in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy.
Can anybody explain the nature of these stresses? Since they're the prime mover in this "explanation", it's a legitimate question. Without identifying the physical forces responsible for the phenomena, this is no better than mainstream astrobabble.
No, I wasn't asking for an explanation of stresses in general. I was asking for an explanation of the actual stresses involved in the hypothesis given. If somebody were to explain how a car engine works by saying that certain stresses cause the car to accelerate, that wouldn't be an explanation. Rather, it would be just an observation (albeit in pseudo-technical terminology). To actually explain something, you have to identify the nuts and bolts responsible for the observations. In mechanical engineering, if you keep questioning, you can get explanations all of the way down to the atomic level. That's an explanation. But a thesis that never identifies anything below the level of what is instantaneously observed is not an explanation — it's just an observation.
Solar wrote: For example, it is rather easy to assert that your adoption of Feyman's "like-likes-like" is adopting a variation of his version of "like begets like". Or, a variation of the chemical expression "like dissolves like". The terms are just aphorisms or so; the expression of the general principle of 'affinity' and the results thereof but; if I hang my hat on one expression over the other, the opportunity of understanding the essential idea is obscured by personal preference isn't it? Should I ask of you to change that to "birds of a feather flock together", which carries the same basic principle, instead?
Is Feyman's adaptation simply more 'acceptable' because a "scientist" reiterated an already existing principle apparent in nature and thereby (somehow) lent said principle some sort of acceptable 'credence' somewhere; and to someone?
The quest for "truth" isn't going to be had through nomenclature and quantification alone but more so in the understanding that overrides and integrates any and all limited expressions of said "truth".
Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle isn't just a "general principle of affinity". It's a specific set of forces. In electrostatics, like charges repel, while opposites attract. According to Langmuir, neutrally charged aggregations of charges shouldn't interact, because there is no net charge, and thus no net repulsion or attraction. (This is why he called quasi-neutral matter "plasma", like the cells in blood that wrap themselves around antigens, and insulate them from the rest of the body.) So according to Langmuir, there should be no reason for molecules to form. If both atoms are net neutral, there is no net electric force. Ah, but molecules do form, and Feynman identified the reason — there is a net electric force. When two neutral atoms come together, their electrons are attracted to the superimposed positive field between the two nuclei, and then the positive nuclei are attracted to the shared negative charge between them. He then demonstrated that this principle not only forms molecules, but is also important in polymerization. Gerald Pollack went on to show that this same principle is responsible for molecule sorting at the macroscopic. Since the principles are scalable, I go on to say that this is a physical force between Debye cells in space. So this principle can be proved all of the way down to the atomic level, and its effects have been demonstrated on each level. This is the primary organizing principle of the Universe, without which we wouldn't have structured matter — it would all be just individual atoms. Now that's an explanation.
Solar wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.
The clamor for some quantitative exactitude from the EU isn't new.
Sure, he was criticized for lack of specifics when he first made the assertions. And people have been asking ever since. The point is that I'm not seeing any progress. I see a lot of effort going into repeating the same statements over and over on the forums, and in developing better packaging, in the books that Thornhill, Talbott, and Scott published (in 2002, 2006, & 2007), and more recently, in the Space News videos. What I'm not seeing is any progress on the specifics. I'm perfectly willing to listen to somebody flesh out an idea with all manner of vague verbiage. I do it all of the time. But once the idea has surfaced, the next step is to clarify it, and to see if it actually traces down to something physical. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. So the ones that never lead anywhere get tossed, and the ones that still seem physical get explored further. In the end, you have only constructs that can be traced all of the way down to the finest granularity modern science can study, and a trashcan overflowing with ideas that broke down somewhere in that process. That's just how it works, and everybody understands this. But when I see somebody repeating the same vague verbiage for 10 years running, and no progress on tracing the assertions down to possible physical instantiations, I start to wonder why the theorist stopped. Then, if I come along and start proposing ideas that do trace all of the way down to the atomic level, such as the "like-likes-like" principle explaining the collapse of Debye cells into stars, and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis. That's a disease where you take a position and try to defend it, and if you're not careful, you dig in on that position, and become entrenched. Then, somebody comes along and shows you a way of making some real progress, and you say, "Naaa, I'm dug in here, and I don't do progress anymore — I just sit here and defend this position." The problem with that is that you get left behind while everybody else moves on, always in search of better ways. And this is what is going to happen to the EU. Flame me all you want, but you're not going to stop me. To me, science isn't a position — it's a process. When the process is working correctly, it affords constant progress. When it breaks down, people get entrenched, and then they get left behind. It's that simple.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@JeffreyW,
As I wrote earlier:
Spiral galaxies" are not just galaxies; they can be categorized in two main exemplary types: 1. Galaxies with at very tight-spindled arms and an overall inwards turning motion with a very luminous center, suggesting a high velocity of a beginning star formation. (Younger galaxies)
2. Galaxies with open spindled arms and a less luminous center and 2(4) bars telling of a slower velocity of formation and an overall outgoing motion via the bars and out in the galactic arms as with the Milky Way.(Older galaxies) Allthough these two basical types have their actual overall outlook of inwards and outwards going motion, both types of galaxies have of course a circuit and cyclic flow of electromagnetic formation.
