Claim CD013:
Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.
Response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Isochron Dating
by Chris Stassen
Copyright © 1994-1998
[Last update, September 17, 1998]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...hronology.html

Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
by Steven H. Schimmrich
Copyright © 1997-2003
[Text last updated: February 12, 1998]
[Links updated: November 30, 2003]

Other Links(above page has links to the following):

Woodmorappe's Reply
John Woodmorappe has written a response to this essay.
Schimmrich Responds
Steven Schimmrich responds to Woodmorappe.
Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look
Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws. He plots Woodmorappe's collection of anomalous radiometric results and notices something remarkable.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Roger Wiens of Caltech discusses the reasoning and science behind radiometric dating techniques.
Studies in Creationism and Flood Geology
This pamphlet from the Institute for Creation Research briefly synopsizes Woodmorappe's arguments against mainstream geochronology.
The Isochron Dating FAQ
Chris Stassen has written a detailed article explaining how and why isochron radiometric dating techniques work.
Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating
Woodmorappe wrote a 1999 book The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods in which he continued his attacks on radiometric dating. Dr. Kevin R. Henke demonstrates that Woodmorappe took many of his references in this book out-of-context.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
by Andrew MacRae
Copyright © 1997-2004
[Text last updated: October 2, 1998]
[Links updated: September 12, 2004]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
by Kathleen Hunt
Copyright © 2002
[posted: May 22, 2002]

The Problem:

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.

The Solution:

Talk.origins' Kathleen Hunt wrote an e-mail to a noted expert on AMS and 14C dating. The results of her correspondence are reproduced below:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

A Criticism of the
ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
by Chris Stassen
Copyright © 1994-2003
[Last Update: February 18, 2003]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

Ice Core Dating
Matt Brinkman
[Last Update: January 3, 1995]

And then there is a response written by a BABB member, Tim Thompson

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

A Radiometric Dating Resource List
updated & links checked, 29 April 2003


If these links answer your questions you might tell us. If they don't then keep asking and someone here will have an explanation or more links to good scientific information.

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) Excelent...

My friends, i would express to you, clearly and infatically that i am not fanactically riggid in my beliefs and views as to proposal for unification of the sciences and the forces of nature.

IN fact i would make it clear from the get go, the proposals i would put forth to you, may indeed be flawed.. sure.. i can except that.

and i would certainly not be here argueing anything, if it wasnt for one simple thing.. The proposal i make for a natural progressive pattern in levels of dimensional motions apon a spatial ether...
it does seem to fit from, the first moment, up to today, and explains for the positions, motions, and spiral aspects of all the heavenly bodies, the nature of mass, and its method of distribution into space, with how and why.. it shows an entirely new light on most phenomena in general, and as a theory, suggests a vast number of avenues for potential research.

Now.. i would be more than happy to express these thought unto you, but i need to develop one specific skill to do so.
I need to know how i might draw a bit map.. and post them as thumbnail images along with the text. other wise the work effort in making descriptions, would be excessive.
we are talking about the making of everything.

So, i tell you, i maybe mad, i may be crazy, and i maybe completely wrong.. but i will only except that if you can show me using clear reason and logic..
it is likened to my proposal for a new church, based on science, all i have contacted may have good wishes or arguements, but none have been able to challenge the concept itself, so much as to make a dent.

I ask you.. it would help.. make a dent in theory, and in indeed my mind will have been expanded and i will be indebted to you all.

-MT

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) Let me try this another way, please..

First of all, im not a Creationist.. not really.. but i believe Moses got it right roughly in Genesis... but i base that on my own crazy theory in science, so.. ya know.


question one: Dwarfs and Nuetron stars are what? what are they?


Question two: Why are there no meteors found older than 4.6 billion years ago?

anybody???


-MT

[01101001]

Question two: Why are there no meteors found older than 4.6 billion years ago?

Do you mean meteorites? Meteors are so hard to date.

[beskeptical]

You lost me, MT. But I will add that I personally love to contemplate the nature of the Universe. But I am not so silly as to think if I have some conceptualization it could in any way be superior to the conceptualization of those who have great expertise in the fields my contemplations play with.

