The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

For example, the shock wave from an exploding supernova.

The shock wave from an exploding star likely helped trigger the formation of our solar system, according to a new 3D computer model, researchers say.

The solar system is thought to have coalesced from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. For decades, scientists have suspected a star explosion called a supernova helped trigger our solar system's formation. In particular, the shock wave from the explosion is thought to have compressed parts of the nebula, causing these regions to collapse.

According to this theory, the shock wave would have injected material from the exploding star into the solar nebula. Scientists have previously detected potential evidence of this pollution in meteorites. These contaminants are remnants of short-lived radioactive isotopes — versions of elements with the same number of protons as their more stable cousins, but with a different number of neutrons.

Short-lived radioactive elements decay over the course of millions of years, becoming a variety of "daughter" elements at known rates. ("Short-lived" is a relative term — other radioactive isotopes that scientists analyzing meteorites study may decay on timescales of billions of years.)

However, analysis of the short-lived radioactive isotopes and their daughter elements seen in primitive meteorites raised a challenge to the supernova theory of the solar system's formation. The evidence suggested the short-lived radioactive isotopes had to have formed in the supernova, made their way into the solar nebula and been trapped within the meteorites all in less than a million years. [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

To see if a supernova could explain this pattern of isotopes seen in primitive meteorites, scientists developed computer models of supernova shock waves and solar system formation.

"The evidence leads us to believe that a supernova was indeed the culprit," said study lead author Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.
https://www.space.com/16943-supernova-e ... ation.html

There had to be stars for there to be supernovas and where are all of the supernova remnants?

We don't even know how the universe started. But telling stories that can't be substantiated is not something science should be doing.
1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?
Stars must be hotter than the environment around them.
2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?
That would require some amount of anisotropy following the expansion. Turns out there was:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyst ... probe.html

You just said that we do not even know how the universe was started. So how can we know anything about anisotropy in the early universe?

Lack of evidence, to begin with.

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted Big Bang model.[4] Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology should not be confused with the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Electric Universe, which, for example, states that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
The articles I cited were not from any creationist. Although the one article did have some of Walt Brown's diagrams in it. My guess is that this z-pinch theory will catch on because it gets rid of so many problems in star formation and nucleosynthesis.
"Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."

I can wait, it will come back. Current theory has some serious flaws.

The 30 Doradus Nebula is in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way located 170,000 light-years from Earth. Nebulas like 30 Doradus are signposts of recent star birth. High-energy ultraviolet radiation from young, hot, massive stars in R136 causes surrounding gaseous material to glow. Previous Hubble telescope observations showed that R136 contains several dozen of the most massive stars known, each about 100 times the mass of the Sun and about 10 times as hot. These stellar behemoths formed about 2 million years ago.

yes they do see stars.

The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region

It is impossible to see this.

Since we see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image captures one of three segments that comprise a 65-light-year wide star-forming region named the Chamaeleon Cloud Complex. The segment in this Hubble composite image, called Chamaeleon Cloud I (Cha I), reveals dusty-dark clouds where stars are forming, dazzling reflection nebulae glowing by the light of bright-blue young stars, and radiant knots called Herbig-Haro objects.

Herbig-Haro objects are bright clumps and arcs of interstellar gas shocked and energized by jets expelled from infant “protostars” in the process of forming. The white-orange cloud at the bottom of the image hosts one of these protostars at its center. Its brilliant white jets of hot gas are ejected in narrow torrents from the protostar’s poles, creating the Herbig-Haro object HH 909A.

Could be a new star being formed?
Or it could be a mature star with material falling into it.
Or it could be just a bunch of hot gas. Which is what we see.

Maybe they aren't smart enough to know they can't form, and go ahead and form anyway.

No, the theory has fatal flaws.

Creationism: "God mustadunnit." Science observes it going on by known physical laws.

Again it is actually secular physics that breaks the laws of physics.

[JoeyKnothead]

Again it is actually secular physics that breaks the laws of physics.

Secular physics flies us to the moon...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1011]

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

There is more than one star within telescope range, and we can see them at all stages of formation. We don't need to follow one star from birth to death to understand what is happening.

Again it is actually secular physics that breaks the laws of physics.

Physics is physics ... there is no version called "secular physics" that anyone recognizes as different. Physics doesn't break its own laws, but also isn't "done" as far as understanding nature. There is a lot of stuff we don't understand yet, and hypotheses are constantly being offered, tested, revised, discarded, etc. Defaulting to god magic for explanations does not advance the process.

