| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2007 11:39:10 AM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Fast Binaries
In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced
pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary
partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to
support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a
binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits
Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they
orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods
of time.
Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11
minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a).
By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000
miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).
The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper)
different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and
color. Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type
to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and
many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a
star's volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times
that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the
size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).
Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and
still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not
evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely
would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has
them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars
evolve at all.
a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, "The Shortest Period Binary Star?"
Nature, Vol. 323, 4 September 1986, p. 105.
Dietrick E. Thomsen, "A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star," Science
News, Vol. 130, 11 October 1986, p. 231.
"Ultrafast Binary Star," Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p. 154.
b. Jonathan Eberhart, "Now You See It, Now You Don't," Science News,
Vol. 135, 7 January 1989, p. 13.
Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape
Press, 1988), p. 176.
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
23 Aug 2007 10:57:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:39:10 -0700, Pahu wrote:
Fast Binaries
In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced
pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary
partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to
support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a
binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits
Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they
orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods
of time.
Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11
minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a).
By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000
miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).
The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper)
different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and
color. Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type
to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and
many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a
star's volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times
that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the
size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).
Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and
still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not
evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely
would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has
them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars
evolve at all.
a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, "The Shortest Period Binary Star?"
Nature, Vol. 323, 4 September 1986, p. 105.
Dietrick E. Thomsen, "A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star," Science
News, Vol. 130, 11 October 1986, p. 231.
"Ultrafast Binary Star," Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p. 154.
b. Jonathan Eberhart, "Now You See It, Now You Don't," Science News,
Vol. 135, 7 January 1989, p. 13.
Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape
Press, 1988), p. 176.
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
I'm sorry, but I missed the part where "science disproves evolution."
Would you be kind enough to re-post that part? TIA.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
23 Aug 2007 04:04:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:39:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , Pahu
<pahu70@yahoo.com> in
<1187887150.502624.118030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper)
different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and
color.
What do you suppose that "(on paper)" is about? Are you pointing out
that he did not arrange actual stars? Or are you criticizing the
theory for not using a computer?
[snip]
BTW, do you have an answer to your questions other than "God did it"?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
23 Aug 2007 12:43:11 PM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> said:
Fast Binaries
In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced
pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary
partner.
It is not "fortunate".
If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to
support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a
binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits
Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they
orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods
of time.
The period of orbit is also related to their masses.
Such things can be tested at:
http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/orbits/orbits.swf
The math at this site is of course not completely accurate, over time,
since it must perforce round off results.
Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11
minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a).
By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000
miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).
The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper)
different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and
color. Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type
to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and
many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a
star's volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times
that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the
size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).
Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and
still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not
evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely
would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has
them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars
evolve at all.
Play around a bit with the "four star ballet" at the above site and
you can get a binary final state, eg, give body 1 and body2 zero mass
and you get a binary immediately.
a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, "The Shortest Period Binary Star?"
Nature, Vol. 323, 4 September 1986, p. 105.
Dietrick E. Thomsen, "A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star," Science
News, Vol. 130, 11 October 1986, p. 231.
"Ultrafast Binary Star," Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p. 154.
b. Jonathan Eberhart, "Now You See It, Now You Don't," Science News,
Vol. 135, 7 January 1989, p. 13.
Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape
Press, 1988), p. 176.
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
23 Aug 2007 04:29:39 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> said:
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> said:
Fast Binaries
In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced
pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary
partner.
It is not "fortunate".
If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to
support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a
binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits
Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they
orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods
of time.
The period of orbit is also related to their masses.
Such things can be tested at:
http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/orbits/orbits.swf
P.S a fairly stable binary star and planet is one of the options
there.
The math at this site is of course not completely accurate, over time,
since it must perforce round off results.
Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11
minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a).
By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000
miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).
The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper)
different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and
color. Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type
to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and
many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a
star's volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times
that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the
size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).
Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and
still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not
evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely
would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has
them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars
evolve at all.
Play around a bit with the "four star ballet" at the above site and
you can get a binary final state, eg, give body 1 and body2 zero mass
and you get a binary immediately.
a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, "The Shortest Period Binary Star?"
Nature, Vol. 323, 4 September 1986, p. 105.
Dietrick E. Thomsen, "A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star," Science
News, Vol. 130, 11 October 1986, p. 231.
"Ultrafast Binary Star," Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p. 154.
b. Jonathan Eberhart, "Now You See It, Now You Don't," Science News,
Vol. 135, 7 January 1989, p. 13.
Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape
Press, 1988), p. 176.
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
