Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Science Friday Week: Exoplanets

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science Friday Week: Exoplanets

    RSF Week: Exoplanets

    This is the show from Thursday March 17th, 2011.

    SUMMARY:



    * Conventional Theory of Planet Formation Getting Hit Hard: The Answers magazine article on Exoplanets - Unpredictable Patterns is discussed on this Real Science Friday show by hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart:
    - According to planetary evolution theory, a gas giant couldn't form close to its star but now such stars, called Hot Jupiters, are being readily found
    - Because our solar system has planets that have nearly circular orbits evolutionists imagined that such systems form from rotating gas clouds which theoretically condense to produce planets with nearly circular orbits, except that many of the exoplanets have highly eccentric orbits
    - While our own Venus has a retrograde (backward) rotation, for which evolutionists have to resort to catastrophism to explain (as with so many of the features of the solar system), one exoplanet discovered so far is believed to be orbiting backwards. Now, try to simulate that without violating the conservation of angular momentum!
    - Bob, Fred, and Isaac Newton all reject the claim that our solar system formed from a condensing spinning gas cloud. And while Isaac's insights (he did, after all, first describe universal gravitation, explain color, invent calculus, and defend the supreme historical accuracy of Scripture) convinced Newton that a condensing gas cloud could not account for our planetary system. Now with the advantage of modern technology and recent scientific observations, Bob and Fred add to Isaac's insight that while the Sun should have the vast majority of the angular momentum of our solar system, all that rotational energy is actually in the wrong place, it's in the planets!

    * Shock and Awe: As with the discovery of hot Jupiters and the sequencing of the chimp's Y chromosome, a thousand times over, naturalistic scientists are shocked by what they find, which repeating pattern, of discovery and shock, discovery and shock, discovery and shock, should enable an open-minded evolutionist to be willing to re-evaluate his strictly materialistic assumptions. "Rejection of a Creator is not a conclusion from science, but a bias brought to science," said Bob Enyart.

    * Cosmological Principle
    : Big Bang cosmologists, not by evidence but by faith, claim that there is no center to the universe and no edges to the universe. However, secular scientists have discovered a quantized redshift to galaxies that indicates from earth a pattern in the distance to the galaxies of the universe, which are located in concentric spheres out from the Earth, rather than being randomly located.

    * Anthropic Principles: Big Bang cosmologists claim that there is no problem with the many exquisitely and extraordinarily fine-tuned physical parameters of the universe such as the gravitational force constant, the electromagnetic force constant, the ratios of the numbers and mass of electrons to protons. Why is there no problem with the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios, including for example the 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ratio of the essential electron to proton mass ratio? Because the anthropic principle claims that if all the many perfectly tuned ratios and constants of the universe weren't just that way, well then, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. This is an example of the common "just-so" story telling and circular reasoning in pop science Big Bang and Darwinist circles today.

    * The Big Clang
    : Hundreds of scientists, including many at world-class institutions, have publicly signed the Cosmology Statement as published in New Scientist to show the growing dissent in scientific circles regarding the increasingly awkward and superficially propped-up theory of the Big Bang.

    Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Friday broadcasts! So have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grandkids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine and Ken Ham's Answers magazine!  Or to order by phone just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

    * Special Editions of Real Science Friday:
    - BEL's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
    - Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
    - PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Friday so we hit back with the PZ Trochlea Challenge
    - Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Science mag cover: Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
    - Microbiologist in Studio: Creation Research Society Quarterly editor on new genetic findings
    - Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
    - And see the RSF Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 paid in 1998; $1,500 in 2010...
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Formation of the earth

    Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
    Bob, Fred, and Isaac Newton all reject the claim that our solar system formed from a condensing spinning gas cloud. And while Isaac's insights (he did, after all, first describe universal gravitation, explain color, invent calculus, and defend the supreme historical accuracy of Scripture) convinced Newton that a condensing gas cloud could not account for our planetary system.
    But what Bob and Fred don’t tell you is that Lord Kelvin, living long after Isaac Newton, had access to all of the math, physics, astronomy, and other sciences that Isaac did, plus a whole lot more. And using that broader scientific base, he computed the age of the earth as millions of years old specifically on the basis of an earth that condensed out of a cloud. So on the question of whether the earth was formed from a primordial cloud, who should we side with? Our choices are:

    1) Isaac Newton, with his nascent understanding of astrophysics and calculus (along with a Denver pastor who has a nebulous understanding of science and his software buddy).