[The Barbarian]

For example, the shock wave from an exploding supernova.

The shock wave from an exploding star likely helped trigger the formation of our solar system, according to a new 3D computer model, researchers say.

The solar system is thought to have coalesced from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. For decades, scientists have suspected a star explosion called a supernova helped trigger our solar system's formation. In particular, the shock wave from the explosion is thought to have compressed parts of the nebula, causing these regions to collapse.

According to this theory, the shock wave would have injected material from the exploding star into the solar nebula. Scientists have previously detected potential evidence of this pollution in meteorites. These contaminants are remnants of short-lived radioactive isotopes — versions of elements with the same number of protons as their more stable cousins, but with a different number of neutrons.

Short-lived radioactive elements decay over the course of millions of years, becoming a variety of "daughter" elements at known rates. ("Short-lived" is a relative term — other radioactive isotopes that scientists analyzing meteorites study may decay on timescales of billions of years.)

However, analysis of the short-lived radioactive isotopes and their daughter elements seen in primitive meteorites raised a challenge to the supernova theory of the solar system's formation. The evidence suggested the short-lived radioactive isotopes had to have formed in the supernova, made their way into the solar nebula and been trapped within the meteorites all in less than a million years. [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

To see if a supernova could explain this pattern of isotopes seen in primitive meteorites, scientists developed computer models of supernova shock waves and solar system formation.

"The evidence leads us to believe that a supernova was indeed the culprit," said study lead author Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.
https://www.space.com/16943-supernova-e ... ation.html

There had to be stars for there to be supernovas and where are all of the supernova remnants?

Supernova remnants found in most detailed radio image of Milky Way yet
Our galaxy should be full of traces of dead stars. Until now, we have found surprisingly few of these supernova remnants, but a new telescope collaboration is changing that.
https://astronomy.com/news/2023/01/supe ... -milky-way

Astrophysicists D.H. Clark and J.L. Caswell had this figured out back in the 1970s:
It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E0/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.
https://tinyurl.com/ykkzsjkb

As you see, subsequent observation confirms their predictions.

We don't even know how the universe started. But telling stories that can't be substantiated is not something science should be doing.

1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?

Stars must be hotter than the environment around them.

2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?

That would require some amount of anisotropy following the expansion. Turns out there was:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyst ... probe.html[/quote]

You just said that we do not even know how the universe was started.

Yep. We can only see what happened shortly thereafter.

So how can we know anything about anisotropy in the early universe?

Mostly because the cooling background radiation from that time is still in evidence:
In 1992 the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite finally detected the anisotropy of the radiation—fingerprints left by tiny temperature fluctuations in the initial bang. Careful design of the COBE satellite, and a bit of luck, allowed the 30 μK fluctuations in the CMBR temperature (2.73 K) to be pulled out of instrument noise and spurious foreground emissions. Further advances in detector technology and experiment design are allowing current CMBR experiments to search for predicted features in the anisotropy power spectrum at angular scales of 1° and smaller. If they exist, these features were formed at an important epoch in the evolution of the universe—the decoupling of matter and radiation at a temperature of about 4,000 K and a time about 300,000 years after the bang. CMBR anisotropy measurements probe directly some detailed physics of the early universe. Also, parameters of the cosmological model can be measured because the anisotropy power spectrum depends on constituent densities and the horizon scale at a known cosmological epoch. As sophisticated experiments on the ground and on balloons pursue these measurements, two CMBR anisotropy satellite missions are being prepared for launch early in the next century.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.1.29

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted Big Bang model.[4] Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology should not be confused with the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Electric Universe, which, for example, states that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

The articles I cited were not from any creationist.

Doesn't matter. The concept is not accepted by scientists because there's little or no evidence to support it, not because some creationist signed on to it.

Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

I can wait, it will come back.

About as likely as phlogiston theory coming back. There are so many problems with the idea that there's no conceivable way that this time, that it could be rescued.


The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region

It is impossible to see this.

We see images of stars in all stages of formation. No point in denying the facts.

We see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

It takes hundreds or thousands of years for giant redwoods to grow from a seed. We cannot see that. But yet we know it happens because we see redwood trees in all stages of growth. The notion that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is so transparently false that I'm astonished anyone would even try to sell it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1013]

Physics is physics ... there is no version called "secular physics" that anyone recognizes as different. Physics doesn't break its own laws, but also isn't "done" as far as understanding nature. There is a lot of stuff we don't understand yet, and hypotheses are constantly being offered, tested, revised, discarded, etc. Defaulting to god magic for explanations does not advance the process.

