Zoom-up star photos poke holes in century-old astronomical theory

Apr 18, 2011
An image of the star Regulus, which University of Michigan astronomers and their colleagues were able to "zoom in" on using a technique called interferometry. Zooming in allowed them to measure the temperature of the star's poles separately from its equator, which enabled them to find flaws in a century-old astronomical theory about hot, fast-spinning stars. Credit: Xiao Che

(PhysOrg.com) -- The hottest stars in the universe spin so fast that they get a bit squished at their poles and dimmer around their middle. The 90-year-old theory that predicts the extent of this "gravity darkening" phenomenon has major flaws, according to a new study led by University of Michigan astronomers.

The von Zeipel law, named for its creator, Swedish astronomer Edvard Hugo von Zeipel, has been used for the better part of a century to predict the difference in surface gravity, brightness and temperature between a rapidly rotating star's poles and its equator.

Using a technique called interferometry the researchers essentially zoomed in to take close-up pictures and measurements of the winter star Regulus. It's the brightest star in the constellation Leonis and if it were spinning just a few percent faster, it would fly apart.

The astronomers found that the actual difference in temperature between its equator and poles is much less than the old theory predicts.

"Our model fitting of interferometry data shows that while the law correctly describes the trend of surface temperature variation, it deviates quantitively," said Xiao Che, a doctoral student in the Department of Astronomy who is first author of a paper on the findings to be published in on April 20.

"It is surprising to me that von Zeipel's law has been adopted in astronomy for such a long time with so little solid observational evidence."

It's important to get this number right, says John Monnier, an associate professor in the U-M Department of Astronomy.

"In some cases, we found a 5,000-degree Fahrenheit difference between what the theory predicts and what our actual measurements show," Monnier said. "That has a big effect on total . If we don't take this into account, we get the star's mass and age and total energy output wrong."

Monnier led the creation of the Michigan Infra-Red Combiner (MIRC) instrument that was used to take the measurements that led to this discovery. MIRC uses interferometry to combine the light entering four telescopes at the CHARA array at Georgia State University so that it seems to be coming through a device 100 times larger than the Hubble Space Telescope. The technique lets astronomers see the shape and surface characteristics of . Previously, stars were mere points of light even with the largest telescopes.

In this case, zooming in on Regulus let the researchers measure its poles and equator temperatures separately.

"Normally, you would just be able to get an average temperature," Monnier said.

So where did von Zeipel go wrong? Monnier believes his Swedish predecessor didn't take into account circulation on stars that's not unlike wind patterns on Earth.

"The Earth has a hot and cold poles and that causes air circulation," Monnier said. "The hot air wants to flow toward the poles and equilibrate, bringing the temperatures closer together. This is a source of some weather patterns on Earth."

Explore further: The hot blue stars of Messier 47

Related Stories

Gazing up at the man in the star?

May 31, 2007

[B]Researchers take picture of the face of Altair, a first for a star like our own[/B] Using a suite of four telescopes, astronomers have captured an image of Altair, one of the closest stars to our own and ...

Keck Telescopes Take Deeper Look at Planetary Nurseries

Dec 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using the W. M. Keck Observatory have peered far into a young planetary system, giving an unprecedented view of dust and gas that might eventually form planets similar to Jupiter, ...

Hubble 'weighs' Dog Star's companion

Dec 13, 2005

For astronomers, it's always been a source of frustration that the nearest white-dwarf star is buried in the glow of the brightest star in the nighttime sky. This burned-out stellar remnant is a faint companion ...

Vega: the star with comets?

Apr 12, 2006

The observation of the immediate vicinity of a star other than the Sun has just been carried out for the first time. A debris disc made up of hot (1300 degrees) dust grains, residues of comet evaporation and ...

Recommended for you

The hot blue stars of Messier 47

Dec 17, 2014

Messier 47 is located approximately 1600 light-years from Earth, in the constellation of Puppis (the poop deck of the mythological ship Argo). It was first noticed some time before 1654 by Italian astronomer ...

Why is space black?