In other words while it is fun to think about how things are, unless one takes the time to learn what is already known, one can only fantasize the nature of the Universe. Only after learning what is known can you expect to hypothesize further. (And it would be an hypothesis, not a theory, BTW.)

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) OK.. lets try this again..

Simple questions.

if nuetron stars exist... then does that not suggest that matter is not limited to existing as small atoms..? not today.. and not yesturday.

I mean the fact they exist at all may suggests the possibiliy that the process of true atoms formation, may occur as a result of the breakdown of these large nucleons, rather than building up from small atoms like hydrogen and helium. like in Big Bang.

And if matter comes from the breakdown of large nuecleons by projection then suddenly we have a senario that quickly shows an explination for the formation of galaxies, and solar systems... and explains why there is a nucleon mass at the center of galaxies, and why there are dwarfs leftover from within stars..
For they were not formed by the star, but the solar systems formed from the projection of the pre-solarsystem dwarf, and collected around it, forming the star and planets. leaving the dwarf again as evidense.

-MT

[Cougar]

...if nuetron stars exist... then does that not suggest that matter is not limited to existing as small atoms..? not today.. and not yesturday.... I mean the fact they exist at all may suggests the possibiliy that the process of true atoms formation, may occur as a result of the breakdown of these large nucleons, rather than building up from small atoms like hydrogen and helium.

As Beskeptical said, you seem to be trying to work out a problem that has already been conclusively answered. Neutron stars are the evolutionary result - the remains - of stars that had between 1.4 and 9 times the mass of the sun. This explanation is not just a guess. It is derived from observations, and it is consistent with experiments conducted at the quantum mechanical level.

[Grey]

I mean the fact they exist at all may suggests the possibiliy that the process of true atoms formation, may occur as a result of the breakdown of these large nucleons, rather than building up from small atoms like hydrogen and helium. like in Big Bang.

I'll try to give a concrete reason why this isn't likely. If atoms were formed from the breakdown of neutron stars, then once the pieces got small enough to be stable on their own, we woudn't expect them to break down any further. So in this case we'd have a universe dominated by heavy elements like lead or iron. If you instead assume that the atoms we see were built up from the smallest, then, unless the vast majority of those smallest atoms had a chance to combine, we'd instead expect to see mostly hydrogen and helium, the lightest elements with smaller amounts of the heavy elements (getting more scarce as the atomic mass increases, generally). Since what we see when we look at the universe is the latter, that would tend to cast doubt on a "neutron star breakup" model for the creation of the matter that we see.

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) Interesting.

So, you all will admit to the existance of literally giant planet sized nucleons.. be they dwarfs or nuetrons stars.

this is excepted.

yet you propose their formation from exploding stars..

and you say it is conclusively proven.. by this and that.. yes. ok.

but have you ever stopped to think about those really cool screen savers on your computer screen, waves and lines which bend and move in truely impossible ways if it were actually real matter..

those screen savers are illustrative of how you can find mathmatics which will work with things, and follow progressive patterns that has nothing to do with reality as we know it.

and for the past 100 years, science has been working with many foundations.. the greatest, and therefore most entrenched concept is that of the universe starting with hydrogen and helium, and that all else is made threw the star process.... even giant nucleons.. and what some call black holes.
now.. when confronted with phenomena, what does one do?
trys to prove it.. in some way, such as proving that dwarfs and neutron stars are made by dying stars.. novas.. etc..
and if you can find the numbers to all add up, and it all fits nicely with your fundamental belief in a hydrogen beginning.. then its all good, neat and tidy.
and it is widely excepted, and you get your nobel prise.

but none of that makes it truth.. and you say its all been proven at the quatum level.

then i ask, has anyone ever.. succeeded in making Helium, from 4 hydrogens? no.. from heavy hydrogen.. yes.. light H1 no...

have they?? please tell me if they have?
-MT

[beskeptical]

8) Interesting.

So, you all will admit to the existance of literally giant planet sized nucleons.. be they dwarfs or nuetrons stars.