All theories are built on assumptions. In cosmology, those assumptions are based on what you believe about origins. I guess, I could say materialist physics indicates the presupposition made with the assumptions. But the division is usually between creationists and secularists in cosmology.

There is more than one star within telescope range, and we can see them at all stages of formation. We don't need to follow one star from birth to death to understand what is happening.

Not really that is an assumption. It is nothing more than a still photo in a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. I do not have a problem with there being a process to form stars. In fact, I would expect it because man was originally created to live forever in this universe. So the size and scope of the universe reflect that. I do not even have a problem with the process taking hundreds of thousands of years to accomplish and that we see glimpses of those stars being formed.

The problem that I have is that the current process does not work. Charles law does not allow compression of the gases in space along with a magnetic field that a star has to have to form and yet cannot have to form. That means that a star has to have another star to form to compress the gas to make a star. The bottom line is that this process does not work.

I will get into more specifics in my response to Barbarian.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1015]

Charles law does not allow compression of the gases in space along with a magnetic field that a star has to have to form and yet cannot have to form. That means that a star has to have another star to form to compress the gas to make a star. The bottom line is that this process does not work.

Charles's Law only says that V = kT at constant pressure, with k a constant (V is volume, T is temperature). That's it. It doesn't consider any of the many other things going on in star formation that deviate wildly from a simple ideal gas scenario.

The number of stars that have been identified and cataloged is huge, and things like the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram help place them into categories. Pan-STARRS has organized data for over 3 billion celestial objects, and if you have a couple of spare petabytes on your hard drive you can download all of the data:

https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/PANSTARRS/

If that is too much then the NOMAD database has only about 1 billion stars worth of data:

https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/V ... urce=I/297

All of this effort is to learn more and more about how stars do actually form, progress, and die. It is a lot more useful in helping understand nature than simply claiming a god being created stars for the benefit of humans, and being happy with that (non)explanation.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1013]

Physics is physics ... there is no version called "secular physics" that anyone recognizes as different. Physics doesn't break its own laws, but also isn't "done" as far as understanding nature. There is a lot of stuff we don't understand yet, and hypotheses are constantly being offered, tested, revised, discarded, etc. Defaulting to god magic for explanations does not advance the process.

All theories are built on assumptions.

Hypotheses are built on inferences from existing evidence. Theories are built on evidence that confirms the predictions of hypotheses.

In cosmology, those assumptions are based on what you believe about origins.

I notice that cosmologists of all faiths, and even of no faith at all tend to have very similar conclusions about the physical origins of the universe. Which suggests that you are mistaken.

I guess, I could say materialist physics

All physics is materialist. It's the study of mass and energy, and how they interact. There is no "magic physics" or "Christian physics" or "Wiccan physics." If it's about supernatural things, it's not physics.

indicates the presupposition made with the assumptions. But the division is usually between creationists and secularists in cosmology.

Maybe so. A Christian cleric (Georges LeMaitre) first worked out how the Big Bang occurred and an atheist (Fred Hoyle) was its first and most vociferous critic. Not sure what you'd want to draw from those facts...

There is more than one star within telescope range, and we can see them at all stages of formation. We don't need to follow one star from birth to death to understand what is happening.

Not really that is an assumption. It is nothing more than a still photo in a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years.

Like still photos of trees growing, or people growing up, and so on. I suppose you could argue that from time to time they dug up one tree, and planted a similar, but larger one... or maybe Occam steps in and you should conclude that it is what the evidence indicates that it is.

The problem that I have is that the current process does not work. Charles law does not allow compression of the gases in space along with a magnetic field that a star has to have to form and yet cannot have to form.

Astrophysicsts think you're wrong. Because the mechanisms for star formation do permit them to do so.

That means that a star has to have another star to form to compress the gas to make a star.

Or a degree of anisotropy in the early universe, which has since been confirmed.

The bottom line is that this process does not work.

We observe it working.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1014]

For example, the shock wave from an exploding supernova.

The shock wave from an exploding star likely helped trigger the formation of our solar system, according to a new 3D computer model, researchers say.

