Establishment believes stars INCREASE in their luminosity as they age and evolve.
If this is not counter-intuitive then I don't know what is. What campfire have you seen as it dies starts getting BRIGHTER? Do not take my word for it on wikipedia for "stellar age estimation":
"As stars grow older, their luminosity increases at an appreciable rate."
Their dirty laundry is out in the open for all to see!
That's not even the half of it though. As I read the article it appears to me that its ALL ad hoc. These people do not know what they are doing at all!!!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
"We may be looking at the act of birth, where this object is just leaving the rings and heading off to be a moon in its own right."
The researchers have nicknamed the possible baby moon "Peggy" and suggest it is probably less than a kilometre in diameter.
Cassini is expected to move closer to Saturn's outermost ring in late 2016, which may allow it to study Peggy in more detail or capture an actual image, a NASA news release said.-------------Saturn has 62 confirmed moons. The biggest and most famous is Titan, where large quantities of methane and other carbon-based molecules have been detected.
Maybe it is the birth of a star!!!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I seem to have found another gem.
Establishment believes stars INCREASE in their luminosity as they age and evolve.
If this is not counter-intuitive then I don't know what is. What campfire have you seen as it dies starts getting BRIGHTER? Do not take my word for it on wikipedia for "stellar age estimation":
"As stars grow older, their luminosity increases at an appreciable rate."
Their dirty laundry is out in the open for all to see!
That's not even the half of it though. As I read the article it appears to me that its ALL ad hoc. These people do not know what they are doing at all!!!
That's correct.
Ever since I was very young I never followed that reasoning. I see their rationale behind it but I still don't buy it. It's a very silly stellar model.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: The question is whether or not there is a physical process that can produce just such a nebula, and still leave a remnant in the center. If there just isn't any way for that much material to be expelled from an explosion that by definition originated in the center, without evacuating the center, then it simply wasn't an explosion originating from the center — period. So it wasn't a thermonuclear supernova that produced this. And that's all the standard model has, so the standard model goes out the window.
Now, if not that, then what was it actually?
Yes! Finally someone says it. Exactly. In all of these stellar "deaths" the star is left intact?! LOL!! When was the last time you saw an explosion leave anything intact at the center!
CharlesChandler wrote: It was certainly violent, and it released an enormous amount of energy, as well as expelling an enormous amount of matter, at an extremely high speed. And this happened many times, and in a variety of ways, producing the pulsed outer shells, and then something different going on nearer the center. And yet the star at the very center persists.
I'm going with birthing, but you're right — it's all speculation.
YES! You get the full cookie jar, Charles.
THAT is where science should base its premise from--not from a "death." Likewise, I doubt highly that this is a "shedding" of stellar material. If anything, it's a pulsing of a sort of spherical "wave" motion from a central "node", like a beacon or transponder. It's not a death. It's very alive!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
THAT is where science should base its premise from--not from a "death." Likewise, I doubt highly that this is a "shedding" of stellar material. If anything, it's a pulsing of a sort of spherical "wave" motion from a central "node", like a beacon or transponder. It's not a death. It's very alive!
They have stuff they don't understand as "death" because of Big Bang Creationism.
When you have all stars born at the moment of "creation" then absolutely no stars can be currently born NOW. Thus, if you see a star being born, and it looks really funny and strange, then bam, it can't be born! Big Bang made all stars! It has to be dying!
This is the official party line, I shit you not. All stars came out of the big bang. So all the talk of "stellar nurseries" is complete hokum. They are literally contradicting themselves if they claim that stars came from big bang, AND are currently being born in present time.
They don't mention that on discovery channel presentations though do they? What is REALLY strange is that the Sun is apparently 4.5 billion years old give or take a few million, and it was also born out of Big Bang... but wait! The Bang only happened 13.7 billion years ago!
This means that their model for stellar evolution also conflicts with Big Bang Creationism. Contradictions galore! How does a person make sense of this stuff?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
THAT is where science should base its premise from--not from a "death." Likewise, I doubt highly that this is a "shedding" of stellar material. If anything, it's a pulsing of a sort of spherical "wave" motion from a central "node", like a beacon or transponder. It's not a death. It's very alive!
They have stuff they don't understand as "death" because of Big Bang Creationism.
When you have all stars born at the moment of "creation" then absolutely no stars can be currently born NOW. Thus, if you see a star being born, and it looks really funny and strange, then bam, it can't be born! Big Bang made all stars! It has to be dying!
LOL!!!!
JeffreyW wrote: This is the official party line, I shit you not. All stars came out of the big bang. So all the talk of "stellar nurseries" is complete hokum. They are literally contradicting themselves if they claim that stars came from big bang, AND are currently being born in present time.
Yes... you point out a contradiction from them: they allege to exist "stellar nurseries" all the time.... but wait... never in the deep field images do you see "disks" coalescing. Where are these accretion disks? Are they saying the Pleiades were all formed from one accretion disk or seven? Show me the money!
JeffreyW wrote: They don't mention that on discovery channel presentations though do they? What is REALLY strange is that the Sun is apparently 4.5 billion years old give or take a few million, and it was also born out of Big Bang... but wait! The Bang only happened 13.7 billion years ago!