Where do you read this into Grey's post? Are you just making up stuff as you go?

but have you ever stopped to think about those really cool screen savers on your computer screen, waves and lines which bend and move in truely impossible ways if it were actually real matter..

those screen savers are illustrative of how you can find mathmatics which will work with things, and follow progressive patterns that has nothing to do with reality as we know it.

and for the past 100 years, science has been working with many foundations.. the greatest, and therefore most entrenched concept is that of the universe starting with hydrogen and helium, and that all else is made threw the star process.... even giant nucleons.. and what some call black holes.
now.. when confronted with phenomena, what does one do?
trys to prove it.. in some way, such as proving that dwarfs and neutron stars are made by dying stars.. novas.. etc..
and if you can find the numbers to all add up, and it all fits nicely with your fundamental belief in a hydrogen beginning.. then its all good, neat and tidy.
and it is widely excepted, and you get your nobel prise.

but none of that makes it truth.. and you say its all been proven at the quatum level.

then i ask, has anyone ever.. succeeded in making Helium, from 4 hydrogens? no.. from heavy hydrogen.. yes.. light H1 no...

have they?? please tell me if they have?
-MT

You need to do more homework. Again you continue to ask questions and make statements based on incorrect underlying premises.

Explain fire breathing dragons to me since you claim they exist.

[Bathcat]

Hehe!

Therion: " but have you ever stopped to think about those really cool screen savers on your computer screen, waves and lines which bend and move in truely impossible ways if it were actually real matter.."

Well, sure! And I can get screensavers of unicorns, and I can watch movies about aliens of all sorts, as well as Godzilla. It's lots of fun. Obviously it doesn't say Godzilla and unicorns exist.

----

Neutrons are indeed smaller than atoms, and they do indeed exist.

Your statement that smaller-than-atomic matter exists is accurate.

Singleton neutrons are not stable, though. They decay in a matter of minutes. (This is not guesswork, of course; it is observed experimentally.)

That's the key, amigo: observed experimentally.

Here's how to gain credibility: propose an experimental test which will distinguish between your theory and the standard model of physics.

Do you have such a test to propose?

[George]

... and for the past 100 years, science has been working with many foundations.. the greatest, and therefore most entrenched concept is that of the universe starting with hydrogen and helium, and that all else is made threw the star process.... even giant nucleons.. and what some call black holes.

The Big Bang Theory is about 75 years old and was not accepted by Einstein, and most scientists, when Georges Lamaitre (a highly educated priest) first presented it to him. Even when Hubble observed and calculated redshifting of stars to show a possible expanding universe, Big Bang had a tough time. Hubble's orginal estimates made the stars seem older than the universe.

I give these examples to show that many, many steps are carefully examined and tested before they become mainstream. Big Bang had a rough start. Keep in mind theories can never be proven. However, they serve as foundational tools until something better comes along.

now.. when confronted with phenomena, what does one do?
trys to prove it.. in some way, such as proving that dwarfs and neutron stars are made by dying stars.. novas.. etc..
and if you can find the numbers to all add up, and it all fits nicely with your fundamental belief in a hydrogen beginning.. then its all good, neat and tidy.

But it is not "ad hoc" science, where any idea that seems to fit is accepted. A good theory should open itself for tests which can prove it false (never prove it true). The more of these tests which do not prove it false, the more accpeted it becomes.

then i ask, has anyone ever.. succeeded in making Helium, from 4 hydrogens? no.. from heavy hydrogen.. yes.. light H1 no...

have they?? please tell me if they have?

Will the hydrogen bomb serve as a good example of scientists understanding of nuclear energy?

The following is from an old thread around here "Big Bang Bullets" (wow, it's been over a year since the last post) [I can find it by searching, but I can't figure out how to link to it properly. :-? ]

It may help you see there are many things that must fit if Big Bang/Inflation Theory is accpeted by most. There is more which can be added to this list, too.

