viscount: The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day.
Take down redshift and that falsifies BB....Comets have been imaged in high def.... They are rocks.
But that is sort of my point. Comets are rocks with fine powder on their surfaces. They're basically asteroids that orbit the Sun eccentrically and outside of an asteroid belt; they're rogues if you will. They're like giant meteors. There is no icy snowy major element to them whatsoever. But that doesn't matter. The religious belief that comets "seeded the Earth's oceans" and that they "gush water from their interiors" is "fact" and taught in schools to children yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That they are not snowy ice balls has been disproven with physical evidence multiple times! But that doesn't matter. Therefore: they're icy snowy snowman existence cannot be disproven. Therefore 1+1=3 and they're icy snowballs!
Same for the big bang. That has been disproven for years. But that doesn't matter either. It is a Holy Church. You cannot decry the Church and call foul. So it doesn't matter that there is evidence to disprove it. I think, too, what weighs more heavily for "proof" of the big bang is the so-called CMBR. They have erroneously appended that radiative thing to the big bang as proof positive of its existence. And you cannot get it pried from their cold dead hands. The thing is you cannot prove the big bang in a lab nor disprove it in a lab. So it remains an invisible pink unicorn under your bed that you cannot disprove or prove exists.
Same with dark matter and dark energy. They're expert in creating non-falsifiable things and getting Nobel prizes behind them. For example, there is no evidence whatever for core accretion theory or nebular collapse yet that is a "fact" and cannot be falsified even though it is a preposterous theory. As I said earlier, all you have to do is look at the solar system itself and it gives you mountains of evidence against core accretion theory! And that must be the "lab" because you cannot create a solar system or nebula on the Earth! The lab must be the cosmos itself! You can't get any better than that!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote:
viscount: The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day.
Take down redshift and that falsifies BB....Comets have been imaged in high def.... They are rocks.
But that is sort of my point. Comets are rocks with fine powder on their surfaces. They're basically asteroids that orbit the Sun eccentrically and outside of an asteroid belt; they're rogues if you will. They're like giant meteors. There is no icy snowy major element to them whatsoever. But that doesn't matter. The religious belief that comets "seeded the Earth's oceans" and that they "gush water from their interiors" is "fact" and taught in schools to children yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That they are not snowy ice balls has been disproven with physical evidence multiple times! But that doesn't matter. Therefore: they're icy snowy snowman existence cannot be disproven. Therefore 1+1=3 and they're icy snowballs!
Same for the big bang. That has been disproven for years. But that doesn't matter either. It is a Holy Church. You cannot decry the Church and call foul. So it doesn't matter that there is evidence to disprove it. I think, too, what weighs more heavily for "proof" of the big bang is the so-called CMBR. They have erroneously appended that radiative thing to the big bang as proof positive of its existence. And you cannot get it pried from their cold dead hands. The thing is you cannot prove the big bang in a lab nor disprove it in a lab. So it remains an invisible pink unicorn under your bed that you cannot disprove or prove exists.
Same with dark matter and dark energy. They're expert in creating non-falsifiable things and getting Nobel prizes behind them. For example, there is no evidence whatever for core accretion theory or nebular collapse yet that is a "fact" and cannot be falsified even though it is a preposterous theory. As I said earlier, all you have to do is look at the solar system itself and it gives you mountains of evidence against core accretion theory! And that must be the "lab" because you cannot create a solar system or nebula on the Earth! The lab must be the cosmos itself! You can't get any better than that!
Viscount,
Both you and I understand this. We are not dealing with scientists. They are experts at creating unfalsifiable "theories". To them unfalsifiable means true. They are high priests. They crap all over science and award themselves prizes for bs theory after bs theory. It's been going on since before I was born!
Plus you forget one of the biggest scams, the Higgs Boson. It's a scam so large, so preposterous, so media driven and based on so many falsehoods, and has so many careers based on, that we completely have to throw it all in the trash. Their mathematical models have absolutely ZERO bearing on reality. It's contradiction after contradiction!
1. One top quark weighs more than an entire gold atom. Yet gold atoms are made of top quarks. That is like saying my big toe weighs more than me!
