QueenOfZaun · 26-30, F
ElwoodBlues · M
Too long; only read to the first error.
All 12 are newly formed stars in the Serpens Nebula, which is about 1400 light years away. They are all VERY close together in cosmic terms. What about their rotation?
Yep, that particular gas cloud happened to impart its angular momentum to many of the stars newly forming within it. Nothing about that fact is unusual or surprising. And, similar angular momenta produce similar outflow jets.
What's next for those stars?
This telescope observed 12 stars with jets of material all pointing in “roughly the same direction.”
All 12 are newly formed stars in the Serpens Nebula, which is about 1400 light years away. They are all VERY close together in cosmic terms. What about their rotation?
These new observations suggest that all of these stars inherited their rotation from the same long filament of gas.
Yep, that particular gas cloud happened to impart its angular momentum to many of the stars newly forming within it. Nothing about that fact is unusual or surprising. And, similar angular momenta produce similar outflow jets.
What's next for those stars?
As time passes, the spins of these stars may change as they interact with one another and with other cosmic objects – which is apparent from the fact that another group of young stars in the same images of the Serpens Nebula, which seem to be slightly older, did not have aligned jets.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2436514-stunning-jwst-image-proves-we-were-right-about-how-young-stars-form/
redredred · M
“ That is because the lifetimes of many stars are less than the supposed 13.8-billion-year age of a big bang universe, and so these stars cannot date from the beginning of the universe. ”
News flash, Ace: There are trees in the forest surrounding my home that are younger than the forest itself. Star formation actually takes place generationally. As stars form, age and then die, those residual components left over get used to form new stars, like trees in a forest.
News flash, Ace: There are trees in the forest surrounding my home that are younger than the forest itself. Star formation actually takes place generationally. As stars form, age and then die, those residual components left over get used to form new stars, like trees in a forest.
Adeptlinguist · M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
observational science from the historical science
Heiferdust!
What convoluted blather would arise if he tried dealing with the reality of science explaining the evidence we can today observe that arises from what happened before we observed that evidence? (see what I mean? 😃 )
This muppet is just trying to invent fictitious categories so he can quarantine the pesky and very inconvenient evidence that reveals his duplicity and lies.
View 16 more replies »
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2
Too bad. That pretense of yours is not going to work with me. You can't be that ignorant after all the conversations we've had to know we've been discussing.
Is that because you can't figure out what you've been saying and would like me help you?
Too bad. That pretense of yours is not going to work with me. You can't be that ignorant after all the conversations we've had to know we've been discussing.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Any chance of some more Ken Ham copy-pastes? They're very funny, and we can spend the rest of today with me offering to show you evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and you ignoring it and running away... just like now.
But wait, there's more!!
As a bonus you'll also receive detailed analyses of why Ken Ham's claims are so wonderfully and sensationally wrong.
This special offer is only available online, so copy-paste now!
But wait, there's more!!
As a bonus you'll also receive detailed analyses of why Ken Ham's claims are so wonderfully and sensationally wrong.
This special offer is only available online, so copy-paste now!
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2
When are you going to quit making excuses for yourself and stop running around like a chicken with it's head cut off? I've shown you evidence for God's Handiwork. The so called evidence, you're about to show me, for evolution by natural selection is really evidence for God's Handiwork. God never used any of that to create the Heavens and the Earth.
Any chance of some more Ken Ham copy-pastes? They're very funny, and we can spend the rest of today with me offering to show you evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and you ignoring it and running away.
When are you going to quit making excuses for yourself and stop running around like a chicken with it's head cut off? I've shown you evidence for God's Handiwork. The so called evidence, you're about to show me, for evolution by natural selection is really evidence for God's Handiwork. God never used any of that to create the Heavens and the Earth.
LeopoldBloom · M
sree251 · 41-45, M
@LeopoldBloom
How else do you perceive material stars? I took the definition out of a science dictionary. You prefer science magic.
Are you asking for an answer from me or the OP? I told you my answer: stars are twinkling lights in the night sky.
Stop putting words in my mouth. You have no idea how I perceive the stars. The fact that they are giant balls of hot gas is, to me, more "magical" than thinking of them as holes in the firmament or whatever you think they are.
How else do you perceive material stars? I took the definition out of a science dictionary. You prefer science magic.
OK, now answer the question or admit that you not only have no idea how it happened, but don't even know how you would go about finding out.
Are you asking for an answer from me or the OP? I told you my answer: stars are twinkling lights in the night sky.
LeopoldBloom · M
@sree251 As I said in my other response, I don't "believe" in "science magic." I trust the peer review process which has provided a replicable and testable theory explaining what stars are. Saying they're "twinkling lights" is accurate, but not helpful. Why do they "twinkle?" What causes them to emit "light?" The only reason you're not answering those questions is because you really don't give a fuck. You're the one taking the magic out of them, not me.
My question to you (or anyone else who wants to respond) is what specific mechanism God used to create the universe. Of course, you can also say you don't care about that, either.
