The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does [b]"the interstellar medium absorb light from nearby stars" ring a bell?

Do you mean to say that pictures show that absorption of light takes place?

So what exactly does your picture show or prove?[/b]

Yes, I read that. From your confusion I must conclude that you are a complete idiot.

Let's review:

Ordinary clouds of gas in the interstellar medium absorb light from nearby stars, which heats them up, raising their internal pressure and preventing them from collapsing. Molecular clouds, however, are so big and so dense that their outer layers completely block the light from surrounding stars. Deep inside them, temperatures drop so low that the gas pressure becomes very weak. If a small region inside a molecular cloud becomes a little denser than average, the gravitational force exceeds the gas pressure and begins to pull the cloud inwards on itself."

So dimwit, stars don't get formed in ordinary clouds of gas in the interstellar medium. But they do get formed in big, dense molecular clouds.

The picture shows a molecular cloud. Look how big and dense it is! Like a giant version of you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, I read that. From your confusion I must conclude that you are a complete idiot.

Let's review:

Ordinary clouds of gas in the interstellar medium absorb light from nearby stars, which heats them up, raising their internal pressure and preventing them from collapsing. Molecular clouds, however, are so big and so dense that t e picture shows a molecular cloud. Look how big and dense it is! Like a giant version of you.

Many questions are however still unsolved:

• How do turbulent, clumpy molecular clouds form?
• What is the timescale for molecular cloud formation?
• On which timescale do clouds condense into stellar clusters?
• What is the nature of the interclump medium in molecular clouds?
• Is turbulence in molecular clouds driven or decaying?
• If turbulence is driven, what is its driver?
• How do molecular cloud cores form inside molecular clouds?
• Are cloud cores initially gravitationally stable?
• How does the broad period distribution of binary systems arise?
• How important are magnetic fields in regulating the star formation process?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0105298

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ahhh... I see... so it was anything else, but definitely not God of course...

God is the great eternal wizard. 🙄

Originally posted by dj2becker
Many questions are however still unsolved:

• How do turbulent, clumpy molecular clouds form?
• What is the timescale for molecular cloud formation?
• On which timescale do clouds condense into stellar clusters?
• What is the nature of the interclump medium in molecular clouds?
• Is turbulence in molecular clouds driven or decaying?
• If turbulence ...[text shortened]... gnetic fields in regulating the star formation process?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0105298

Questions in science; who would have thought? Particulary when our ability to get detailed information from the interior of molecular clouds is very recent. But check out the first sentence in section 2 of your cite:

All stars are known to form in molecular clouds.

Does that sufficiently refute the "argument" in your twice used, unattributed post?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Questions in science; who would have thought? Particulary when our ability to get detailed information from the interior of molecular clouds is very recent. But check out the first sentence in section 2 of your cite:

All stars are known to form in molecular clouds.

Does that sufficiently refute the "argument" in your twice used, unattributed post?

You seemed to overlook this very important statement:



"Star formation is one of the most important and yet unsolved problems of astrophysics."

Originally posted by dj2becker
You seemed to overlook this very important statement:

[b]

"Star formation is one of the most important and yet unsolved problems of astrophysics."
[/b]

Articles from 6 years ago aren't very current in this particular field. As I mentioned, scientists having only fairly recently developed instruments capable of gathering detailed data from the core of molecular clouds. Here's a couple years ago where they are actually observing star formation (and they haven't seen God waving a magic wand nearby): http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/proto_stars_050301.html

It's exciting stuff; how boring "Goddunnit" is! I thank the Tao for making this manifestion of itself soooooooooooooooo cool!

EDIT: Here's another interesting (and recent site) showing some really neat stuff that's being done in the field:

Essentially all known Galactic star formation takes place within molecular clouds, but many of the details of the formation and evolution of these clouds remain obscure, including such fundamental issues as how long they take to form and how long they survive for. Numerical simulations of molecular cloud formation can help to answer some of these open questions. Our simulations are the first to properly combine accurate modelling of the cloud chemistry with a three-dimensional, high-resolution model of the hydrodynamics of the gas in the cloud. Our preliminary work, which focused on the formation of molecular hydrogen, demonstrated that supersonic turbulence plays a crucial role in cloud formation: it dramatically accelerates the rate at which H2 can form, with the result that the molecular cloud forms within a single dynamical time ( Glover & Mac Low, 2007). Currently, we are in the process of extending these simulations to model the formation and destruction of CO, with the goal of producing simulated clouds that can be directly compared to observations.

