Formation of Stars

Talon1977

This is an honest question and I'm looking for an honest answer. If you don't know the answer, that's fine. I'll accept "I have no idea." This is not an attempt at trolling.

I ran across this today, and wanted to know if anyone here could dispute this point...

Stars are made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium gas; these are the two lightest and most common elements. The combined mass from all this gas gives the star a gravitational field much stronger than earth's. This gravity prevents the gas from dispersing into space.

... astronomers believe that stars form spontaneously from the collapse of a nebula. A nebula is an enormous “cloud” of extremely low-density hydrogen and helium gas. If there were a way to compress such gas, then its own gravity would keep it together—a star would form. However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because gas has a tendency to expand, not contract. In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed, it would drastically increase its pressure, magnetic field, and rotation speed. All of these factors would strongly resist any further compression. The compression of a nebula would be stopped long before any star could form.

Therefore, many creation scientists are convinced that stars cannot form spontaneously under normal circumstances. And despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a star forming. Star formation seems to be nothing more than a secular attempt to explain the universe without invoking God.

Zombrex

If there were a way to compress such gas, then its own gravity would keep it together—a star would form. However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because gas has a tendency to expand, not contract. In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed

That bit is nonsense. If it wasn't the Earth's atmosphere would "expand" out into space and we would have nothing to breath.

I stopped reading after it because who ever wrote this clearly doesn't understand the subject he is commenting on. Hope that answers your question

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

This is an honest question and I'm looking for an honest answer. If you don't know the answer, that's fine. I'll accept "I have no idea." This is not an attempt at trolling.

Then why post here in A&A?, why not try ...

Astronomy Forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=267

or the Physics and Chemistry forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=391

That's if you are really looking for an answer to that question rather than trolling?

Dades

I was right with this up until here:

Star formation seems to be nothing more than a secular attempt to explain the universe without invoking God.

It's also an attempt to explain the universe without invoking hob-goblins.

I don't understand cosmology but you can safely assume that theory is still being worked on by 'secular science' to address any contradictions - unlike creation scientists who already have something to fill that gap.

Talon1977

Because the text in question was from a creation science website and I wanted an explanation from someone with an opposing view.

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

Because the text in question was from a creation science website and I wanted an explanation from someone with an opposing view.

They're called 'scientists', 'astronomers' and 'physicists', go ask them ... I provided links.

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

Because the text in question was from a creation science website and I wanted an explanation from someone with an opposing view.

I can tell you right now that that piece of text you posted is nonsense. The gravitational effects out way the internal pressure of a star or planet, which is why you have gas giants such as Jupiter form (and why the Earth's atmosphere clings to the Earth despite the Earth spinning around so quickly)

Who ever wrote that piece or what ever web site you got that from, are idiots pretending to know more about something than they do.

If you want a detailed explanation of the process (I'm not sure you are actually that interested in how stars form, are you?) then try the other science forums. But I would suggest not bring that website along to them, they will probably just laugh at you.

Its a safe bet, just as a general rule, that anything you read from Creation "Science" websites is nonsense.

robindch

Culled from the website set up by our old friend, diploma-mill Dr. Ken Ham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/stars-of-heaven-confirm

Ken Ham wrote:

And despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a star forming.

If Ken or Jason spent less time examining their bulging bank accounts, and a bit more time looking through a telescope, or even googling for a few moments -- there's plenty of information out there -- they'd be able to find plenty of pictures of stars forming. Try it yourself, it's not difficult.

BTW, take a look at the AiG "Statement of Faith", especially the last item, and tell me if you think that these guys are likely to have an open mind when it comes to evidence which they don't like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Fallen Seraph

The problem here is that it is, indeed, nonsense.

It's all going fine up until this point:

However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because gas has a tendency to expand, not contract. In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed, it would drastically increase its pressure, magnetic field, and rotation speed. All of these factors would strongly resist any further compression. The compression of a nebula would be stopped long before any star could form.

Now at this point the statements needs to be justified. For it to be a valid point one needs to show that the increase in outward factors outweighs the gravity. Which I'm *reasonably* sure that I could show to be bunk (in classical mechanics).

In fact, the bold part is a hint as to why stars aren't infinately small point masses: in a star the inward force from gravity is balanced with the outward force from thermal pressure and is thusly in equilibrium.