Dec 16, 2014

Imagine you're in space. Just the floating part, not the peeing into a vacuum hose or eating that funky "ice cream" from foil bags part. If you looked at the Sun, it would be bright and your retinas would ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (48) Apr 18, 2011
It is surprising to me that von Zeipel's law has been adopted in astronomy for such a long time with so little solid observational evidence.

One can say the same about a lot of "accepted" things: the formation of the planets comes instantly to mind - things that would normally smash and bounce off each other suddenly clump together to form planets.
The Oort cloud - has it ever been seen? NOPE. I can go on.
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (29) Apr 18, 2011
I can go on.


Yep. You've certainly proven that. And I will point out YET AGAIN, that when someone comes up with a VALID criticism of some scientific item, it's always a SCIENCE-based criticism. That's because science, unlike superstition, checks and rechecks and rerechecks its facts, and tosses stuff out when it fails to match observations. Unlike theistic fantasies, where you just huff and puff and point to the bible and howl louder.

ZephirAWT
Apr 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2011
the formation of the planets comes instantly to mind - things that would normally smash and bounce off each other suddenly clump together to form planets.
Accretion was confirmed by all observations obtained in experiments run by the various Apollo mission crews.
The Oort cloud - has it ever been seen? NOPE. I can go on.
Inference is evidence.

I claim that you killed someone yesterday at noon. You provide records that distinctively prove you were elsewhere at the time. No one in court saw you elsewhere, but the data conclusively shows that you were not at the scene of the crime. Should you go to jail? Your comment above implies that you should.
TopherTO
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
The Oort cloud - has it ever been seen? NOPE. I can go on.


Couldn't the same be said for black holes? From what I understand, we've yet to 'see' one only their influence on surrounding space/objects.
Paljor
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2011
and the bending of light around them. something is obviously there...

weren't they planning to take our black holes picture?
CSharpner
4.6 / 5 (17) Apr 18, 2011
It is surprising to me that von Zeipel's law has been adopted in astronomy for such a long time with so little solid observational evidence.

One can say the same about a lot of "accepted" things: the formation of the planets comes instantly to mind - things that would normally smash and bounce off each other suddenly clump together to form planets.
The Oort cloud - has it ever been seen? NOPE. I can go on.

Without physical evidence, once can only go on what data they have. New data came to light (literally) and they updated their knowledge (or, in this case, their accuracy). Where's the problem? Show me where this self-scrutiny and correction is done in religion? One group constantly strives for truth by testing and updating, the other just presumes the first ideas were 100% right with zero testing. Which group holds more credibility?

kevin, again I ask: If the universe were created thousands of years ago, why can we see objects BILLIONS of light years away?
CSharpner
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
things that would normally smash and bounce off each other suddenly clump together to form planets.

Do you even read the replies to your posts? Or do you do drive-by postings, never to return and read the replies, because this has been responded to (by myself, just a couple of days ago in another thread) as well as by others.
Skultch
5 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
Or do you do drive-by postings, never to return and read the replies,


This.

He never responds to the "when was the flood" questions from Ethelred. I've asked him to explain geologic layering and why we don't see the sediment increasing by 18 inches per year.

I used to wonder why people like him waste their time here. I don't care as much anymore. Actually, with the billions of internet capable people around the world, I'm kind of surprised there aren't more people like Kevin on these threads.
Donutz
5 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2011
I used to wonder why people like him waste their time here.


I still wonder that. It *can't* be because he thinks he's convincing people of anything, not with the way he constantly gets squashed. He couldn't be that stupid and still know how to use a keyboard. It *has* to be simple trolling. Maybe he likes to "rile up the atheists" and probably gets some kind of feeling of pride out of that. If so, pretty sad.
GSwift7
4.6 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2011
His examples of things that are accepted despite a lack of observational evidence were poor examples, but there are plenty of good examples.