The Expansion of the Universe.
.........> Hubble Constant
.........> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
.........> Time Dilation of Supernova
.........> Gamma Ray Bursts
> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
.........> The Temperature (2.73K).
.........> The Blackbody Results.
.........> The "smoothness" (isotropy) [Inflation required]
.........> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation.
.........> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
> Distant Cloud temperatures
> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
.........> Helium (25%)
.........> Deuterium
> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
.........> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals
.........> Less organized distant Spirals
.........> No local Quasars
> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
> Olber's Paradox resolved.
> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
> The Red and Blue Shifts at Poles - slight blue shift in the spectrum of the radiation at one point and a red shift at the opposite point in the sky.

[FWIW (for what it's worth), I also believe Genesis may be an accurate account of creation (our solar system).]

Welcome to the board, MT. =D>

[Ari Jokimaki]

A good theory should open itself for tests which can prove it false (never prove it true).

You can't prove theories false either. It is easier to establish high probability for a theory to be false than to establish high probability for it to be true, but you can't prove it all the way. In order to prove it false, you should be able to prove your disproof true, and like you said: "never prove it true".

[I can find it by searching, but I can't figure out how to link to it properly. :-? ]

Here.

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) Lets try this again...

Dwarfs... what are they?

they have the density of nuclens.. do they not???

and if so.. there is your evidense... matter is not limited, isnt today, and probubly wasnt in the past.

that is a fundamental point.

-MT


Bathcat.. i never said anything about smaller.. i said Bigger!!!!!!!!


oh.. and no one answered the question.. what evidense is there that we can actually make HE from 4 light hydrogens.

[George]

Dwarfs... what are they?

Dwarf stars are not all the same. Surprisingly, the Sun is classified as a yellow dwarf star (yet it is not all that small on average and, I might add, it may not even be yellow ).

White dwarfs might be more interesting to discuss. These stars are not neutron stars because they are not massive enough to overcome the electrical force of the atoms. An atom is limited to a fixed no. of electrons it can have around it's nucleous. The more massive a white dwarf, the smaller the star as all these atoms get squeezed, but only to a limit due to the electrical repulsion.

However, if the star is more massive (beyond 1.4 solar masses), a neutron star is formed. This seems to be the star you are likely most interested in disucssing.

Here is a site you might like... Neutron Star Introduction

they have the density of nuclens.. do they not???

Are you suggesting the atoms all become one giant atom somehow?

and if so.. there is your evidense... matter is not limited, isnt today, and probubly wasnt in the past.

Why would this imply unlimited matter?

[I can find it by searching, but I can't figure out how to link to it properly. :-? ]

Here.

Thanks for the fish, but how did you catch him? When I right click on the post I wish to reference, I no longer get the proper url address.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Thanks for the fish, but how did you catch him? When I right click on the post I wish to reference, I no longer get the proper url address.

Ok, I tell you what bait I use, but don't you come using it in my favorite place. [-X

1. Search for the thread in question.
2. Check what's the date of the last post in that thread.
3. Start browsing old pages (in the start page of every forum there's "goto page 1,2,3...") until you arrive to page that has similar date as the last post of the thread you're after. Notice that you don't have to browse page by page, in the address line there's a number that changes according to page (...start=50& for page 2, 100 for page 3, etc.). By manually adjusting this number you can browse more quickly. Your thread was in the page 62, if I remember correctly.
4. Find your thread from the page.
5. Click the link to the thread and there you have it, proper address in the address line.

See, no fancy tricks, I used hard way.

[Grey]

So, you all will admit to the existance of literally giant planet sized nucleons.. be they dwarfs or nuetrons stars.

From your later quote, it sounds like you're asking if neutron stars have nucleonic density. The answer to that is yes.

yet you propose their formation from exploding stars..

now.. when confronted with phenomena, what does one do?
trys to prove it.. in some way, such as proving that dwarfs and neutron stars are made by dying stars.. novas.. etc..

Actually, neutron stars were predicted before they were observed. So their discovery actually supported the theory of the theories in question. Moreover, we've been able to observe neutron stars at the center of known supernova remnants (like the crab nebula, or supernova 1987A), so that gives very strong support to the idea that this is how they are created.

then i ask, has anyone ever.. succeeded in making Helium, from 4 hydrogens? no.. from heavy hydrogen.. yes.. light H1 no...
have they?? please tell me if they have?