http://www.aip.de/groups/starplan/ism.html

Why can't these fools just read Genesis and be happy?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Articles from 6 years ago aren't very current in this particular field. As I mentioned, scientists having only fairly recently developed instruments capable of gathering detailed data from the core of molecular clouds. Here's a couple years ago where they are actually observing star formation (and they haven't seen God waving a magic wand nearby): http:/ ...[text shortened]... ps/starplan/ism.html

Why can't these fools just read Genesis and be happy?

Would you care to highlight the part that says that actual star star formation has actually been observed?

And by the way do you even know how long it takes for a supposed star to form?

Originally posted by stocken
God is the great eternal wizard. 🙄

I fail to understand why the modern man is conscerned about the possibility that God created the universe.

We still have many many years if not centries to discover the laws of nature and the mechanics of it all. We just have to humble ourselves to the possibility that an Intelligence is behind the creation Who can keep it all running without us being able to directly detect its presence.

I mean as much as it may kill our pride to admit the possibility - a Creator is just smart enough to keep it running without us being able to detect Him in the telescope or microscope.

This doesn't stop us from many years of fruitful delving into the laws of the Creator.

Do you really want to bear the RESPONSIBILITY of knowing EVERYTHING there is to know ?

Originally posted by jaywill
I fail to understand why the modern man is conscerned about the possibility that God created the universe.

We still have many many years if not centries to discover the laws of nature and the mechanics of it all. We just have to humble ourselves to the possibility that an Intelligence is behind the creation Who can keep it all running without us being ab ...[text shortened]... or.

Do you really want to bear the RESPONSIBILITY of knowing EVERYTHING there is to know ?

I'm afraid I lost you somewhere in the middle there. We're not talking about
what we want to believe, but what we consider most likely. A
super-swell, eternal wizard with the ability to lit stars and control the universe
is just a little too far fetched for me to believe. I believe more in self-caused
events, but you're right: until we know more about the universe from
studying it we really can't know one way or the other about these things. It's
all speculation and amusing mind-games from where I stand.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you care to highlight the part that says that actual star star formation has actually been observed?

And by the way do you even know how long it takes for a supposed star to form?

The brief summary is ABOUT the formation of stars ... with pictures, even. Perhaps someone should do a comic book for the benefit of the slow and lazy.

The same extract says details such as how long they take to form remain obscure. I can't think that No1 (unlike youself) would claim to have special knowledge. And what's your comment about "supposed star"? Would your next illogical step be to accept that while it does form, it's not a star?

Originally posted by buffalobill
The brief summary is ABOUT the formation of stars ... with pictures, even. Perhaps someone should do a comic book for the benefit of the slow and lazy.

The same extract says details such as how long they take to form remain obscure. I can't think that No1 (unlike youself) would claim to have special knowledge. And what's your comment about "supposed ...[text shortened]... tar"? Would your next illogical step be to accept that while it does form, it's not a star?

The brief summary is ABOUT the formation of stars ...with pictures, even.

Yes, the theory behind it. There are no before and after photos. The pictures are of what scientists think might possibly be the formation of stars. It is purely speculation with many unanswered questions as I have pointed out before.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Short answer - life is not a closed system, and therefore the 2nd Law does not apply.

Even more applicable to this silly 2nd law argument:

The Earth is not a closed system. From what I remember from science class, there's this neighbour of ours that keeps giving us a bit of free energy every year.

Thanks to this phenomena, we're an open system, free to turn back entropy until the lights get turned off.

Originally posted by Jesse Custer
Even more applicable to this silly 2nd law argument:

The Earth is not a closed system. From what I remember from science class, there's this neighbour of ours that keeps giving us a bit of free energy every year.

Thanks to this phenomena, we're an open system, free to turn back entropy until the lights get turned off.

??

Originally posted by dj2becker
??

That was a reiteration of why the second law doesn't apply to the origin or evolution of life on Earth.

Originally posted by GregM
That was a reiteration of why the second law doesn't apply to the origin or evolution of life on Earth.

Oh so a substance on earth will NOT decay into less complex compounds if left to itself?