Just look up all the things people used to believe which we now know are not true, thanks to observations we can make now. The flat Earth is an old one. It's hard to say which of today's strong theories might be overturned in the next decade, but there are lots of them that exist without very much observation. For example, the composition of the Earth's interior is one field where observation is very limited. They may be 100% correct, but we don't really know for sure. Mass extinctions of the past are good ones, as well as the start/end of ice ages. I seem to recall people saying that there was no water on the moon a couple decades ago. The interior of Titan is a good example too. If you're doing science on something where the answers are already known and there's plenty of observations to back the theories, then are you really doing science?
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011
continued:

An example of something that is theorized without observation doesn't need to mean that it is disproven by later observations either. Memristors, superconductors and fission bombs are examples of things that were predicted by theory but were not confirmed by observation until later. Subatomic particle physics is full of such examples.

Here's a recent example where observations contradict long held theory:

http://www.dailyg...day.html

and here's another:

http://www.cbc.ca...als.html
J-n
5 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2011
I think that those examples where we thought something to be true, that was later turned over by further investigation are WONDERFUL. They show exactly why science offers people like me a much stronger framework on which to build my world view.

Science Admits that it might not have everything 100% correct, and constantly searches for the areas where it is not perfected. When an error is found, it is corrected, Ideas don't stick around just because it was written in some old book.

Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2011
Science Admits that it might not have everything 100% correct, and constantly searches for the areas where it is not perfected. When an error is found, it is corrected,


I wonder how many ministers/priests/pastors, etc say different on the pulpit. I've seen some pastors say some pretty crazy stuff, so I can only assume they bad mouth science from time to time. Once, an Army Chaplin at a "Charismatic Service" talked about curses and demons as if they were real physical objects floating around us. His theory was that "curse" words literally create demons out of thin air (or pull them from hell) where they float around and do damage to everyone in the vicinity. I mean, really? Is there even any biblical support for this? (edit: yep. sheesh)
SemiNerd
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
Or do you do drive-by postings, never to return and read the replies,


This.

He never responds to the "when was the flood" questions from Ethelred. I've asked him to explain geologic layering and why we don't see the sediment increasing by 18 inches per year.

I used to wonder why people like him waste their time here. I don't care as much anymore. Actually, with the billions of internet capable people around the world, I'm kind of surprised there aren't more people like Kevin on these threads.

Note that kevinrts is clearly violating the comments guidelines against posting religious or pseudoscience.
trekgeek1
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2011
His theory was that "curse" words literally create demons out of thin air (or pull them from hell) where they float around and do damage to everyone in the vicinity.


What kind of stupid fucking shit is that? Oops...... help, they're all around me, they're hideous and damaging, apparently!

But seriously, didn't "Southpark" do an episode like that where curse words caused people to die from the plague or something? That show is really spot on with some of its social commentary.

My favorite moments are when Christians tell you something crazy out of the blue with no warning and they say it as a matter of fact. Once my father in law said something really "normal" about the bible and immediately followed it with "you know, there were giants in those days". One of the few times I've been speechless. He had a perfect delivery, sincerity with direct eye contact. I don't quite remember how I dealt with that. I think my look said it all.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
But seriously, didn't "Southpark" do an episode like that where curse words caused people to die from the plague or something? That show is really spot on with some of its social commentary.


That was a good one. They had a ticker on the bottom corner counting how many times anyone said 'shit'. I looked it up. 162 times. The title was "It Hits the Fan" episode 66. 66 huh? Coincidence? I think not.

"you know, there were giants in those days".


I am amazed by how much crap people just believe with no thought or investigation. It's as if most people just don't care at all what is true or not. I'm not limiting that to mainstream religious, either. Almost everyone I know that is roughly my age (low 30s) has their own special brand of spirituality with no bearing on reality whatsoever. 5 times in the last week I heard a dear friend say "Everything happens for a reason." I don't want to be that A-hole, so I just let it go.

Sorry for the off topic vent. carryon
AdamCC
2.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2011
Just look up all the things people used to believe which we now know are not true, thanks to observations we can make now. The flat Earth is an old one.


Um, wow. Wrong. We actually have zero evidence that any scientific community at any point in earth's history believed the earth was flat. We DO have evidence that we have known it's (roughly) spherical since at least a thousand years B.C.E. The whole flat-earth idea is just an urban legend.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2011
His theory was that "curse" words literally create demons out of thin air (or pull them from hell) where they float around and do damage to everyone in the vicinity.