    2) Lord Kelvin (along with the majority of the modern astrophysics community for the past century).

    The sad part is that this information about Lord Kelvin has been presented here at TOL repeatedly, and never refuted. But Lord Kelvin’s ideas about how the earth formed, and how old it is, are not what Enyart and cohorts want to hear, so they plug their ears and sing “la la la” whenever someone brings up Kelvin’s points on this. The intentionally blind pastor leading his willing blind followers.
    ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

    And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

    Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
      But what Bob and Fred don’t tell you is that Lord Kelvin, living long after Isaac Newton, had access to all of the math, physics, astronomy, and other sciences that Isaac did, plus a whole lot more. And using that broader scientific base, he computed the age of the earth as millions of years old specifically on the basis of an earth that condensed out of a cloud. So on the question of whether the earth was formed from a primordial cloud, who should we side with? Our choices are:

      1) Isaac Newton, with his nascent understanding of astrophysics and calculus (along with a Denver pastor who has a nebulous understanding of science and his software buddy).

      2) Lord Kelvin (along with the majority of the modern astrophysics community for the past century).

      The sad part is that this information about Lord Kelvin has been presented here at TOL repeatedly, and never refuted. But Lord Kelvin’s ideas about how the earth formed, and how old it is, are not what Enyart and cohorts want to hear, so they plug their ears and sing “la la la” whenever someone brings up Kelvin’s points on this. The intentionally blind pastor leading his willing blind followers.

      Comment


      • #4
        Angular Momentum of the sun

        Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
        Now with the advantage of modern technology and recent scientific observations, Bob and Fred add to Isaac's insight that while the Sun should have the vast majority of the angular momentum of our solar system, all that rotational energy is actually in the wrong place, it's in the planets!
        I am not sure if Newton ever addressed the issue of the sun’s angular momentum. But that Abbott and Costello of Science (aka Bob and Fred) have managed for several years at least to keep themselves ignorant of the facts here. Here is an on-line technical rebuttal to Bob and Fred (using a bit of simple calculus). The page is from a Professor of Physics at the University of Texas. (And kudos to Flipper for finding it).
        ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

        And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

        Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
          Here is an on-line technical rebuttal to Bob and Fred (using a bit of simple calculus).
          Thanks for finding that. I often learn something when creationists speak, because it makes me go find what the real science is behind some phenomena that I didn't know about before. I know way more about radiometric dating, biological evolution, nuclear physics, and astrophysics than I would have otherwise.

          Now, I would expect no less of an honest host, than a retraction on the next show.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
            Our choices are:
            1) Isaac Newton, with his nascent understanding of astrophysics and calculus (along with a Denver pastor who has a nebulous understanding of science and his software buddy).
            2) Lord Kelvin (along with the majority of the modern astrophysics community for the past century).
            Or we could ignore the appeals to authority and consider the evidence.

            Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
            Uh .. that might be half a response.

            Does this settle once and for all that light definitely has mass?
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              Or we could ignore the appeals to authority and consider the evidence.
              Appeals to authority? Let’s see, from the OP: “(Isaac Newton) did, after all, first describe universal gravitation, explain color, invent calculus, and defend the supreme historical accuracy of Scripture”

              As far as the evidence goes, I agree. Show what Newton based his ideas on, and I will show you what Kelvin based his on.
              Uh .. that might be half a response.
              What is missing from it?
              Does this settle once and for all that light definitely has mass?
              Thanks for demonstrating that you haven’t a clue what the article was actually saying.
              ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

              And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

              Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                Thanks for finding that.
                Thanks go to Flipper who posted that info in a thread last year.
                Now, I would expect no less of an honest host, than a retraction on the next show.
                Since most of the time Bob and Fred are just parroting what they find in creationist journals, I doubt you will see any retraction. If they retract their claims, that puts them at odds with some of the bigwigs in the creationist world. Us being ignored is a bit more likely.

                Probably the best we can do here is watch to see if they dust off and try these stale arguments again in a year or so. If they do, make it clear they are both technically wrong and morally dishonest for not abandoning the arguments.
                ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

                And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

                Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
                  The question was - if solar radiation is reducing the sun's angular momentum, then the radiation must have mass, right?
                  Oh, protons & electrons. Forget it.
                  Last edited by Stripe; March 21, 2011, 12:41 AM.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X