2. The higgs boson is the particle of weight, so what give the higgs boson it's weight? It is circular contradictory reasoning.
Heck! Even Einstein didn't have a solution for his field equations for two bodies! His equations work only in the imaginations of those who have no use for reality! How does one describe a gravitating body when there is nothing to measure it against? It's a contradiction!
So many things wrong, so many bs theories. It's a giant junk yard of useless crap! Yet if we point this out on physics forums we get ridiculed and put down as if we're idiots!
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Nothing explains Uranus's tilt. This is why there are so many different papers. If it was explained there would only need to be one paper.
I am wrong about 1 cm sized particles producing heat and welding together from gravitation only? Okay. Show me an experiment in which the entire Earth's gravity can weld together two ball bearings when placed on top of each other. Very little heat is right, more like non-existent on the scale needed for the ball bearings to weld together making larger asteroids. Yet we find giant asteroids that are solid iron floating about in outer space. How did gravity alone form these objects? I'm still waiting for the already falsified neb hypothesis to show up.
It's not required you to accept or reject a falsification. Thus stated here are a few things which the Neb Hypothesis has a few problems with:
It is explained, the number of papers has nothing to do with it.
The pint of gravitational potential is that they need to fall towards each other. If those ball bearings impacted Earth at typical solar system velocities they would have enough energy to melt. Again just because the heat from 2 is small doesn't mean the heat from many is.
I am not interested in debating a thousand things with you. It's easy for you to throw out 20 "falsifications" but I have things to do. As I said all of your argument are about the current state of the theory the pure basic hypothesis of nebular collapse has not been falsified, because none of these things have to happen under this idea. They simply happen under certain theoretical treatments.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Oh and the snowy snowball theory of water ocean formation is answered in stelmeta.
It is simple. A star cools and combines some hydrogen with oxygen. The water then condenses from gaseous state as the pressure in the star builds up and rains down. That's it. We can see water ocean formation in the blue bands on Jupiter. This is blasphemy to the religion of Big Bang though, there is no way oxygen could be in large amounts on stars and combine with hydrogen making water! To them its impossible! Yet it is basic physics! It is called plasma recombination, in which a charged ion of material neutralizes with other ions forming molecular compounds!
All the water on the Earth was always here directly after first ionization. The snowman iceballs of ocean creation are completely ad hoc. Earth is already in outer space, there is no reason for water to come from other than outer space, that is counter-intuitive!
Our eyes no longer count as useful tools for discovery. The mathematical physicists claim to "see with the eyes of god" by staring at equations on black boards. What a crock!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Nothing explains Uranus's tilt. This is why there are so many different papers. If it was explained there would only need to be one paper.
I am wrong about 1 cm sized particles producing heat and welding together from gravitation only? Okay. Show me an experiment in which the entire Earth's gravity can weld together two ball bearings when placed on top of each other. Very little heat is right, more like non-existent on the scale needed for the ball bearings to weld together making larger asteroids. Yet we find giant asteroids that are solid iron floating about in outer space. How did gravity alone form these objects? I'm still waiting for the already falsified neb hypothesis to show up.
It's not required you to accept or reject a falsification. Thus stated here are a few things which the Neb Hypothesis has a few problems with:
It is explained, the number of papers has nothing to do with it.
The pint of gravitational potential is that they need to fall towards each other. If those ball bearings impacted Earth at typical solar system velocities they would have enough energy to melt. Again just because the heat from 2 is small doesn't mean the heat from many is.
I am not interested in debating a thousand things with you. It's easy for you to throw out 20 "falsifications" but I have things to do. As I said all of your argument are about the current state of the theory the pure basic hypothesis of nebular collapse has not been falsified, because none of these things have to happen under this idea. They simply happen under certain theoretical treatments.
If two ball bearings hit each other at solar system velocities they would explode and shatter into thousands of pieces. Do you even understand ballistics? Since when does a bullet hit another bullet and weld together? lol
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
I am not interested in debating a thousand things with you. It's easy for you to throw out 20 "falsifications" but I have things to do. As I said all of your argument are about the current state of the theory the pure basic hypothesis of nebular collapse has not been falsified, because none of these things have to happen under this idea. They simply happen under certain theoretical treatments.