What kind of stupid fucking shit is that?


Oh, yeah, sorry, one more. His sermon was on the Sunday before Halloween and he was warning his parishioners not to take part. He and his congregation also believed Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies were evil and were not to be watched.

Hey, they're theories, right? Just like the one in this article. smh
Skultch
4.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2011
We actually have zero evidence that any scientific community at any point in earth's history believed the earth was flat.


Probably because the scientific method was not broadly used until after the circumnavigation of the planet. ????

If you are right, why did it take so long for the Spanish, Dutch, English, etc to even attempt a western route to the Indies? Yeah, survival was uncertain, but deaths at sea were commonplace then.
trekgeek1
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2011

5 times in the last week I heard a dear friend say "Everything happens for a reason." I don't want to be that A-hole, so I just let it go.

Sorry for the off topic vent.


Not at all, it's good to vent this kind of stuff. I did the opposite with my wife when she asked if I thought we were soul mates. I actually told her that I believed that two people could have the highest compatibility defined by some metric, but that the likelihood of us meeting would have been astronomical. I do believe that two people become "soul" mates after they fall in love for a long time. I now feel that she is in fact the perfect person for me. We have both adapted to suit each other and I believe that our neural pathways have actually rewired over the years to mesh perfectly. We are no longer who we were when we met and we have become dependent on the existence of each other. In a way, I think that is almost more moving. She thought so too.

Sorry to vent ;)
StillWind
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 19, 2011
I'm not too familiar with the poster that has drawn so much scorn, but it should be apparent that many of the currently accepted models are false.
In addition, the idea that someone criticizes the current religion of science, is in some way unscientific or has to be promoting some parallel religion is nothing but a strawman.
Likewise the use of isolated examples of extreme fundamentalist rhetoric to damn all religious people and their leaders is nothing but the most extreme ignorance.
There is and always has been religious men and women who are also scientists, and the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion.
So, it apprears as if all those criticizing the OP are guilty of violating the terms of the guidelines.
Now I know that I'll recieve hateful responses for crticizing your religion, but yours is no different from the OP.
Wake up children and get a clue.
Our science has virtually zero direct observation of the vast majority of the universe
StillWind
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 19, 2011
Your science has virtually zero direct observation of the vast majority of the universe, and the theories that it uses to explain what it can see are being disproved almost daily.
tigger
4.1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2011
It's not trolling, they genuinely need to fight to retain the illusion that a world view founded by a book written thousands of years ago is a true view of reality. Until you understand they are quite literally deluded in a pathological way you will try to communicate with them as if they are rational.

Any evidence of an incorrect model coming from the world of science they will leap on and irrationally, but genuinely, think that this gives their view of reality more credence (a rational mind knows there is no correlation).

You cannot break through that irrational wall without understanding them on a personal level to gain insight into why they must fight so hard to retain the delusion... usually it is due to family or social reasons... very important things for the social animal we are.
beelize54
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2011
We actually have zero evidence that any scientific community at any point in earth's history believed the earth was flat.
Sorry, it's just you, who don't have this evidence - but we have it...

http://en.wikiped...at_Earth
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
I'm not too familiar with the poster that has drawn so much scorn,
You have been here three years and you haven't notice Kevin's hit and run posts? You powers of observation seem to be a tad deficient especially considering this remark:
current religion of science,
Science is not a religion, only religious people that are unwilling to accept the reality that the Universe is very old insist on tell that lie. It is a lie.

is in some way unscientific
Lying is rarely scientific.

There is and always has been religious men and women who are also scientists,
Yes. So why are YOU lying about real science by calling it a religion?

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2011
and the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion.
False. Truly enlightened men are aware that there is no evidence for a god at the moment, and even if there was such evidence, assuming godidit instead of actually finding out how things occurred is completely counter to the idea of finding out how the universe really works. Which is what science is about. How does things work. How did the world come to be the way it is. If you don't look then you are not doing science.

So, it apprears as if all those criticizing the OP are guilty of violating the terms of the guidelines.
No. That is another lie. Kevin makes religious posts that are contrary to facts most of the time he posts. The key there is CONTRARY to REAL evidence.