I'm not actually sure if anyone has specifically tested the entire proton-proton chain, but certainly each step has been experimentally verified. Insisting that this doesn't constitute a complete test would be like saying that we didn't really know that ice could become steam because we'd only tested ice melting to water and water turning to steam in separate experiments. Moreover, the theories of nuclear interactions have been extensively tested in many other ways, and shown to be accurate (to quite a few decimal places). Further, the models that are based on this explain the different types of stars we see very well.

Why the problem with this? We try to make models that fit our observations, and the ones we have now work very well, so we assume they're reasonably accurate. You seem to be implying some bias toward a specific model, but if there is such a bias, it's just because it matches observations. That's how science works.

[George]

Ok, I tell you what bait I use, but don't you come using it in my favorite place. [-X

Nope. I just want to learn how to bait the hook.

3. Start browsing old pages (in the start page of every forum there's "goto page 1,2,3...") until you arrive to page that has similar date as the last post of the thread you're after. Notice that you don't have to browse page by page, in the address line there's a number that changes according to page (...start=50& for page 2, 100 for page 3, etc.). By manually adjusting this number you can browse more quickly. Your thread was in the page 62, if I remember correctly.

How do you jump to page 40, for example? I do not see a field entry to allow this.

5. Click the link to the thread and there you have it, proper address in the address line.

I do not see a "link to the thread" button. Right clicking to properties will produce only a thread address. How do I get a post address?

[Grey]

I do not see a "link to the thread" button. Right clicking to properties will produce only a thread address. How do I get a post address?

If you want to link to a specific post, the easiest way is to first click on the small page icon just to the left of where it says "Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005" etc. That takes you to that specific post, and you can just copy out the url from your browser. It has a pretty logical form, referring directly to the post number. For example, to link to your previous post from anywhere, I'd enter:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...06&#458606

[Bathcat]

Ah, yes, Theriozon, you wrote "...then does that not suggest that matter is not limited to existing as small atoms..?"

I took that to mean you were suggesting matter exists smaller than atoms, which is obviously true.

Neutron stars are made of neutrons. Neutrons are made of quarks.

I don't understand your point here. Sure, matter exists in large chunks.

A neutron star is a ball of (mostly) neutrons, but it is NOT one giant neutron. A pure iron asteroid would be a lump of iron atoms, but it is not one giant iron atom. A beach is made of sand, but it is not one giant grain of sand.

See what the universe says, here? Yes, you can put lots of atoms or subatomic particles together. But that doesn't mean the atoms or subatomic particles cease to exist. They're just in a lump instead of existing singly.

----

The term 'dwarf stars', incidentally, is not a precise one for your argument: white dwarfs are NOT the same as neutron stars. Brown dwarfs are NOT the same as white dwarfs.

Ask "what are dwarfs" and the answers can be: balls of hydrogen and helium which are not massive enough to ignite in thermonuclear fusion, OR balls of degenerate atomic matter which have passed the endpoint of nuclear fusion, OR balls of matter compressed into (mostly) pure neutrons.

----

But I wasn't following the original thread and I'm too time-constrained to try to suss out the gist. Adieu.

[Grey]

Ask "what are dwarfs" and the answers can be: balls of hydrogen and helium which are not massive enough to ignite in thermonuclear fusion, OR balls of degenerate atomic matter which have passed the endpoint of nuclear fusion, OR balls of matter compressed into (mostly) pure neutrons.

For that matter, main sequence stars are technically termed dwarfs, too. So the Sun is a yellow dwarf star.

[Cougar]

You can't prove theories false either.

I think I've got to differ with you there. We like our theories to be falsifiable, and when a repeatable observation is made that contradicts -- falsifies -- a theory, well, that theory is false, isn't it?

[Ari Jokimaki]

How do you jump to page 40, for example? I do not see a field entry to allow this.