How does iron weld together in outer space if:
1. two iron ball bearings impacting each other at solar system velocities would render them smashed into thousands of tiny pieces?
2. the gravitational potential energy is non-existent on the scales of two iron ball bearings 1 cm in diameter.
Just show me how its done.
As I said I already know the answer to this. Stars weld iron in their centers because they are giant vacuum vapor chambers which sort the material according to its ionization potential. Thus iron/nickel move towards the center and clumps together because A. It is ionized and B. Iron/nickel become very strong electromagnets so they will stick together, and form very strong alloys, they same type of alloys used in the interiors of jet engines. The core forms first and as the lower layers of the star start moving towards the center, layering on top of the newly formed core, and the star starts shrinking and cooling.
Over many more millions of years the majority of the lower ionization potential elements (not helium/hydrogen) continually differentiate themselves and form molecular bonds with each other. This is called plasma recombination, and it forms every single naturally occurring molecular compound on the Earth, even the amino acids which are the beginning of life itself.
After the majority of the plasma is recombined it is understood to be "gas". Something the astrophysicists love to ignore. I don't know why. This gas will continually deposit (physics phase transition under higher temperatures and pressures) and form the very LAND and rocks you walk on, and the oceans above the denser basaltic formations and still active volcanic crust. This is why the Grand Canyon is layered. Of course, the Grand Canyon is ignored by astrophysics, it is below them. They are haughty "know it alls" who think stars are mutually exclusive of planets. They have the "big educations" remember? They already know everything, yet can't even explain how the ground came to be!
They could be walking on an ancient star, a star many billions of years old but would not realize it because their heads are in the clouds full of nonsense math equations that have nothing to do with reality. They have built a stellar evolutionary structure full of explosions and fusion and other ad hocs which are completely irrelevant and do not represent the truth what so ever.
To make iron meteorites of all sizes all you need to do is smash together two very old stars. This is what a "protoplanetary disk" is. But no, your education is going to get in the way of you learning something. Happens to most of the PhD's I have come in contact with. They are genuine fools. They are educated into oblivion. Brainwashed is the true term.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote:
viscount: The big bang cannot be disproved either but it is fake. Comets are not snowballs but are taught that they are to this day.
Take down redshift and that falsifies BB....Comets have been imaged in high def.... They are rocks.
But that is sort of my point. Comets are rocks with fine powder on their surfaces. They're basically asteroids that orbit the Sun eccentrically and outside of an asteroid belt; they're rogues if you will. They're like giant meteors. There is no icy snowy major element to them whatsoever. But that doesn't matter. The religious belief that comets "seeded the Earth's oceans" and that they "gush water from their interiors" is "fact" and taught in schools to children yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That they are not snowy ice balls has been disproven with physical evidence multiple times! But that doesn't matter. Therefore: they're icy snowy snowman existence cannot be disproven. Therefore 1+1=3 and they're icy snowballs!
Same for the big bang. That has been disproven for years. But that doesn't matter either. It is a Holy Church. You cannot decry the Church and call foul. So it doesn't matter that there is evidence to disprove it. I think, too, what weighs more heavily for "proof" of the big bang is the so-called CMBR. They have erroneously appended that radiative thing to the big bang as proof positive of its existence. And you cannot get it pried from their cold dead hands. The thing is you cannot prove the big bang in a lab nor disprove it in a lab. So it remains an invisible pink unicorn under your bed that you cannot disprove or prove exists.
Same with dark matter and dark energy. They're expert in creating non-falsifiable things and getting Nobel prizes behind them. For example, there is no evidence whatever for core accretion theory or nebular collapse yet that is a "fact" and cannot be falsified even though it is a preposterous theory. As I said earlier, all you have to do is look at the solar system itself and it gives you mountains of evidence against core accretion theory! And that must be the "lab" because you cannot create a solar system or nebula on the Earth! The lab must be the cosmos itself! You can't get any better than that!