The solar system is thought to have coalesced from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. For decades, scientists have suspected a star explosion called a supernova helped trigger our solar system's formation. In particular, the shock wave from the explosion is thought to have compressed parts of the nebula, causing these regions to collapse.

According to this theory, the shock wave would have injected material from the exploding star into the solar nebula. Scientists have previously detected potential evidence of this pollution in meteorites. These contaminants are remnants of short-lived radioactive isotopes — versions of elements with the same number of protons as their more stable cousins, but with a different number of neutrons.

Short-lived radioactive elements decay over the course of millions of years, becoming a variety of "daughter" elements at known rates. ("Short-lived" is a relative term — other radioactive isotopes that scientists analyzing meteorites study may decay on timescales of billions of years.)

However, analysis of the short-lived radioactive isotopes and their daughter elements seen in primitive meteorites raised a challenge to the supernova theory of the solar system's formation. The evidence suggested the short-lived radioactive isotopes had to have formed in the supernova, made their way into the solar nebula and been trapped within the meteorites all in less than a million years. [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

To see if a supernova could explain this pattern of isotopes seen in primitive meteorites, scientists developed computer models of supernova shock waves and solar system formation.

"The evidence leads us to believe that a supernova was indeed the culprit," said study lead author Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.
https://www.space.com/16943-supernova-e ... ation.html
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:36 pm

There had to be stars for there to be supernovas and where are all of the supernova remnants?
Supernova remnants found in most detailed radio image of Milky Way yet
Our galaxy should be full of traces of dead stars. Until now, we have found surprisingly few of these supernova remnants, but a new telescope collaboration is changing that.
https://astronomy.com/news/2023/01/supe ... -milky-way

Ok, raise your hand if you know what forms after a supernova explosion. Anyone? Yes, that is right a supernova can produce either a black hole or a neutron star. Our sun will nova at the end of its life so it will produce a white dwarf.

Ok, next question. How many black holes and neutron stars should we see if your theory is correct.

• Astronomers estimate that 100 million black holes roam among the stars in our Milky Way galaxy, but they have never conclusively identified an isolated black hole. Following six years of meticulous observations, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has, for the first time ever, provided direct evidence for a lone black hole drifting through interstellar space by a precise mass measurement of the phantom object. Until now, all black hole masses have been inferred statistically or through interactions in binary systems or in the cores of galaxies. Stellar-mass black holes are usually found with companion stars, making this one unusual.

• There are thought to be around one billion neutron stars in the Milky Way,[17] and at a minimum several hundred million, a figure obtained by estimating the number of stars that have undergone supernova explosions.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_s ... explosions.

How many are there?

• Astronomers have found less than 2,000 pulsars, yet there should be about a billion neutron stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. There are two reasons for this shortfall. One is age: most neutron stars are billions of years old, which means they have plenty of time to cool and spin down. Without much available energy to power emissions at various wavelengths, they have faded to near invisibility. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAS ... stars.html

2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?
That would require some amount of anisotropy following the expansion. Turns out there was:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyst ... probe.html

[/quote]

So let me guess. Inflation theory is going to have to change again. Because inflation theory predicts an isotropic universe. Along with its other problems
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... hallenges/

So your anisotropy theory might be true if inflation can be worked out. Maybe.

So how can we know anything about anisotropy in the early universe?


Mostly because the cooling background radiation from that time is still in evidence:
In 1992 the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite finally detected the anisotropy of the radiation—fingerprints left by tiny temperature fluctuations in the initial bang. Careful design of the COBE satellite, and a bit of luck, allowed the 30 μK fluctuations in the CMBR temperature (2.73 K) to be pulled out of instrument noise and spurious foreground emissions. Further advances in detector technology and experiment design are allowing current CMBR experiments to search for predicted features in the anisotropy power spectrum at angular scales of 1° and smaller. If they exist, these features were formed at an important epoch in the evolution of the universe—the decoupling of matter and radiation at a temperature of about 4,000 K and a time about 300,000 years after the bang. CMBR anisotropy measurements probe directly some detailed physics of the early universe. Also, parameters of the cosmological model can be measured because the anisotropy power spectrum depends on constituent densities and the horizon scale at a known cosmological epoch. As sophisticated experiments on the ground and on balloons pursue these measurements, two CMBR anisotropy satellite missions are being prepared for launch early in the next century.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.1.29

Inflation theory has many problems. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 18212b45e2

Or which inflation model are you talking about?

