Question About The Origin Of The Solar System

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
The age of the universe is estimated to be about 14 to 15 Billion years and age of the Sun and the solar system is about 4.5 billion.

So the formation process must have started sometime in the latter part of the prior 10 billion years. Regarding my original question about the epicenter of the supernova that created the matter (that would eventually become the solar system), that would be somewhere in the expansion during the prior 10 billion years and probably not that easily detected today.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
Well, that kind of suggests the process has always been ongoing. No "beginning".
If you are looking toward the origin of the big bang, you will see the later part of evolution which is an ongoing process. As for whether there was -or was not- a beginning, that's a question that make me dizzy. o_O
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
If you are looking toward the origin of the big bang, you will see the later part of evolution which is an ongoing process. As for whether there was -or was not- a beginning, that's a question that make me dizzy. o_O
I have never understood the argument for supporting the big bang other than to just have a story that fits biblical creation. That would be really bad science but it does date back to the time when the church pretty much ran education. If we look at the universe it doesn't matter which direction we look in, it all looks the same. We see everything from pre-atomic stuff to young suns, old suns, young galaxies and old galaxies.
Too controversial a topic for the forum?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,474
Not really, but the evidence is there if you really care to study. You speak as if there was no evidence at all. Questions answered beget questions, with the occasional step back to adjust for new facts. Science is not religion, it is a system of observation. We have a lot facts gathered over the last few centuries.

Ever read Stephen Hawkings "Beginning of Time"?
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
Not really, but the evidence is there if you really care to study. You speak as if there was no evidence at all. Questions answered beget questions, with the occasional step back to adjust for new facts. Science is not religion, it is a system of observation. We have a lot facts gathered over the last few centuries.

Ever read Stephen Hawkings "Beginning of Time"?
I agree with the "evidence" of the big bang. It isn't worthless. It is just an incomplete theory. How can a story of the origin that doesn't include a beginning be anything but half baked? It doesn't suggest where it all comes from. It is an open ended system with no beginning and no end. It assumes its reasoning is the only story possible. The universe must be a closed system because open systems have no beginning.
Lemaitre was educated in a time when the church ran the universities. The Greek myths were still a part of the classic education. He was a priest before he was a scientist. His Primordial Atom story parallels Greek Creation, Ether and Chaos.

Hawking? Is that the book where he suggests that in a collapsing universe the vector of time points backwards? Or that memories of matter are stored in parallel universes?

Why can't these well educated scientists just admit we don't know something instead of making up a story? That is what religions do.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,474
No, that is what religious people do when trying to discredit science. Science attempts to put explanations to observations.

You ought to read the book, it is nothing like what you think it is. Prejudging kinda shows you have your mind made up, no matter what the facts are.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
No, that is what religious people do when trying to discredit science. Science attempts to put explanations to observations.

You ought to read the book, it is nothing like what you think it is. Prejudging kinda shows you have your mind made up, no matter what the facts are.
Re: discredit science?
Only when people hold it up to be something other than what it is. It is not science that gets discredited, it is the scientist.

Re: the book
No, I just don't have the time to read everybody's books. I do tend to avoid those authors that write nonsense. Reversing time vectors and multiple universes? No thanks.
He imagines a possibility (reversing time vectors) supports the theory (matter has memory) and when flaws are pointed out he imagines a possibility that gives apparent credibility to the story (multiple universes). Not based on any observations and not good science. Unless you see something I missed. This is not based on preconceived notions but from reading his works.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,474
And yet you want to offer opinions on the book you haven't read. You have opinions about the author whom you don't know.

Most folks who truly understand science don't do what you describe. It is folk with a different agenda that do that.

I love understanding how the universe works, so I take the time to read. Used to do it a lot more, but age and time have caught up with me. I take the time to answer blanket statements to point out the fallacies I see being spread. I see people trying to compare science with religion so they can ignore inconvenient facts that do not jive with their belief systems. Worse, I see it being imposed in the educational system at every level.

I mentioned this earlier, but there are aspects of science I cannot understand. I also accept there are people much smarter than me and whom understand that which I do not.

/End of rant
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
And yet you want to offer opinions on the book you haven't read. You have opinions about the author whom you don't know.

Most folks who truly understand science don't do what you describe. It is folk with a different agenda that do that.