Now I know that I'll recieve hateful responses for crticizing your religion,
I don't hate you for telling lies. I just point out that they ARE lies.

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2011
Wake up children and get a clue.
Child, I have a clue. I have a whole Universe telling me that Kevin is wrong. If Kevin was right we could not see another galaxy and we can. If Kevin was right there would evidence of a world wide flood everywhere we look on Earth. From the highest mountain to the DNA of all life on Earth it would be clear that the world had a devastating killing event. There is no such evidence.

Our science has virtually zero direct observation of the vast majority of the universe
Nonsense. Typical lie by a Creationist that is wholly ignorant. Astoundingly ignorant for someone that joined this site in 2007.

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2011
and the theories that it uses to explain what it can see are being disproved almost daily.
Lied again. The theories are backed up every day. The theory in this article was a minor theory from so long ago it is strange that anyone was still using it since it was from before fusion was understood. Using it was rather like using Lord Kelvin's work on the Sun. Totally obsolete. Present day theories are usually pretty good matches to what we actually see with much better instruments.

So, how about YOU answer the question that Kevin runs from. Maybe YOU have more guts than Kevin.

When was the Great Flood? How do you reconcile the Biblical derived date with Egyptian and Sumerian history?

Guts? Or another Kevin?

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
I used to wonder why people like him waste their time here. I don't care as much anymore.

Religious people can endure hardships, and sometimes even seek hardships, in anticipation of an afterlife reward.

I am amazed by how much crap people just believe with no thought or investigation.
It's an economic necessity. Most people just don't have the resources to assess the shortcomings of their {operating system|Western bias|[im]material world view}.

and the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion.
False. Truly enlightened men are aware that there is no evidence for a god at the moment
"Truly enlightened" [wo]men are aware that missing evidence does not exclude belief.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
"Truly enlightened" [wo]men are aware that missing evidence does not exclude belief.
That is NOT enlightenment. That is belief. In this case it is belief in something without any physical evidence. Just a book written long ago. That goes against the physical evidence.

Ethelred
Rohitasch
4.9 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2011
This is so funny. I've been around here for years now and most of the religious oriented posts here are from Christians. I live in a part of the planet where most people have many many gods and many many ancient texts to quote from. Most of these old texts were written ridiculing or "correcting" previous ones. So, one can fit in just about anything that's discovered by science to correspond to some verse somewhere in some text! Therefore, the problem people like me face where I live is just the opposite to what people like me face here: The standard thing that one hears in my part of the world is,"Of course it is so! It has always been there in (some xyz ancient book)." And then they point out a co-relation. Sigh!
CSharpner
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
@StillWind
but it should be apparent that many of the currently accepted models are false

Such as? And, back it up with WHY it's "apparent"?
the current religion of science

Religion is the blief in something without proof or evidence "faith". Science is the logical study of observational phenomenon with the extension of LOGICAL theories to explain them (as much as possible, based on things that can be tested). Therefore, by definition, science is NOT a religion.
is nothing but a strawman

Please explain how it's a "strawman". We're all familiar with the strawman argument, so please explain how our response to kev's direct statements are "strawmen".

(continued...)
CSharpner
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
continued...
Likewise the use of isolated examples of extreme fundamentalist rhetoric to damn all religious people and their leaders is nothing but the most extreme ignorance.

I personally don't do that. I respond directly to kevin. But, doing what you say above is not "ignorance". it's "generalization", of which, I try to avoid.
the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion

"Enlightened" by who's (and what) definition?
So, it apprears as if all those criticizing the OP are guilty of violating the terms of the guidelines.