Viscount,
Both you and I understand this. We are not dealing with scientists. They are experts at creating unfalsifiable "theories". To them unfalsifiable means true. They are high priests. They crap all over science and award themselves prizes for bs theory after bs theory. It's been going on since before I was born!
Plus you forget one of the biggest scams, the Higgs Boson. It's a scam so large, so preposterous, so media driven and based on so many falsehoods, and has so many careers based on, that we completely have to throw it all in the trash. Their mathematical models have absolutely ZERO bearing on reality. It's contradiction after contradiction!
1. One top quark weighs more than an entire gold atom. Yet gold atoms are made of top quarks. That is like saying my big toe weighs more than me!
2. The higgs boson is the particle of weight, so what give the higgs boson it's weight? It is circular contradictory reasoning.
Heck! Even Einstein didn't have a solution for his field equations for two bodies! His equations work only in the imaginations of those who have no use for reality! How does one describe a gravitating body when there is nothing to measure it against? It's a contradiction!
So many things wrong, so many bs theories. It's a giant junk yard of useless crap! Yet if we point this out on physics forums we get ridiculed and put down as if we're idiots!
LOL " One top quark weighs more than an entire gold atom. Yet gold atoms are made of top quarks. That is like saying my big toe weighs more than me!"
and to this: "The higgs boson is the particle of weight, so what gives the higgs boson it's weight? It is circular contradictory reasoning"--is exactly what I have been saying all along, even before it was allegedly discovered.
How can a particle define all other particles? That is like having a bread sandwich. Also how can the Higgs boson "lend all particles their mass"? Is this like having a credit line with an infinite limit? Did a mortgage lender invent this theory? Tell me how a particle can "Lend" another particle all of its mass? This means that ALL particles by themselves are massless and only derive mass because they are moving through the "Higgs field." How can such a theory ever be taken seriously? But wait... it is!
They are particle-obsessed so they must re-create the aether but populate it with Higgs bosons--alleged linchpins all of all mass (hence all of existence) yet elusive and barely detectable (if at all) in a series of collisions that render results only through statistically theoretical analysis and not actual observation! I wonder how they reconcile this with so-called dark matter!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Viscount,
The problem with physics, especially in the star sciences, is that they have the wrong assumptions and then they do their "logic" based off wrong assumptions. Thus they are "logical" but completely wrong, as it should be obvious because they are constantly "surprised" by their discoveries in the skies above. This is another problem. They think that since something is "logical" makes it true, so of course they will be constantly surprised! They keep on thinking logical mathematical models represent reality! They don't!
Therefore when they draw up their "mathematical models" of star evolution all the models will show that the stars cool, and keep their mass, eventually exploding because the mass becomes too great and reaches a threshold. This is "logic" based off incorrect assumptions!
The correct assumption is to look at the stars and realize that when they cool, they actually dim and start reddening. Therefore, looking at the dim stars such as red dwarfs we are lead to the conclusion that they are measured to always be "less massive" than the Sun. Thus the "mass being kept" assumption of astrophysics is completely bogus, because THERE ARE NO RED DWARFS THAT HAVE THE MASS OF THE SUN! If their mathematical models were correct, there would be red dwarfs found all over the place with the mass of the Sun!!! Yet they are completely absent! Nowhere to be found! Their mathematical star models are complete rubbish!
Their mathematical star models were all drawn up on chalk boards of the 1920's-1960's yet nobody has tried to challenge them because the assumption that stars and planets are mutually exclusive was kept. They are not mutually exclusive. A star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient dying, cooling, solidifying star!
Thus we can then lead this stelmeta theory into actually starting to understand what causes the effect of gravitation, because it sure as heck isn't mass, the observations of red dwarfs much less "massive" than the Sun falsify that hypothesis!
Their logic means ignoring reality. Just do your math equations and shut up. You are a peon and you need to bow to the greats!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Viscount,
The problem with physics, especially in the star sciences, is that they have the wrong assumptions and then they do their "logic" based off wrong assumptions. Thus they are "logical" but completely wrong, as it should be obvious because they are constantly "surprised" by their discoveries in the skies above. This is another problem. They think that since something is "logical" makes it true, so of course they will be constantly surprised! They keep on thinking logical mathematical models represent reality! They don't!