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology should not be confused with the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Electric Universe, which, for example, states that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

It was not rejected because they did not think it could not form stars but because of the implications of creationism. That and this would not produce the CMB but Humphreys is theorizing a different mechanism for the CMB.

• Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed [13][14] due to causality arguments and the rejection of ex nihilo models, such as the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism.[15][16] The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays, [17] X-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.[18]

About as likely as phlogiston theory coming back. There are so many problems with the idea that there's no conceivable way that this time, that it could be rescued.

Like what.

The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region

It is impossible to see this.

We see images of stars in all stages of formation. No point in denying the facts.

We see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.
It takes hundreds or thousands of years for giant redwoods to grow from a seed. We cannot see that. But yet we know it happens because we see redwood trees in all stages of growth. The notion that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is so transparently false that I'm astonished anyone would even try to sell it.

Really why. Your theory is based on theories that are mechanisms that are not possible.
In star formation.
1. Your theory cannot have magnetic fields to produce accretion because the magnetic fields push the accretion field apart.
2. Your theory needs magnetic fields to cause magnetic breaking to reduce angular momentum.
3. Your theory produces heat and increases the pressure of the gas which also causes the gas cloud to expand.
4. To overcome the magnetic fields and heat your theory theorizes that supernovas or other large stars produce compression.
5. There are not enough observed supernovas to explain all the stars but we are to have faith that they will be found.
6. The first stars are said to be produced by the early universe being anisotropic but if the early universe is anisotropic there cannot be cosmic inflation and then there is no such thing as the big bang in the first place.

As I said the mechanism is not possible.

Now on top of all of that, when did this explosion of star formation occur?

There are three types of galaxies: irregular, spiral, and elliptical.
irregular occur 5% of the time and are considered the youngest because of all of the gas and dust in them.
elliptical occurs 15% of the time and is considered the oldest.
The spiral occurs 80% of the time

The galaxies occur in these proportions no matter how far away they are. Even up to 13 billion years ago. So when did all of these stars form?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1016]

Charles's Law only says that V = kT at constant pressure, with k a constant (V is volume, T is temperature). That's it. It doesn't consider any of the many other things going on in star formation that deviate wildly from a simple ideal gas scenario.

Yes, volume and temperature are directly related, as temperature goes up volume increases. The volume of the gas will expand unless it is pushed by a supernova.

The number of stars that have been identified and cataloged is huge, and things like the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram help place them into categories. Pan-STARRS has organized data for over 3 billion celestial objects, and if you have a couple of spare petabytes on your hard drive you can download all of the data:

https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/PANSTARRS/

90% of all stars are main-sequence stars. That is why it is not possible to have enough supernovas.

All of this effort is to learn more and more about how stars do actually form, progress, and die. It is a lot more useful in helping understand nature than simply claiming a god being created stars for the benefit of humans, and being happy with that (non)explanation.

Your process is not possibel it contradicts itself.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1019]

Yes, volume and temperature are directly related, as temperature goes up volume increases. The volume of the gas will expand unless it is pushed by a supernova.

Gravity has something to say about that. Star formation is far more complex than the simple ideal gas law can describe. Molecular clouds large enough to form main sequence stars can be many tens of thousands of AU across, and consist of gigantic amounts of gas and dust.

Gravity will act on this huge mass (just as it does on our atmosphere to hold it to the planet ... the weight of air just 1 meter above the playing area of a U.S football field at sea level is about 6 tons) and over hundreds of thousands of years compress it into a prestellar core that may be 10,000 AU across. This is a lot of gas and dust, and the ideal gas law (which doesn't consider gravity at all) is out the window long before this happens. Further compression driven by gravity initiates nuclear fusion at the core due to the huge increases in pressure and temperature, and you have a stable star form when the forces balance between the nuclear core trying to expand and gravity countering that.

You can't discard this basic mechanism with ideal gas law arguments that don't apply to the situation. There is a lot more detail known about the process through many decades of observations and theoretical work, although much is not known especially for stars larger than about 6x the sun's mass. Star research has a long future.

What is your explanation for how stars form and the fact that we can observe literally billions of them at all stages of their lifetimes which can exceed young earth time frames by up to a million orders of magnitude(!). If you believe that "creation" was some 6000 years ago, and stars were created at that time, I'd like to hear your explanation for how we observe stars at all stages of their "lifetime" at redshifts from near zero to very large values. There's no way to reconcile this with a young earth.