First click page 2 from the "goto page 1,2,3..." section (of general astronomy forum, doing this in in against the mainstream forum will not be productive for that particular thread ). Now in your browser's address line you should have this address:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...;start=50&

In the end of the address, there is "...start=50&". For page 40 you need to change that 50 to 1950 (40 x 50 = 2000, but you need to subtract 50 because page 1 is 0). Actual number for your thread is 3050 (page 62).

I do not see a "link to the thread" button.

By "link to the thread" I meant that when you are at page 62, locate your thread there and then just click the name of the thread.

Right clicking to properties will produce only a thread address. How do I get a post address?

Grey already answered this. I thought that you wanted the address to your thread, not to specific post.

[Ari Jokimaki]

You can't prove theories false either.

I think I've got to differ with you there. We like our theories to be falsifiable, and when a repeatable observation is made that contradicts -- falsifies -- a theory, well, that theory is false, isn't it?

It most likely is, but there is always room for a doubt, which is why you can't prove it in the similar sense as you can't prove theory true.

Think it this way, there is theory X which we want to prove false with argument A. So, X is false if A is true. Can you prove that A is true?

[Mosheh Thezion]

8) Crom,

Now, i heard replys which aluded to nuetron stars.
and i heard a reply to fusion..

but i heard no answers..

first of, if nuetron stars are made of nuetrons.. why arent they decaying into a hydrogen???? because here on earth, all nuetrons break down in a few minutes.. 12 maybe. odd dont you think?
and if it is all nuetrons.. thats alot of nuetrons.
and one must realize that for 4 hyrdogens to become 1 helium, then it is literally required that 2 protons convert into nuetrons.
other wise, you wont have helium.. will you?


so along this line, the only way to maytain fusion, in what is thought to be a ball of mostly light hydrogen, would be as if there is a strong nuetron flux from another source. thus allowing for transmutation, and then fusion.

unless you guys know of a way to turn protons into nuetrons?
because i think i could really use that technology.???
anybody?


Second: what is the density of white and black and brown dwarfs?
comprable to nucleons??? humm.. a fifth state of matter?






ok, and then also why are there no meteorites found older than 4.6 billion years old? and why should i accept that it makes sense, because it dosent, if all the matter of our solar system comes from the recycling of other star systems in a universe which is thought to be fom 13-24 bilion years old..

whats up with that.. its fundamental, and yet most of you skoff and say so what...? supposing a shock wave made loose gases condense into solids of iron and nickle.

these are the contridictions which arent focused on.

Answer for them! For if you cannot then you must be willing to hear my answers... and my answers will be long and detailed.

-MT

[worzel]

1. Search for the thread in question.
2. Check what's the date of the last post in that thread.
3. Start browsing old pages (in the start page of every forum there's "goto page 1,2,3...") until you arrive to page that has similar date as the last post of the thread you're after. Notice that you don't have to browse page by page, in the address line there's a number that changes according to page (...start=50& for page 2, 100 for page 3, etc.). By manually adjusting this number you can browse more quickly. Your thread was in the page 62, if I remember correctly.
4. Find your thread from the page.
5. Click the link to the thread and there you have it, proper address in the address line.

Or alternatively,
1. On the search page chose "topic" for "Display results as:"
2. Search through the results for your thread
3. Click on the link to your thread

I do not see a "link to the thread" button. Right clicking to properties will produce only a thread address. How do I get a post address?

I suspect that what you want to know is how to put the link in your post. If you click on "quote" on a post that contains a link you will be able to see an example of how to do it. When posting, if you hover the mouse over the URL button it will give a little syntax summary just above the text area. To get the address (URL), just left click on the link and copy the address from your browsers address bar.

[Fram]

You can't prove theories false either.

I think I've got to differ with you there. We like our theories to be falsifiable, and when a repeatable observation is made that contradicts -- falsifies -- a theory, well, that theory is false, isn't it?

It most likely is, but there is always room for a doubt, which is why you can't prove it in the similar sense as you can't prove theory true.

Think it this way, there is theory X which we want to prove false with argument A. So, X is false if A is true. Can you prove that A is true?