My question to you (or anyone else who wants to respond) is what specific mechanism God used to create the universe. Of course, you can also say you don't care about that, either.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@LeopoldBloom
Your perception of stars is based on your acceptance of what scientists say. They claim that stars are giant balls of luminous hot gases far, far away. I prefer to see stars as twinkling lights in the night sky. Why do I need to explain them away with wild guesses just so they fit in a universe of our own making. What do you mean by testable theory? Why even bother if we claim that they are so far away that it takes years and years for their light to reach us? Don't we have more important matters at hand?
What you perceive as the universe has no cause. It just is. It's nature is inexplicable and not what scientists have cooked up. You can't foist their bullshit on others who reject that crap and demand they give you an explanation on how it all came to be. It's like demanding an explanation on who killed cock robin. The universe is a magical fairy tale. If you can't take it as face value, then you explain it to yourself, put it in a science book to mess up kids' minds the way yours has been messed up.
As I said in my other response, I don't "believe" in "science magic." I trust the peer review process which has provided a replicable and testable theory explaining what stars are. Saying they're "twinkling lights" is accurate, but not helpful. Why do they "twinkle?" What causes them to emit "light?" The only reason you're not answering those questions is because you really don't give a fuck. You're the one taking the magic out of them, not me.
Your perception of stars is based on your acceptance of what scientists say. They claim that stars are giant balls of luminous hot gases far, far away. I prefer to see stars as twinkling lights in the night sky. Why do I need to explain them away with wild guesses just so they fit in a universe of our own making. What do you mean by testable theory? Why even bother if we claim that they are so far away that it takes years and years for their light to reach us? Don't we have more important matters at hand?
My question to you (or anyone else who wants to respond) is what specific mechanism God used to create the universe. Of course, you can also say you don't care about that, either.
What you perceive as the universe has no cause. It just is. It's nature is inexplicable and not what scientists have cooked up. You can't foist their bullshit on others who reject that crap and demand they give you an explanation on how it all came to be. It's like demanding an explanation on who killed cock robin. The universe is a magical fairy tale. If you can't take it as face value, then you explain it to yourself, put it in a science book to mess up kids' minds the way yours has been messed up.
SomeMichGuy · M
sree251 · 41-45, M
The sun spins? The Earth spins also? I don't feel any spin. Everything is still when the wind ain't blowin'.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@LadyGrace
I was not comparing myself to the Jesus of your belief. I was comparing you to the High Priest's sense on authority on Jewish scripture. He was the doctor of the law who couldn't get to heaven and blocking others from going there.
The Christian Bible is a Jewish scripture book containing the story of Jesus. My authority is not even on the story of Jesus but on the teaching ascribed to the person of Jesus. Debate me on that teaching. Try it. It would do us both good. "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20)
Does that mean Jesus, the Son of God, will be in our midst? Christians, like you, would say yes.
I am not a theist; nor am I an atheist. So, what is the meaning of that verse (Matthew 18:20)?
don't compare yourself to Jesus.
I was not comparing myself to the Jesus of your belief. I was comparing you to the High Priest's sense on authority on Jewish scripture. He was the doctor of the law who couldn't get to heaven and blocking others from going there.
Don't boast when you clearly know nothing about scripture. You don't know how to debate. You can't, because you have no knowledge of the Bible and twist it, that is clear. Just because people know their Bible doesn't mean they regard themselves highly as an authority. You're just upset because you've been called out and exposed for the false teacher you are. If anybody boasts of authority it's you, yet nothing you say matches with the Bible and that's what counts.
The Christian Bible is a Jewish scripture book containing the story of Jesus. My authority is not even on the story of Jesus but on the teaching ascribed to the person of Jesus. Debate me on that teaching. Try it. It would do us both good. "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20)
Does that mean Jesus, the Son of God, will be in our midst? Christians, like you, would say yes.
I am not a theist; nor am I an atheist. So, what is the meaning of that verse (Matthew 18:20)?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@LadyGrace
I am not a Christian. I am a lapsed Catholic. I know enough of the Bible. I studied Catholic theology when I trained for the Jesuit priesthood and dropped out.
You berate yourself. Truth hurts and you have no answer you're a good excuse for it. You cannot call yourself a Christian if you don't even know your Bible.
I am not a Christian. I am a lapsed Catholic. I know enough of the Bible. I studied Catholic theology when I trained for the Jesuit priesthood and dropped out.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
redredred · M
@GodSpeed63 There’s a tremendous amount of hard scientific evidence for evolution. All of genetic evidence supports it. Endogenous retroviruses show conclusively that Humans and Chimpanzees had a common ancestor species that was neither human nor chimp.
When’s the last time you actually studied modern genetics? It’s been fleshed out a bit since Mendel and Darwin.
When’s the last time you actually studied modern genetics? It’s been fleshed out a bit since Mendel and Darwin.
LeopoldBloom · M
@GodSpeed63 What does star formation have to do with evolution?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63
Would you like some evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
How much would you like?
You even get to once again ignore it.
You also get to once again run away from it.
Shall I begin?
no evidence for evolution
Would you like some evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
How much would you like?
You even get to once again ignore it.
You also get to once again run away from it.
Shall I begin?
BlueSkyKing · M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F