What is formatted of stars and planets in a galactic center, of course depends on what is moving into the center to be formatted via the central Z-Pinch. Here, all kind of different gas- and particle compositions can be thought of flowing into the galactic center via the galactic funnels (polar holes/"black holes") and into the galactic Z-Pinch, where gases and particles are mixed into smaller and larger spheres of pure stars and pure "metallic planets" – and everything else mixed ups of starry and planetary shapes. Read a more specific (in some extension a generally one) explanation of the formative process here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0200v1.pdf
You wrote;
JeffreyW wrote: Stars themselves don't create matter at all, they just sort it out and dissipate the energy of galaxy birth. This means that young galaxies such as quasars will not have ancient stars like Neptune or the Earth, unless they were dragged out of the galaxy it was ejected from.
AD: I agree on your first sentence, but not quite on the specific planetary aging and the general comparison with galaxies as such. The age of the planets in our Solar system shall, in my opinion, be derived from the age of the actual galaxy itself, i.e. when the planet was formatted in the galactic center.
NB: It´s a bit funny: The Standard Model description of the Solar System formation is really quite good – if one just think of this going on in the galactic swirling formation. Then the orbiting plane of the Solar system mirrors the galactic disc shape and the Solar System is slung perpendicularly from the galactic plane and out of the rotating galactic center in a helical motion in the barred structures.
Such a motion gives the sun; the planets and their moons their rotation and orbital speed directly from the electromagnetic velocity momentum in the galactic center. This formation then predicts that the whole solar system formed in the galactic center and that all planetary moons formed out from their mother planets early when planets were very hot and almost fluent.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis.
This statement is disingenuous to an extreme. Why? because you are freely using a venue that is an arm of the EU or the Thunderbolts project. One that allows all sorts of debate critical of the proposed EU paradigm. Now in the mainstream forums, to which you are comparing this one, you would have been banned after a few posts - yet I see that you have made more than 700 posts here. How is it that the EU "Gestapo" has allowed that to happen?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Native wrote: AD: I agree on your first sentence, but not quite on the specific planetary aging and the general comparison with galaxies as such. The age of the planets in our Solar system shall, in my opinion, be derived from the age of the actual galaxy itself, i.e. when the planet was formatted in the galactic center.
I agree that everything started in the center of the galaxy, but perhaps not in the sense that others do. Some people believe that galactic nuclei are manufacturing stars (and even embryonic new galaxies) and spitting them out. If this were the case, the youngest stars would be closest to the center of the galaxy, and the oldest would be the furthest out. No matter what model of stellar aging you use, there is no simple stratification based on proximity to the center of the galaxy. The one exception is spiral galaxies, that have a central bulge composed on old stars, and spiral arms with young stars. But within the central bulge, there is no stratification based on distance from the center, nor is there any stratification in the spiral arms. And if the galactic nucleus was manufacturing stars and spitting them out, the central bulge would have the young stars, and the spiral arms would have the old ones. So the "AGN plasma gun" doesn't match the observations.
I rather believe that galaxies are in implosion/explosion cycles. The principle reason is that this is the only way to morph a peculiar galaxy into a symmetrical geometry. Regardless of how irregular the galaxy, if it implodes, the ejecta will radiate outward in a spherical form. (Then, magnetic conflicts in the implosions and explosions coerce the matter into a consistent rotation around the center, but that's a different issue.) The point here is that in the implosion, everything gets melted down into plasma, and in the explosion, eventually the stuff cools off enough to condense into stars and planets. The heat is evenly distributed during the implosion, so as it expands after the explosion, it all cools at the same rate. Thus stars and planets start forming throughout, all at the same time, inner and outer alike, despite the fact that all of the matter originated from the center of the galaxy. As such, this construct does match the observations.
nick c wrote:
and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis.