Why not? A is not a complete theory, but an observation. My theory X is true if there are no elephants in Africa. There is an elephant in Africa. Hence, X is false. No problem!
I have a wonderful theory of the fromation of solar systems, but there's a small detail. It excludes the possibility of a planet with satellites of its own: everything must orbit around the sun and only around the sun. Can you prove that this theory is false?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Why not? A is not a complete theory, but an observation. My theory X is true if there are no elephants in Africa. There is an elephant in Africa. Hence, X is false. No problem!
I have a wonderful theory of the fromation of solar systems, but there's a small detail. It excludes the possibility of a planet with satellites of its own: everything must orbit around the sun and only around the sun. Can you prove that this theory is false?

But the observations require interpretation, and the interpretations are based on some other theories.

If we use the word "prove" in the sense you are using, we can also prove theories true, which is said to be impossible. I might have a theory Y that is true if there are elephants in Africa. There is an elephant in Africa. Hence, Y is true.

We can show things to be true or false in the sense of proving beyond reasonable doubt, but scientific proof, as I understand it, requires proving beyond every doubt, even unreasonable ones. This really is a question of how we define the word "proof".

For example I could say that those things you see in Africa are no elephants, instead they are something else but somehow our senses and measuring equipment are fooled to think that they are elephants. This claim is completely unreasonable, but it is not impossible, either. There's always room for a doubt.

[Fram]

Why not? A is not a complete theory, but an observation. My theory X is true if there are no elephants in Africa. There is an elephant in Africa. Hence, X is false. No problem!
I have a wonderful theory of the fromation of solar systems, but there's a small detail. It excludes the possibility of a planet with satellites of its own: everything must orbit around the sun and only around the sun. Can you prove that this theory is false?

But the observations require interpretation, and the interpretations are based on some other theories.

If we use the word "prove" in the sense you are using, we can also prove theories true, which is said to be impossible. I might have a theory Y that is true if there are elephants in Africa. There is an elephant in Africa. Hence, Y is true.

We can show things to be true or false in the sense of proving beyond reasonable doubt, but scientific proof, as I understand it, requires proving beyond every doubt, even unreasonable ones. This really is a question of how we define the word "proof".

For example I could say that those things you see in Africa are no elephants, instead they are something else but somehow our senses and measuring equipment are fooled to think that they are elephants. This claim is completely unreasonable, but it is not impossible, either. There's always room for a doubt.

If you don't have definitions you both agree on, there is nothing left to discuss, is there?
What is a theory? Based on a set of observations, I have come to a conclusion.
If one of the observations is false, the theory is false.
If all the observations are true, the theory can still be false, as then you can discuss if the observations really imply the conclusion and if there is no other conclusion that fits the same observations.
Hence, a theory can be proven to be false, but not proven to be true.

A theory that is false is not necessarily rubbish, of course, it just means that it cannot be used in its current form and needs either abandoning or adjusting.

[worzel]

While I understand what you are saying, Ari Jokimaki, I think that we should distinguish between positive and negative statements. Theories tend to make positive statements, falsifications of those statements are negatives. Proving the truth of a positive statement like E=mc^2 may be impossible, but proving a negative statement like E!=mc^3 requires only a few repeatable examples to show that a theory that predicts E=mc^3 is false. It may not be proof in the mathematical sense, but a falsificaton gives much more weight to a theory being wrong than any amount of positive evidence does that it is right.

Put another way, if you have a theory that predicts that E=mc^2 and you want to falsify it all you have to do is find counter examples. But to prove it is true requires more than just examples. Supporting examples only show that it might be true. How could we ever know that it is true for every conveivable experiment? We might try to disprove its negation, but that would requiring falsifying infinite statements like E=mc^2+0.01, E=mc^3, E=m^0.9999.c^1.9999, etc. etc.

EDIT: I think I've thought of a better way of saying this. A theory that predicts that E=mc^2 makes infinite precise predictions anyone of which can be tested and potentially falsify the theory. What it says is that in all cases E=mc^2. It's negation says that there exists at least one case where E!=mc^2, it doesn't tell us which case/s, so it makes no predictions whatsoever that we can test and is therefore an unfalsifiable theory, which is equivalent to saying that the original positive theory can never be proven correct.