Therefore when they draw up their "mathematical models" of star evolution all the models will show that the stars cool, and keep their mass, eventually exploding because the mass becomes too great and reaches a threshold. This is "logic" based off incorrect assumptions!
The correct assumption is to look at the stars and realize that when they cool, they actually dim and start reddening. Therefore, looking at the dim stars such as red dwarfs we are lead to the conclusion that they are measured to always be "less massive" than the Sun. Thus the "mass being kept" assumption of astrophysics is completely bogus, because THERE ARE NO RED DWARFS THAT HAVE THE MASS OF THE SUN! If their mathematical models were correct, there would be red dwarfs found all over the place with the mass of the Sun!!! Yet they are completely absent! Nowhere to be found! Their mathematical star models are complete rubbish!
Their mathematical star models were all drawn up on chalk boards of the 1920's-1960's yet nobody has tried to challenge them because the assumption that stars and planets are mutually exclusive was kept. They are not mutually exclusive. A star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient dying, cooling, solidifying star!
Thus we can then lead this stelmeta theory into actually starting to understand what causes the effect of gravitation, because it sure as heck isn't mass, the observations of red dwarfs much less "massive" than the Sun falsify that hypothesis!
Their logic means ignoring reality. Just do your math equations and shut up. You are a peon and you need to bow to the greats!
To add to your abridged mainstream stellar evolution blurb for further clarification, of course you know already that allegedly "the stars cool, and keep their mass[es], eventually exploding because the mass becomes too great and reaches a threshold..." predicates an insistence of a stellar collapse and then an explosion. That is, the star's mass is too great for the "outward pressure" of the thermonuclear processes and "convection" to keep the star "inflated". Therefore as the star has "expended its thermonuclear fuel" its bulk mass "collapses in on itself and bounces off the core--thus going supernova becoming a nebula again." LOL!
But wait... this creates a big problem! There are more stars observable than nebulas. That would mean that most stars must be all around the same age, relatively so. In other words we don't see a proportionately equal number of nebulae to stars. So, per examining more closely the consequences of their own theory, nebulas must be only a very recent, virtually new, phenomena! Nebulas are an anomaly!
How can they say, then, that nebulas collapse to form stars again when this is only (apparently per examining the ramifications of their theory more closely) a recently hatched, and thus unknown, process? In other words, if all of the stars vastly outnumber the nebulae then, per their reasoning, they all formed at the same time long ago just after "nucleosynthesis" of the big bang when matter began to clump and "differentiate." That was about 14 billion years ago according to their theory. So, then, per that logic, it would take nearly the age of the known universe to begin seeing nebulae that have exploded, collapsed, and then formed "protoplanetary disks with planets." In other words, stars have only recently begun to die off.
This contradicts the mainstream spread for stellar ages. The mainstream doesn't age stars to all be as old as the universe or anywhere near that age. Therefore supernovae and nebulae should be observable everywhere, wall to wall, to be overlapping in ages and times. But that isn't observed. Only very few exist. Either most stars are all the same age or supernovae/nebulae do not indicate stellar death/pending birth and they are born and die in some other way. Do you follow what I'm saying?
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: If two ball bearings hit each other at solar system velocities they would explode and shatter into thousands of pieces. Do you even understand ballistics? Since when does a bullet hit another bullet and weld together? lol
Not all objects in the solar system are solid metal especially as we are talking about before iron meteorites.
JeffreyW wrote: How does iron weld together in outer space if:
1. two iron ball bearings impacting each other at solar system velocities would render them smashed into thousands of tiny pieces?
2. the gravitational potential energy is non-existent on the scales of two iron ball bearings 1 cm in diameter.
Just show me how its done.