This means that their model for stellar evolution also conflicts with Big Bang Creationism. Contradictions galore! How does a person make sense of this stuff?
LOL! Oops. The logic doesn't actually follow. But it's waived away. The Sun should be much older! But it's not!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
the Sun is apparently 4.5 billion years old give or take a few million, and it was also born out of Big Bang...
Jeffrey, you're doing your usual by creating a straw man fallacy. Your ignorance of standard model indicates your lack of good reasoning and logic, which does not say much for your model.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: When you have all stars born at the moment of "creation" then absolutely no stars can be currently born NOW.
I think there is confusion here, standard theory doesn't say all stars were born soon after big bang. First generation stars formed early in the development of the Universe, and only contained Hydrogen and Helium. When these stars died as supernovas, they created heavier elements such as oxygen and carbon, which were distributed back into space, 'seeding' the hydrogen clouds. These then formed new stars (second generation stars), which then contained trace amounts of these heavier elements.These second generation stars blew up and the dust help create the Third generation of stars containing slightly more heavy elements, including gold and iron among others. We can detect these elements in the spectrum of sunlight, confirming that our sun is most likely a third-generation star.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: When you have all stars born at the moment of "creation" then absolutely no stars can be currently born NOW.
I think there is confusion here, standard theory doesn't say all stars were born soon after big bang. First generation stars formed early in the development of the Universe, and only contained Hydrogen and Helium. When these stars died as supernovas, they created heavier elements such as oxygen and carbon, which were distributed back into space, 'seeding' the hydrogen clouds. These then formed new stars (second generation stars), which then contained trace amounts of these heavier elements.These second generation stars blew up and the dust help create the Third generation of stars containing slightly more heavy elements, including gold and iron among others. We can detect these elements in the spectrum of sunlight, confirming that our sun is most likely a third-generation star.
All of which assumes that core accretion happens which there is no evidence for.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: All of which assumes that core accretion happens which there is no evidence for.
Well no, that's a separate matter, these stars could be formed in a pinch, I was just saying in standard theory, stars are being born all the time not just after big bang. I don't believe the standard theory.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: All of which assumes that core accretion happens which there is no evidence for.
Well no, that's a separate matter, these stars could be formed in a pinch, I was just saying in standard theory, stars are being born all the time not just after big bang. I don't believe the standard theory.
ok 10/4
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: When you have all stars born at the moment of "creation" then absolutely no stars can be currently born NOW.
I think there is confusion here, standard theory doesn't say all stars were born soon after big bang. First generation stars formed early in the development of the Universe, and only contained Hydrogen and Helium. When these stars died as supernovas, they created heavier elements such as oxygen and carbon, which were distributed back into space, 'seeding' the hydrogen clouds. These then formed new stars (second generation stars), which then contained trace amounts of these heavier elements.These second generation stars blew up and the dust help create the Third generation of stars containing slightly more heavy elements, including gold and iron among others. We can detect these elements in the spectrum of sunlight, confirming that our sun is most likely a third-generation star.
1. No first generation stars found (no Pop III stars). The standard model should have disintegrated already.
Not only that but the "standard model" contradicts the very essence of assuming stars are fusion reactors which are taking hydrogen and helium and turned it into heavier elements.
If a hydrogen Pop III star exists as predicted by the Big Bang Standard Model, then why hasn't it been fusing hydrogen/helium into heavier elements? It's just sitting there not being powered by anything? So first generation stars, the Pop III stars are pristine hydrogen/helium balls of plasma that are shining, not fusing elements and are powered by fusion? This all smells of ad hoc hocus pocus nonsense.
I think they just made crap up. They were doing rainy day physics. They were bored. So they just made stuff up to sooth people's nerves. They had to justify what they were doing all day, looking through telescopes, so they were like, hey, we got all this and all that and it's all complicated and stuff! You gotta believe us!
The fact is that they didn't know what they were looking at so they just made stuff up. Their made up stuff propagated in graduate schools and now here we are, thinking the Sun is a nuclear bomb, the universe came from nothing, and gas in outer space gets hot from gravity... it's all hokum if you ask me. Nobody wants to correct it either because you can learn this crap and have a career. Doesn't matter if its trash because all the authorities believe it and its what is being published in magazines and "peer review journals".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here we see four bright spots and no ring-like elongations. In fact, all four of the bright spots are elongated in the wrong direction: they stretch toward the galaxy center.
More observations were undertaken. Using the Hubble Space Telescope, a friend of Arp's documented that quasar D (right side of photo) is physically connected to the nucleus of the galaxy. Later, a high redshift connection was discovered between quasars A (bottom) and B (top) which passes in front of the connection between the nucleus and quasar D. But these observations went unnoticed: the journal which usually prints results from the Hubble Space Telescope rejected this announcement twice.
Evidence of Fissioning!?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Evidence of Fissioning!?
Perhaps. How 'bout this:
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, sleep with dogs and you get fleas. Seems that illogic, immaturity, and lack of reasoning can rub off from this thread And yes fissioning/dividing cells produce life!!!
ONE! Just ONE piece of evidence that stars die and become planets?!
Dismiss all you want, but at least there is some evidence that suggests fissioning
And yes fissioning/dividing cells produce life!!!