I love understanding how the universe works, so I take the time to read. Used to do it a lot more, but age and time have caught up with me. I take the time to answer blanket statements to point out the fallacies I see being spread. I see people trying to compare science with religion so they can ignore inconvenient facts that do not jive with their belief systems. Worse, I see it being imposed in the educational system at every level.

I mentioned this earlier, but there are aspects of science I cannot understand. I also accept there are people much smarter than me and whom understand that which I do not.

/End of rant
Agree that most folks who understand science ...
I would not equate science with religion. The problem is that human errors are involved in both. The same errors made in religion are made in science.
Curiosity about the universe is good. The problem is thinking the story is the truth. Finding something that supports the theory does not prove the theory. Supporting evidence is not necessarily conclusive evidence.
 

sailorjoe

Joined Jun 4, 2013
363
I find that true scientists do not talk about truths, they only talk about theories, hypotheses, and evidence. The more evidence available, the more confidence scientists have in a theory, but it's never held as truth, only higher and higher confidence levels. The translation from scientific thinking to popular, and easily understandable, stories or explanations of science leads to truths that are really just high confidence theories. Was there a Big Bang? Lots of evidence supports it, but it's not an absolute unequivocal certainty. In fact, is anything a certainty? (Death, taxes, not withstanding). In fact, there are certain anomalies about our understanding of the Big Bang that then lead to theories like infinite universes, for which much less evidence exists, and for which science has much less confidence.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
I find that true scientists do not talk about truths, they only talk about theories, hypotheses, and evidence. The more evidence available, the more confidence scientists have in a theory, but it's never held as truth, only higher and higher confidence levels. The translation from scientific thinking to popular, and easily understandable, stories or explanations of science leads to truths that are really just high confidence theories. Was there a Big Bang? Lots of evidence supports it, but it's not an absolute unequivocal certainty. In fact, is anything a certainty? (Death, taxes, not withstanding). In fact, there are certain anomalies about our understanding of the Big Bang that then lead to theories like infinite universes, for which much less evidence exists, and for which science has much less confidence.
Good. We agree on what good science is.
 

sailorjoe

Joined Jun 4, 2013
363
Coincidentally, this article came across my email just a few minutes ago.
If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.

Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.

The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity:

Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.

This approach to knowing did not take root until early in the 17th century, shortly after the inventions of both the microscope and the telescope. The astronomer Galileo and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon agreed: conduct experiments to test your hypothesis and allocate your confidence in proportion to the strength of your evidence. Since then, we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until multiple researchers, and ultimately the majority of researchers, obtain results consistent with one another.

This code of conduct carries remarkable consequences. There's no law against publishing wrong or biased results. But the cost to you for doing so is high. If your research is re-checked by colleagues, and nobody can duplicate your findings, the integrity of your future research will be held suspect. If you commit outright fraud, such as knowingly faking data, and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.

It's that simple.

This internal, self-regulating system within science may be unique among professions, and it does not require the public or the press or politicians to make it work. But watching the machinery operate may nonetheless fascinate you. Just observe the flow of research papers that grace the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. This breeding ground of discovery is also, on occasion, a battlefield where scientific controversy is laid bare.

Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper. The press, in an effort to break a story, may mislead the public's awareness of how science works by headlining a just-published scientific paper as "the truth," perhaps also touting the academic pedigree of the authors. In fact, when drawn from the moving frontier, the truth has not yet been established, so research can land all over the place until experiments converge in one direction or another -- or in no direction, itself usually indicating no phenomenon at all.

Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.

The era of "modern physics," born with the quantum revolution of the early 20th century and the relativity revolution of around the same time, did not discard Newton's laws of motion and gravity. What it did was describe deeper realities of nature, made visible by ever-greater methods and tools of inquiry. Modern physics enclosed classical physics as a special case of these larger truths. So the only times science cannot assure objective truths is on the pre-consensus frontier of research, and the only time it couldn't was before the 17th century, when our senses -- inadequate and biased -- were the only tools at our disposal to inform us of what was and was not true in our world.

Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth's rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.

Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but have no real way of convincing others who disagree, except by heated argument, coercion or by force. These are the foundations of most people's opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God's last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard? Differences in opinion define the cultural diversity of a nation, and should be cherished in any free society. You don't have to like gay marriage. Nobody will ever force you to gay-marry. But to create a law preventing fellow citizens from doing so is to force your personal truths on others. Political attempts to require that others share your personal truths are, in their limit, dictatorships.

Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.

In 1863, a year when he clearly had more pressing matters to attend to, Abraham Lincoln -- the first Republican president -- signed into existence the National Academy of Sciences, based on an Act of Congress. This august body would provide independent, objective advice to the nation on matters relating to science and technology.

Today, other government agencies with scientific missions serve similar purpose, including NASA, which explores space and aeronautics; NIST, which explores standards of scientific measurement, on which all other measurements are based; DOE, which explores energy in all usable forms; and NOAA, which explores Earth's weather and climate.

These centers of research, as well as other trusted sources of published science, can empower politicians in ways that lead to enlightened and informed governance. But this won't happen until the people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History. His radio show StarTalk became the first ever science-based talk show on television, now in its second season with National Geographic Channel.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
Coincidentally, this article came across my email just a few minutes ago.
If you cherry-pick scientific truths to serve cultural, economic, religious or political objectives, you undermine the foundations of an informed democracy.

Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history.

The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity:

Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.

This approach to knowing did not take root until early in the 17th century, shortly after the inventions of both the microscope and the telescope. The astronomer Galileo and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon agreed: conduct experiments to test your hypothesis and allocate your confidence in proportion to the strength of your evidence. Since then, we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until multiple researchers, and ultimately the majority of researchers, obtain results consistent with one another.

This code of conduct carries remarkable consequences. There's no law against publishing wrong or biased results. But the cost to you for doing so is high. If your research is re-checked by colleagues, and nobody can duplicate your findings, the integrity of your future research will be held suspect. If you commit outright fraud, such as knowingly faking data, and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.

It's that simple.

This internal, self-regulating system within science may be unique among professions, and it does not require the public or the press or politicians to make it work. But watching the machinery operate may nonetheless fascinate you. Just observe the flow of research papers that grace the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. This breeding ground of discovery is also, on occasion, a battlefield where scientific controversy is laid bare.

Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper. The press, in an effort to break a story, may mislead the public's awareness of how science works by headlining a just-published scientific paper as "the truth," perhaps also touting the academic pedigree of the authors. In fact, when drawn from the moving frontier, the truth has not yet been established, so research can land all over the place until experiments converge in one direction or another -- or in no direction, itself usually indicating no phenomenon at all.

Once an objective truth is established by these methods, it is not later found to be false. We will not be revisiting the question of whether Earth is round; whether the sun is hot; whether humans and chimps share more than 98 percent identical DNA; or whether the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.

The era of "modern physics," born with the quantum revolution of the early 20th century and the relativity revolution of around the same time, did not discard Newton's laws of motion and gravity. What it did was describe deeper realities of nature, made visible by ever-greater methods and tools of inquiry. Modern physics enclosed classical physics as a special case of these larger truths. So the only times science cannot assure objective truths is on the pre-consensus frontier of research, and the only time it couldn't was before the 17th century, when our senses -- inadequate and biased -- were the only tools at our disposal to inform us of what was and was not true in our world.

Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth's rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.

Meanwhile, personal truths are what you may hold dear, but have no real way of convincing others who disagree, except by heated argument, coercion or by force. These are the foundations of most people's opinions. Is Jesus your savior? Is Mohammad God's last prophet on Earth? Should the government support poor people? Is Beyoncé a cultural queen? Kirk or Picard? Differences in opinion define the cultural diversity of a nation, and should be cherished in any free society. You don't have to like gay marriage. Nobody will ever force you to gay-marry. But to create a law preventing fellow citizens from doing so is to force your personal truths on others. Political attempts to require that others share your personal truths are, in their limit, dictatorships.

Note further that in science, conformity is anathema to success. The persistent accusations that we are all trying to agree with one another is laughable to scientists attempting to advance their careers. The best way to get famous in your own lifetime is to pose an idea that is counter to prevailing research and which ultimately earns a consistency of observations and experiment. This ensures healthy disagreement at all times while working on the bleeding edge of discovery.

In 1863, a year when he clearly had more pressing matters to attend to, Abraham Lincoln -- the first Republican president -- signed into existence the National Academy of Sciences, based on an Act of Congress. This august body would provide independent, objective advice to the nation on matters relating to science and technology.