5uspect

And I thought creation scientists thought stars and galaxies were just clouds of dust?

Here is a link to a review paper of star formation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ARA&A..25...23S

Fallen Seraph

After further thought I can quickly show that in order to accept that their ideas about star formation are correct, one must also assume that god didn't merely create stars, but that he also keeps them from exploding on an ongoing basis (and is, perhaps, therefore a fifth, undetected fundamental force of nature)

Their assumptions of non-imploding nebulae basically state that the gravity is in equilibrium with all the other forces at the density of the nebula.
It also states that the outward forces are proportional (by some increasing function) to the density.

Seeing as how stars are much more dense than nebulae this means that the force of gravity cannot possibly be holding them together. And so we must propose a new, additional force.

Of course this new force could be some unexpected effect of one of the four fundamental forces which we've not ever noticed before. But, I'm gonna make a wild assumpition here, I reckon that whoever argued that stars can't form isn't going to be forthcoming with reasonable suggestions about that...

So basically: if god created stars, then he's holding them together with undetectable glue.

JC 2K3

Even if that piece were credible, how does one unexplainable aspect of the universe mean that the Bible is true?

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

The problem here is that it is, indeed, nonsense.

It's all going fine up until this point:

However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because gas has a tendency to expand, not contract. In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed, it would drastically increase its pressure, magnetic field, and rotation speed. All of these factors would strongly resist any further compression. The compression of a nebula would be stopped long before any star could form.

Now at this point the statements needs to be justified. For it to be a valid point one needs to show that the increase in outward factors outweighs the gravity. Which I'm *reasonably* sure that I could show to be bunk (in classical mechanics).

In fact, the bold part is a hint as to why stars aren't infinately small point masses: in a star the inward force from gravity is balanced with the outward force from thermal pressure and is thusly in equilibrium.

Except in certain circumstances, of course, where it collapses in on itself to form a black hole.

Yes, the claim that "gas has a tendency to expand, not contract" is the giveaway - an appeal to a 'commonsense everyday explanation' which doesn't apply at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Canis Lupus

Therefore, many creation scientists are convinced that stars cannot form spontaneously under normal circumstances. And despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a star forming

Can't say I've seen much of this god chap either....

Son Goku

Unless they stumbled on to this by complete accident, the creationists are being very clever on this one. This is not an objection you can easily show to be false, in fact it is exceedingly difficult and a major problem in stellar mechanics.

A similar objection was thrown up in the 1950s as an argument that black holes could not form. In that case it is even more difficult to show it is false.

The only thing I can say to the OP is that the same argument leads to the conclusion that black holes don't exist, which is false since we observe them.

Gegerty

gas has a tendency to expand, not contract

Lets simplify this, think about steam from a kettle. It expands and contracts. Now think bigger and with star dust.

Therefore, many creation scientists are convinced that stars cannot form spontaneously under normal circumstances. And despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a star forming. Star formation seems to be nothing more than a secular attempt to explain the universe without invoking God.

We've never seen a star form, therefore god created them. Not getting the logic here at all!

Fanny Cradock

As a Christian, I would be VERY wary of this type of theory. I find it very foolish for those Christians who perceive science as a threat to set themselves against it. Why? There is more than enough wonder in the universe to further convince myself that there is a God without the need to believe that he manipulates every atom. In general this 'God of the Gaps' approach is potentially just setting yourself up for a fall.

2Scoops

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would be VERY wary of this type of theory. ... this 'God of the Gaps' approach is potentially just setting yourself up for a fall.

Yes, much easier to wrap yourself in wishy-washy statements that cannot be proved or disproved. That way, your Christian beliefs never have to face a challenge. Pretty neat.

Fanny Cradock

There doesn't have to be a challenge from science. Indeed, Christians who are also scientists wouldn't believe faith and science to be mutually exclusive.

Talon1977

Son Goku wrote: »

Unless they stumbled on to this by complete accident, the creationists are being very clever on this one. This is not an objection you can easily show to be false, in fact it is exceedingly difficult and a major problem in stellar mechanics.

A similar objection was thrown up in the 1950s as an argument that black holes could not form. In that case it is even more difficult to show it is false.

The only thing I can say to the OP is that the same argument leads to the conclusion that black holes don't exist, which is false since we observe them.