I challenge you to point out in my comments where I've violating them. If you can't do it, then retract that false accusation.
Now I know that I'll recieve hateful responses

You mean, like this?!
Wake up children and get a clue.
You won't receive any hateful responses from me, in spite of your hateful comment I just quoted, but you'll likely get some from others. You started it.

continued..
CSharpner
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
continued...
for crticizing your religion

Tell me: What IS my religion? Back up your presumption with proof or retract your statement and apologize.
Our science has virtually zero direct observation of the vast majority of the universe
What are you talking about? Be SPECIFIC.
theories that it uses to explain what it can see are being disproved almost daily
Newton's laws of motion?
The laws of thermodynamics?
General and Special relativity?
Quantum physics?
The 4 forces of nature?
None of those have been disproven since they arrived and those are the fundamental building blocks of most of scientific knowledge. They get tweaked every now and then, but not disproven.

The old theory in this article was not bad considering he didn't have the knowledge we have today. His theory was updated with more accurate measurements and knowledge. Show me where this is done as a common practice in religion?

continued...
CSharpner
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2011
continued (and final)...

@StillWind,

I'll ask you the same question I've asked Kevin multiple times with absolutely no response whatsoever:

1. If the universe is only thousands of years old, why can we see objects BILLIONS of light years away?
2. Same question Etherlred asks: Was there a global flood? When? Where's the evidence? Why didn't the Egyptions notice? Where'd the water come from? Where'd it go? Provide something other than "it was magic" or "well, this old book, written a long time ago, says X".

And again:

3. What do you think MY religion is? Back it up with evidence. When you're wrong, I do expect an apology.

You talk ill of "science", yet you use science yourself in your arguments (poorly, yet you do it). What do I mean? I mean, you're trying to link ideas together with logic and reason. THAT IS SCIENCE! And the practice of using logic and reason (a.k.a. "science") is NOT a religion; it's a fundamental requirement of basic thought. Even animals do it.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2011

Our science has virtually zero direct observation of the vast majority of the universe


BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Thanks for the comic relief. And you go on telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

By the way, you might want to look up the word 'religion'. Words have actual meanings, you know. Using them incorrectly in a simple attempt to insult people just makes you look like an idiot.

frajo
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
and the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion.
False. Truly enlightened men are aware that there is no evidence for a god at the moment

"Truly enlightened" [wo]men are aware that missing evidence does not exclude belief.

That is NOT enlightenment. That is belief.

The observer observes that the believer believes despite and/or because of missing evidence.
The observer is not the believer.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2011
Why hot, fast-spinning stars?


Is the spin driven by an even faster spinning pulsar in the core?

See: "Is the Sun a pulsar?", Nature 270, 159 - 160 (10 November 1977); doi:10.1038/270159a0
Casey_V
5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2011
Sometime back I had this conversation on line with a person who insisted that all was created 6000 years ago. I asked the question: Why can we see galaxies billions of light years away?
His answer: "God created the light in transit to confuse the mind of the nonbeliever."
Then I pointed out that a supernova can seen the same billions of light years away, meaning that that star was destroyed before it ever existed. Then I asked him, "Are you
suggesting that God is a practical joker?"
His response to that: "I don't want to talk to you anymore."
that_guy
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2011
It is surprising to me that von Zeipel's law has been adopted in astronomy for such a long time with so little solid observational evidence.

One can say the same about a lot of "accepted" things: the formation of the planets comes instantly to mind - things that would normally smash and bounce off each other suddenly clump together to form planets.
The Oort cloud - has it ever been seen? NOPE. I can go on.


But please don't. Because you're wrong. You mention one thing that we will never be able to directly measure, and another that we are currently not able to. A lot of thought and study has been put in to come up with our best guesses, and that's what they are. Certainly they are more informed guesses than your opinion.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2011
The observer observes that the believer believes despite and/or because of missing evidence.
The observer is not the believer.
So what was the point of your initial statement? He said the truly enlightened have no problem with mixing religion and science and I pointed out that was NOT enlightenment because mixing the two is contrary to scientific thinking.

I did NOT say a person could not be a scientist and religious. I have never said such a thing.

But you CANNOT do honest science if you assume the answer is goddidit. Stillwind's reply seemed to be a rejection of that. Based on his statement Dr. Behe should be considered good and proper scientist when he is a really poor one outside his own field. Which is not evolution.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2011
See: "Is the Sun a pulsar?", Nature 270, 159 - 160 (10 November 1977); doi:10.1038/270159a0
See the article that only Oliver cites. See the article the original does NOT cite. See the article the original author was clearly spitwadding in and has not written anything to support.