Today, other government agencies with scientific missions serve similar purpose, including NASA, which explores space and aeronautics; NIST, which explores standards of scientific measurement, on which all other measurements are based; DOE, which explores energy in all usable forms; and NOAA, which explores Earth's weather and climate.

These centers of research, as well as other trusted sources of published science, can empower politicians in ways that lead to enlightened and informed governance. But this won't happen until the people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History. His radio show StarTalk became the first ever science-based talk show on television, now in its second season with National Geographic Channel.
Re: "Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is."

Good words. But you do realize this is how Islamists speak of their "truth" also. Everybody thinks they have the truth. Hawking thinks he had the truth when he spoke of the memory of matter being stored in some other dimension or about reversed time vectors in a collapsing universe. Lemaitre thought he had the truth with his Primordial Atom story when he convinced the Pope to sign off on it. Apparently not all "scientists" are "good scientists".
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,474
Science has a way of culling through the chaff. If you expect perfection from humans you are bound to be disappointed. Science proposes theories, which may not hold to the test of experience or experiment. Occasionally it takes the old guard to die off before new theories are given a chance. Unlike a lot of religious dogma though, knowledge does change and upgrade.
 

sailorjoe

Joined Jun 4, 2013
363
Re: "Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is."

Good words. But you do realize this is how Islamists speak of their "truth" also. Everybody thinks they have the truth. Hawking thinks he had the truth when he spoke of the memory of matter being stored in some other dimension or about reversed time vectors in a collapsing universe. Lemaitre thought he had the truth with his Primordial Atom story when he convinced the Pope to sign off on it. Apparently not all "scientists" are "good scientists".
But of course, Islamists are not looking for scientific truth, only religious truth, which is precisely the opposite of Neil's words and intent. Hawking is far too intelligent and too good of a scientist to ever claim he has the truth about physics or science or anything. He has decided that God does not exist, and that the universe does not require a God for its very existence. But that is as much a personal choice as anyone who does believe in God. Hawking makes very well reasoned theories and hypotheses and arguments, and to the extent possible, they're backed by sound mathematics. But if you read his works carefully, he's clear that his explanations and arguments are only steps along a path that may lead to the ultimate truth, if that is even possible. And by the way, the fact that the Pope had to sign off on a theory is clear evidence that it was a philosophical idea, not a scientific one, and therefore would never be counted in modern life as a scientific truth.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
o
But of course, Islamists are not looking for scientific truth, only religious truth, which is precisely the opposite of Neil's words and intent. Hawking is far too intelligent and too good of a scientist to ever claim he has the truth about physics or science or anything. He has decided that God does not exist, and that the universe does not require a God for its very existence. But that is as much a personal choice as anyone who does believe in God. Hawking makes very well reasoned theories and hypotheses and arguments, and to the extent possible, they're backed by sound mathematics. But if you read his works carefully, he's clear that his explanations and arguments are only steps along a path that may lead to the ultimate truth, if that is even possible. And by the way, the fact that the Pope had to sign off on a theory is clear evidence that it was a philosophical idea, not a scientific one, and therefore would never be counted in modern life as a scientific truth.
Re: " He has decided that God does not exist, and that the universe does not require a God for its very existence."

Isn't that stating his theory is equal to fact? Not that I disagree with his conclusion, but a proper "scientist" might conclude that the bible is just myth but that does not prove there is no god. Science cannot pass judgment on something it cannot observe or test. The conclusion might be that man does not know god. A god by some other definition than the bible suggests. A god of creation, a causal force behind the universe since we don't have another theory about where it all comes from. The fact that there is a universe suggests a causal force. Do we have another word for this but god (small g to contrast from the biblical big G, invisible personal friend).
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,474
When you talk about anyone stating something as fact, what is your source? If you don't read the books they publish then you are reading an article published by a 3rd person, not the scientists direct words. Things do get distorted in this process.

If a theory is stated as such up front, then it is OK to talk about it as fact presenting it. Semantically it is a lot easier to write in this approach. It doesn't not keep critics and skeptics from bringing up questions and pointing out flaws. With Phds people have to defend their thesis as part of the process.

There are certain truths that are still argued by people with a different agenda. I am certain that the earth is round. I am certain the earth orbits the sun. I am fairly certain E=MC², the Earth is many Billions of years old, and evolution and DNA exist.. I do not confuse science with religion.
 
Top