Computer Simulation Research: BlackHoles & Young Stars

I was reading a blog by Penny Higgins who is a evolutionary scientist. She advocated; “Science attempts to do this by studying only phenomena that are “material,” meaning countable, measurable, visible, tangible things, and by making the fewest assumptions possible. Note that Miss Higgins mentions “fewest assumptions possible.” This is not to say, evolutionary science couldn’t have many assumptions in it’s proposals or conclusions when it comes to situations where it deems not possible to have only a few. We shall see in a moment a very popular technique that uses numerous assumptions in it’s discovery. Creation and ID proponents are more careful in this area, it’s more of a black and white issue to them as well as it should be. Now on to the main topic…

A mystery that has puzzled scientists for quite some time is alleged to be “solved” not with observational science, but by highly interpretive science (computer simulation). The new discovery is published in the journal Science August 22, 2008…

Scientists have claimed to have observed young stars near black holes and used computer software to make observations on how they got there; “The simulations show how the clouds are pulled apart by the immense gravitational pull of the black hole. The disrupted clouds form into spiral patterns as they orbit the black hole; the spiral patterns remove motion energy from gas that passes close to the black hole and transfers it to gas that passes further out. This allows part of the cloud to be captured by the black hole while the rest escapes. In these conditions, only high mass stars are able to form and these stars inherit the eccentric orbits from the disc” Science Daily.

Be always weary of computer simulators solving the mysteries of the universe and being able to explain various details which has never been observed outside a computer. It’s basically story telling, because it’s not really plausible. While it’s true, man knows many things in the universe, there is still a lot more we don’t know yet or might never know in the vast reaches of space. In evolutionary science for one reason or another we always encounter some sort of claim to know more than one actually does. One has to keep in mind, the universe is not as predictable as previously thought by evolutionists as Astronomy (the laws of the stars) was originally based only on math.  Measuring young galaxies magnetic fields is a classic example of that.

Computer simulations are based not only on man’s knowledge but programmed with interpretations of possible observations or situations or both. Trying to model real behavior especially in deep space and other complex situations which includes a lot of unknown variables is like trying to take a picture of gravity. I do not consider these types of modeling when it comes to the universe as “science” and be able to solve the mysteries. I do however, consider this research fraud who are more into the fame aspect of it or the money aspect  (government grants), than actually conducting true science.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s