This statement is disingenuous to an extreme. Why? because you are freely using a venue that is an arm of the EU or the Thunderbolts project. One that allows all sorts of debate critical of the proposed EU paradigm. Now in the mainstream forums, to which you are comparing this one, you would have been banned after a few posts - yet I see that you have made more than 700 posts here. How is it that the EU "Gestapo" has allowed that to happen?
Actually, my statement was accurate. Just take a look at some of the ad hom attacks leveled at me by JustCurious and PersianPalladin on the EU forum. I generally stick to the NIAMI forum, as it is more appropriate for what I'm doing. I definitely believe that the Universe is electric, just not the way the EU folks have it. The rules of the EU forum stipulate that only arguments for or against EU positions are allowed in the EU forum — alternative theses should go in the NIAMI forum. I'm fine with that. But one of my regular searches turned up some criticisms that PersianPalladin was making of my work (without PM'ing me that he was doing this), so I responded on that forum. And I got flamed, including all kinds of specious arguments about how C. J. Ransom's credentials are so much better than mine, etc. If the EU forum isn't for discussing alternative theses, be sure to let the moderators know that.
As concerns the fact that I'm being rude to the people who are hosting this site, you would have a legitimate point, if it were not for the broader context of the issues. I spent 10 years studying tornadoes, and developed incontrovertible, definitive proof that tornadoes are electromagnetic, citing well known physical principles, and laboratory experiments in support. Yet anywhere on the web, if I try to chat up my work, I get flamed, because the EU got there ahead of me, and evangelized an incorrect EM theory as "THE" EM theory, and everybody tells me that EM has already been disproved. The EU theory was, in fact, discredited long before the EU got ahold of it, because it just wasn't correct. My work includes a detailed, definitive disproof of that theory. But I can't get anybody to listen to me, because the EU has positioned themselves as the experts on all things EM, whether they know what they're talking about, or care. Mind you that tornadoes kill people. All of this other stuff might just be idle intellectual curiosities, which you people consider to be fun to consider. But I didn't get into this because I enjoy fringe science. I got into this because I was run over by a tornado, and before I could get on with my life, I had to come to understand what that thing was. The results of my research could save lives, if I could get anybody to listen to me. But as long as the EU has the monopoly, and won't even consider real EM research, I have no choice but to show that there are plenty of other opportunities for real progress, within the territory that the EU has claimed, and about which the EU is wrong, and about which the EU has no intention of correcting. I can take this over to other boards, and I'll get quite a receptive audience. They dismissed the EU off-hand, but I can show detailed proofs of where they're wrong. Some people would be interested in hearing that kind of thing. I personally think that the EU should be changed from within, rather than attacked from the outside. But if you want to kick me off of here, that's the next step. In the end, all of the rational people on this board will leave. But I (quite obviously) have no intention of giving up, and this (quite obviously) isn't just an idle intellectual curiosity for me. Tornadoes kill people, and my work can save lives, if I can just get past the EU roadblock.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stelmeta as the galaxy is born it creates new matter, and grows arms as it leaves the parent galaxy. This was Halton Arp's discovery of quasar ejection.
I go a step further and posit that since a star isn't a baby galaxy there must be some sort of mechanism that can create galaxy sized structure. The only objects I can think of are the pulsars, which have magnetic fields above and beyond the magnetic fields of stars. A pulsar literally contains the information required to create a galaxy. It is what I think the ultimate in superconducting magnetic energy storage. We can tell there is lots of energy stored in them because their magnetic fields are trillions upon trillions of gauss in strength, and the objects themselves are many miles in diameter. We're talking capacitors beyond mainstream scientists comprehension. They just brush them off as being "neutrons". But neutron stars are ill suited, because neutrons decay in 15 minutes. Something else is going on.
In stelmeta pulsars are the hearts of embryonic galaxies, birthing galaxies and old galaxies. When they leave their parent galaxies, they grow into galaxies themselves similar to an acorn dropping off an oak tree and growing into a galaxy itself.
I don't mean to confuse anybody.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
And I got flamed, including all kinds of specious arguments about how C. J. Ransom's credentials are so much better than mine, etc. If the EU forum isn't for discussing alternative theses, be sure to let the moderators know that.
You (and others) have a level of freedom that just simply does not exist on other forums. That is the intent of our hosts. (That is, in regard to those with positions in opposition to or critical of that of TB team.)
You seem to be confusing the reactions of individual forum members with the "official EU position." Any particular forum member generally speaks for only themselves and does not represent the TB or the EU.