You set up a strawman argument with these conditions which I have told you already are wrong. Before the iron meteorites they were not solid metal, they were rocky with some iron. As I said we are not talking about fusing 2 ball bearings together we are talking about the formation of protoplanets. You wouldn't get iron meteorites in small collisions in standard theory. You need a body with enough gravity to differentiate. So you need a lot of mass which has a lot of potential energy.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
How can they say, then, that nebulas collapse to form stars again when this is only (apparently per examining the ramifications of their theory more closely) a recently hatched, and thus unknown, process? In other words, if all of the stars vastly outnumber the nebulae then, per their reasoning, they all formed at the same time long ago just after "nucleosynthesis" of the big bang when matter began to clump and "differentiate." That was about 14 billion years ago according to their theory. So, then, per that logic, it would take nearly the age of the known universe to begin seeing nebulae that have exploded, collapsed, and then formed "protoplanetary disks with planets." In other words, stars have only recently begun to die off.
This contradicts the mainstream spread for stellar ages. The mainstream doesn't age stars to all be as old as the universe or anywhere near that age. Therefore supernovae and nebulae should be observable everywhere, wall to wall, to be overlapping in ages and times. But that isn't observed. Only very few exist. Either most stars are all the same age or supernovae/nebulae do not indicate stellar death/pending birth and they are born and die in some other way. Do you follow what I'm saying?
Yea I follow. I got one even better for ya! While we are on the subject of contradictions in the establishment.
The establishment's methods for "aging" stars is based on their "elemental ratios". Thus stars that are older have more helium/hydrogen in their spectrums, as opposed to iron.
To restate this so there is no confusion: To the establishment a star that is mostly helium/hydrogen in its spectrum is very, very old.
This is an OBVIOUS contradiction! If stars are engaged in "fusion" reactions, then the older ones should have more iron! So the very oldest ones should have very little hydrogen/helium in their spectrums! Right? The fusion model contradicts their models for determining the ages of stars based off big bang!!!
It's like BAM! Right in your face! Blatant contradiction!!!
According to big bang stars with low metal concentrations means they are very old.
According to fusion model stars with high metal means they are very old (have had enough time to fuse the iron in their cores!).
They do their regular tap dance and completely avoid the issue! Read this article and you'll see what I mean:
"But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance."
HA! Refine the distance! Huh? Maybe the cosmology is wrong AND stellar physics is wrong... they should have corrected that!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: If two ball bearings hit each other at solar system velocities they would explode and shatter into thousands of pieces. Do you even understand ballistics? Since when does a bullet hit another bullet and weld together? lol
Not all objects in the solar system are solid metal especially as we are talking about before iron meteorites.
JeffreyW wrote: How does iron weld together in outer space if:
1. two iron ball bearings impacting each other at solar system velocities would render them smashed into thousands of tiny pieces?
2. the gravitational potential energy is non-existent on the scales of two iron ball bearings 1 cm in diameter.
Just show me how its done.
You set up a strawman argument with these conditions which I have told you already are wrong. Before the iron meteorites they were not solid metal, they were rocky with some iron. As I said we are not talking about fusing 2 ball bearings together we are talking about the formation of protoplanets. You wouldn't get iron meteorites in small collisions in standard theory. You need a body with enough gravity to differentiate. So you need a lot of mass which has a lot of potential energy.
Whatever. Even your own minions have agreed with me on wikipedia: Nebular Hypothesis
"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts."
Explain THAT. They don't coalesce. Straw man? No way. What mechanism makes 1 cm sized particles become 1 km sized planetesimals? You still have yet to answer this.
1. We have iron meteorites the sizes of small school buses on the Earth. 14,150 kilograms of solid iron/nickel staring at you in the face. How did gravity weld this puppy together? How did "impacts" weld this thing together when impacts would be ballistic in nature. I was in artillery in the Marines, impacts make things go BOOM and fly apart, they don't coalesce into larger objects! Apparently we need more reality based scientists or something? If a 14,150 kilogram solid iron chunk like this was travelling at 5000-20,000+ kilometers an hour, while it swirled around in some fantasy nebula, how would it treat other objects? Not very nicely let me tell ya. It wouldn't clump together, it would obliterate all smaller objects in its path into a fine powder, and if it hit a larger object would obliterate itself.