Wait.. are you saying this argument might hold water?? Honestly, I'm very hesitant to put much stock in this source. But you make it sound like it might be right. The bit about black holes... The same argument leads to the conclusion that black holes couldn't exist ....WITHOUT BEING CREATED, which fits within the framework of biblical creation.

2Scoops

Talon1977 wrote: »

Wait.. are you saying this argument might hold water??

I think he meant that black holes, by their very existence, demonstrate that the argument does not hold water.

Talon1977 wrote: »

WITHOUT BEING CREATED, which fits within the framework of biblical creation.

You added the 'without being created' bit all by yourself.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There doesn't have to be a challenge from science. Indeed, Christians who are also scientists wouldn't believe faith and science to be mutually exclusive.

A Universe in which miracles are possible, in which some all powerful entity can massively alter the laws of physics, chemistry and biology at will in order to influence events in the development of some members of one branch of African Apes who live on one tiny planet which orbits an unspectacular star which is in an uninteresting area of our Galaxy, which is an uninteresting Galaxy in a massive sea of Galaxies is a very different Universe to the one that science describes. Religion and Science are very much mutually exclusive.

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

Wait.. are you saying this argument might hold water??

The creationist argument doesn't hold water at all.

The point at which a gas cloud will collapse in on itself due to gravitational effects is knowns as the Jean's Instability (Son correct me if I'm wrong), and this has been understood and modeled since the first half of last century.

Son's point, if I understand it correctly, is that Creationists have looked around and found an area of science that scientists are still having difficulty developing an iron clasp theory around, and jumped on that with their silly nonsense that if we don't understand it then it must have been God.

What, as far as I know, science still doesn't quite understand is how gravitation alone can heat the center of a star to 15 million kelvin causing nuclear fusion to begin, or how this can cause the creation of black holes.

But the creationist argument that gravitational collapse is impossible because the pressure of the gas out ways any gravitational effect has been demonstrated incorrect.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The same argument leads to the conclusion that black holes couldn't exist ....WITHOUT BEING CREATED, which fits within the framework of biblical creation.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it was created by some random sky god for some unknown purpose. Science stopped thinking like that 500 years ago.

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it was created by some random sky god for some unknown purpose. Science stopped thinking like that 500 years ago.

Wait, are you saying that God doesn't put the figs in fig rolls?

sdep

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As a Christian, I would be VERY wary of this type of theory. I find it very foolish for those Christians who perceive science as a threat to set themselves against it. Why? There is more than enough wonder in the universe to further convince myself that there is a God without the need to believe that he manipulates every atom. In general this 'God of the Gaps' approach is potentially just setting yourself up for a fall.

Indeed, written as scientists unveil another transitionary fossil whale ancestor, leaving any god-of-the-gaps just a bit less leg-room.
(Story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm)

More savvy churches got out of this game some time ago, hence e.g. AB of C Rowan Williams' dismissal of creationism as a 'category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories'.

Son Goku

Talon1977 wrote: »

Wait.. are you saying this argument might hold water?? Honestly, I'm very hesitant to put much stock in this source. But you make it sound like it might be right.

It's not correct at all.

A bit more detail is needed:
It'll be easier if I use Wicknight's post.

Wicknight wrote:

The point at which a gas cloud will collapse in on itself due to gravitational effects is knowns as the Jean's Instability (Son correct me if I'm wrong), and this has been understood and modeled since the first half of last century.

Jean's Instability gives a good basic idea of what is going on, however it makes a few assumptions that people weren't happy with.

Son's point, if I understand it correctly, is that Creationists have looked around and found an area of science that scientists are still having difficulty developing an iron clasp theory around, and jumped on that with their silly nonsense that if we don't understand it then it must have been God.

An iron clasp theory of stellar collapse was only properly formulated in the 1980s to 1990s. However it's quite a complicated theory (it's also a theory with no name) and hence what is wrong with the creationist explanation is very difficult to verbalise.
Similarly an the iron clasp theory of black hole collapse is complicated and difficult to explain.

What I suspect, if they haven't found it by complete accident, is that Creationists will start switching to attacking phenomena for which there is no non-technical refutation of their nonsense.

Basically OP, they are wrong, however it takes a course in Stellar mechanics to show why they are wrong.

(They're also wrong because we've witnessed Stellar birth with the AKARI satellite in a way that matches the above theory.)