As far as ad hom remarks...if you feel that you have been mistreated and personally attacked then the offending post should be reported by clicking on the red exclamation mark and filling out the form. The report will be reviewed. Ask Jeffrey, as he has filed reports several times on this very thread, action was taken and the posts or statements containing personal attacks were removed.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Regarding quasars growing into new galaxies. Here is a picture of one starting to take the spiral shape. It emits strongly in radio waves because the material is travelling so fast from the central object that it redshifts way out of the visible spectrum. This is 3c288.
These are quite common, and very dangerous to big bang religion. This is what a forming galaxy looks like, just type in radio galaxy and this is what you will find. Birthing galaxies are not allowed by the establishment dogma because they all came from some giant explosion of nothing into something. These galaxies and this process was discovered by Halton Arp.
Think of a water spicket with water shooting out in two directions, this angular momentum will want to conserve itself and the galaxy will start taking up the spiral shape. This galaxy as it ages will start to take up the barred spiral shape and the material will shift away from radio wave spectrum, and stars will form along the arms by the billions to dissipate the energy of birth.
This is why in stellar meta I have concluded that stars do not fusion matter. Stars are dissipative structures. The central object is what creates the matter, not stars. The stars just sort it out into little balls which cool/solidify to become what humans call "planet/exoplanet".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is one of my favorite images of a galaxy being born. The material is coming out of the central object in very, very large quantities. This is blasphemy to the religion of big bang, so please use caution when showing people these pictures. Establishment scientists love to ridicule those who show pictures of reality. Establishment scientists are conditioned to believe in the big bang creation myth.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@CharlesChandler, You wrote:
I agree that everything started in the center of the galaxy, but perhaps not in the sense that others do. Some people believe that galactic nuclei are manufacturing stars (and even embryonic new galaxies) and spitting them out. If this were the case, the youngest stars would be closest to the center of the galaxy, and the oldest would be the furthest out. No matter what model of stellar aging you use, there is no simple stratification based on proximity to the center of the galaxy. The one exception is spiral galaxies, that have a central bulge composed on old stars, and spiral arms with young stars. But within the central bulge, there is no stratification based on distance from the center, nor is there any stratification in the spiral arms. And if the galactic nucleus was manufacturing stars and spitting them out, the central bulge would have the young stars, and the spiral arms would have the old ones. So the "AGN plasma gun" doesn't match the observations.
AD: It all depends on the actual and overall formational motion in a galaxy. I wrote earlier that: "Spiral galaxies" are not just galaxies; they can be categorized in two main exemplary types: 1. Galaxies with at very tight-spindled arms and an overall inwards turning motion with a very luminous center, suggesting a high velocity of a beginning star formation. (Younger galaxies) 2. Galaxies with open spindled arms and a less luminous center and 2(4) bars telling of a slower velocity of formation and an overall outgoing motion via the bars and out in the galactic arms as with the Milky Way.(Older galaxies)
All though these two basical types have their actual overall outlook of inwards and outwards going motion, both types of galaxies have of course a circuit and cyclic flow of electromagnetic formation.
Quote from http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 2/25/text/ "Stars in the inner halo were born during the assembly process. Over time, the Milky Way gobbled up older dwarf galaxies that formed less than 2 billion years after the big bang. Their ancient stars settled into the outskirts of the halo, creating the outer halo".
AD: The "gobbling up of Dwarf Galaxies" is a "gravity-only-misinterpretation of the galactic formation and outwards motion. Except from the "gobble up" and Big Bang nonsense, this confirms the actual and overall motion of star formation from within the galactic center with younger stars closest and older stars farthest from the center. (Of course, new and younger stars can be found where active minor Milky Way dwarf satellite galaxies are located).
I rather believe that galaxies are in implosion/explosion cycles. The principle reason is that this is the only way to morph a peculiar galaxy into a symmetrical geometry. Regardless of how irregular the galaxy, if it implodes, the ejecta will radiate outward in a spherical form. (Then, magnetic conflicts in the implosions and explosions coerce the matter into a consistent rotation around the center, but that's a different issue.) The point here is that in the implosion, everything gets melted down into plasma, and in the explosion, eventually the stuff cools off enough to condense into stars and planets. The heat is evenly distributed during the implosion, so as it expands after the explosion, it all cools at the same rate. Thus stars and planets start forming throughout, all at the same time, inner and outer alike, despite the fact that all of the matter originated from the center of the galaxy. As such, this construct does match the observations.