He does NOT support you Oliver. He gave up on that silly idea. Go ahead. Show where he supports your thinking. At any time since that he wrote that. It was preposterous then and even more so now that we know so much more about pulsars. 1977 is a LONG time ago.

Ethelred
frajo
4 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2011
and the truly enlightened see no problem what so ever with integrating science and religion.
False. Truly enlightened men are aware that there is no evidence for a god at the moment

"Truly enlightened" [wo]men are aware that missing evidence does not exclude belief.

That is NOT enlightenment. That is belief.

The observer observes that the believer believes despite and/or because of missing evidence.
The observer is not the believer.

So what was the point of your initial statement? He said the truly enlightened have no problem with mixing religion and science
"Integrating", not "mixing".

and I pointed out that was NOT enlightenment because mixing the two is contrary to scientific thinking.
Again, it boils down to semantics. Integrating is not mixing. Like two chapters in one book.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2011
"Integrating", not "mixing".
Same thing. At least in this case. The assumption that goddidit is contrary to doing good science because it assumes there is no other answer possible.

Again, it boils down to semantics. Integrating is not mixing.
It is not mere semantics. It is not science. It IS religion to assume goddidit so don't look. Which is what Dr. Behe does to give an example that is very relevant to any such discussion.

AGAIN I have NEVER said a person could not be religious and do good science. I said good science cannot be done if you assume there is no answer except a religious one. Which is clearly what stillwind is advocating. Otherwise he wouldn't have been calling science a religion.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2011
Same thing. At least in this case. The assumption that goddidit is contrary to doing good science because it assumes there is no other answer possible.

Not really. Some religious figures in physics, namely Max Planck, Erasmus Darwin, etc used their religious conviction to drive their want to understand 'how god did it'. You can be a religious scientist, you can be a scientific religious person, to be either you only need to not go on assumptions.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2011
Some religious figures in physics, namely Max Planck, Erasmus Darwin, etc used their religious conviction to drive their want to understand 'how god did it'.
That is not the same as saying goddidit so don't bother looking. No I didn't say it that way that time but if you look at the very next paragraph it's there.

You can be a religious scientist, you can be a scientific religious person, to be either you only need to not go on assumptions.
I said that. In different words but the same meaning.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
Disagreements over the existence or nonexistence of God may arise from childhood-instilled beliefs:

a.) Did God create the universe, as suggested in the modern versions of the Bible?

b.) Did God become the universe, as suggested in the Gita?

The latter image of God is consistent with one of the most quoted Bible verses:

"Be still, and know that I am God."
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
Disagreements over the existence or nonexistence of God may arise from childhood-instilled beliefs
Yes some people have been force fed religion at an early age. I was. I bet you were since your a Mormon.

Did God create the universe, as suggested in the modern versions of the Bible?
No, as the descriptions do not match the world we live in. Even less so in the Book of Mormon.

Did God become the universe, as suggested in the Gita?
Become, is, whatever, there is no evidence to support the idea of a god.

"Be still, and know that I am God."
Written by men and it is men that claim it is a divine text. Why should anyone believe that?

That is the key question. WHY should anyone believe the word of men, especially men that made their living from selling religion, when those words are contrary to the physical evidence?

That is why I ask about the Flood. There is no evidence for it yet there should be. Even in our very genes.

Ethelred
omatumr
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2011
You do not know my religious beliefs.

"To know that you do not know is best,
To pretend to know what you do not know
Is a disease." - Lao Tzu
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Only if you aren't a Mormon. And there is evidence in a court case.

In any case, as usual, you are avoiding the questions.

Ethelred
Rohitasch
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2011
Disagreements over the existence or nonexistence of God may arise from childhood-instilled beliefs:

a.) Did God create the universe, as suggested in the modern versions of the Bible?

b.) Did God become the universe, as suggested in the Gita?

The latter image of God is consistent with one of the most quoted Bible verses:

"Be still, and know that I am God."


....Like I said! Lol!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.