How can they say, then, that nebulas collapse to form stars again when this is only (apparently per examining the ramifications of their theory more closely) a recently hatched, and thus unknown, process? In other words, if all of the stars vastly outnumber the nebulae then, per their reasoning, they all formed at the same time long ago just after "nucleosynthesis" of the big bang when matter began to clump and "differentiate." That was about 14 billion years ago according to their theory. So, then, per that logic, it would take nearly the age of the known universe to begin seeing nebulae that have exploded, collapsed, and then formed "protoplanetary disks with planets." In other words, stars have only recently begun to die off.
This contradicts the mainstream spread for stellar ages. The mainstream doesn't age stars to all be as old as the universe or anywhere near that age. Therefore supernovae and nebulae should be observable everywhere, wall to wall, to be overlapping in ages and times. But that isn't observed. Only very few exist. Either most stars are all the same age or supernovae/nebulae do not indicate stellar death/pending birth and they are born and die in some other way. Do you follow what I'm saying?
Yea I follow. I got one even better for ya! While we are on the subject of contradictions in the establishment.
The establishment's methods for "aging" stars is based on their "elemental ratios". Thus stars that are older have more helium/hydrogen in their spectrums, as opposed to iron.
To restate this so there is no confusion: To the establishment a star that is mostly helium/hydrogen in its spectrum is very, very old.
This is an OBVIOUS contradiction! If stars are engaged in "fusion" reactions, then the older ones should have more iron! So the very oldest ones should have very little hydrogen/helium in their spectrums! Right? The fusion model contradicts their models for determining the ages of stars based off big bang!!!
You are correct. As I was reading your post before you got to the punchline I was already thinking the same thing. The first things to synthesize/fuse will be the lightest elements. Not the heavies. The heavies are what is left over.
It's like BAM! Right in your face! Blatant contradiction!!!
According to big bang stars with low metal concentrations means they are very old.
According to fusion model stars with high metal means they are very old (have had enough time to fuse the iron in their cores!).
LOL!!!
JeffreyW wrote: They do their regular tap dance and completely avoid the issue! Read this article and you'll see what I mean:
"But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance."
HA! Refine the distance! Huh? Maybe the cosmology is wrong AND stellar physics is wrong... they should have corrected that!
Yes totally. And I will read the whole article in a bit....
ThickTarget
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Whatever. Even your own minions have agreed with me on wikipedia: Nebular Hypothesis
"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts."
Explain THAT. They don't coalesce. Straw man? No way. What mechanism makes 1 cm sized particles become 1 km sized planetesimals? You still have yet to answer this.
1. We have iron meteorites the sizes of small school buses on the Earth. 14,150 kilograms of solid iron/nickel staring at you in the face. How did gravity weld this puppy together? How did "impacts" weld this thing together when impacts would be ballistic in nature. I was in artillery in the Marines, impacts make things go BOOM and fly apart, they don't coalesce into larger objects! Apparently we need more reality based scientists or something? If a 14,150 kilogram solid iron chunk like this was travelling at 5000-20,000+ kilometers an hour, while it swirled around in some fantasy nebula, how would it treat other objects? Not very nicely let me tell ya. It wouldn't clump together, it would obliterate all smaller objects in its path into a fine powder, and if it hit a larger object would obliterate itself.
You seem to have me confused with someone who is here to defend the mainstream, I am not. I am here to point out when you or anyone else is misrepresenting the mainstream.
You should note that just because it is not known how it happens does not mean that possible solutions don't already exist. They do. The reason they are not accepted is they have difficulty when it comes to quantitatively explaining observations. Potential mechanisms do exist, they just have difficulties.
As I said before iron meteorites were not formed from smaller lumps of iron slamming into each other. You continue to misrepresent what I have said.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
ThickTarget wrote:
You seem to have me confused with someone who is here to defend the mainstream, I am not. I am here to point out when you or anyone else is misrepresenting the mainstream.
That's awesome. Thanks. That's why you are welcomed here and get along with everyone