AD: I generally agree that the very basic formational motion is a circuit of "opposite"/complementary motions whatever we call these. Implosion-explosion; contraction-expansion; inwards-outward etc. etc. Either way we are talking of circuits of formation. An implosion maybe could create a star and star system, but how can a supposed implosion in the Milky Way center eject a sphere that looks like and rotates like the Milky Way disc?
- Several dynamical qualities can create swirling effects, as for instants electro-magneto-dynamics; thermodynamics and hydrodynamics and I think they all participate in both tornadoes as well in galaxies, but with great differences between their forces and charges and I think the huge gamma ray charges and outbursts in galaxies are a clear sign of electromagnetic activity in galaxies.
Native
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@JeffreyW, You wrote:
Think of a water spicket with water shooting out in two directions, this angular momentum will want to conserve itself and the galaxy will start taking up the spiral shape. This galaxy as it ages will start to take up the barred spiral shape and the material will shift away from radio wave spectrum, and stars will form along the arms by the billions to dissipate the energy of birth.
Two arm garden sprinkler
AD: The rotation will spread the water accordingly to the rotation momentum and spread the water droplets in a curving motion.
Milky Way rotation and formation
The very same motion takes place in the Milky Way galaxy where everything is formatted perpendicularly in a helical motion of the MW-rotation plane out from the center and MW-bars and out in the galactic arms, thus creating mini-spiraling galaxies; rotating stars and solar systems of all compositional kinds and sizes.
That is: Our Solar Syatem was once created out from a large glowing sphere in the MW-center and this glowing sphere was divided by the perpendicularly and helical motion and centrifugal forces in the bars, creating the whole solar system very early and in almost in the state that we can observe today.
This explanation also confirms the factual galactic rotation curve which contradicts the gravity ideas of "objects orbiting a central gravity source". Objects leaves the galacic center fairly quick and when leaving the galactic bars, all objects of course orbit the galactic center with their same mutual velocity.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Native wrote: How can a supposed implosion in the Milky Way center eject a sphere that looks like and rotates like the Milky Way disc?
Indeed, the shape of the explosion should spherical, not planar. Only EM forces could induce rotation in the implosions and explosions, and coerce all of the matter onto the same plane. Newtonian explanations, such as water sprinklers, tornadoes, etc., are purely phenomenological — they offer a concept that looks the same — but the Newtonian forces just aren't there. So it has to be EM. Specifically, there are magnetic conflicts in radial flows that nudge the motions toward a similar direction, converting them to spirals.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yep. Just like the garden sprinkler.
I know there is more to it of course, but to make tiny round balls called "stars" the electrical current that flows inside of the large clouds will magnetically pinch. These pinches are called "z-pinches" or "Bennett Pinches".
In other words the pinch itself creates a giant ball lightning. The heating mechanism is a similar effect to an induction heater. Here is a piece of aluminum being heated via induction.
In a z-pinch the interstellar gas is ionized by incredibly vast amounts of current ionizes and further pinching the material. It will have a compounding effect and eventually all the gas will be completely ionized. Once the gas is completely ionized into a plasma the current will go back to travelling the path of least resistance (arc to other spots in the interstellar cloud to form other stars) and the star is born.
Here is another diagram of another birthing galaxy. We must pay attention to these objects as the establishment brushes them aside in favor of the universe coming out of nothing in a giant explosion. This is M84.
M84 just looks like a big blob in visible light.
It is not a blob. It is ejecting matter in bi-polar configurations.
It is a growing galaxy. The reason why we can't see the arms growing is because the material is travelling so fast away from the central object that it is literally redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies. Mr. Halton Arp was right. A quasar is ejected from its parent galaxy and becomes a galaxy itself, like an acorn falling from an oak tree and growing into a tree itself.
Halton Arp's discovery of this is incredibly important to stellar metamorphosis, because it means matter itself isn't fusioned in stars at all. Matter is created in galaxies as they are born, the stars are just the dissipative structures that take the energy of galaxy birth and dissipate it. They are not "fusion" reactors at all.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The problem that I have with z pinches forming stars is that z pinches operate selectively on charged particles, where the greater the charge, the greater the pinch. Also note that polarity matters. In a magnetic pinch, like charges are pushed together, while opposite charges are pushed apart (assuming they'll all traveling in the same direction). So a z pinch pushes like charges together. But like charges repel, and cannot be forced to condense into any sort of aggregate (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma), due to the electric force, which is much more powerful than gravity and the magnetic force put together. Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force generated by moving charged particles become equal to the electric force. But if it were possible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, the matter wouldn't condense — it would fuse, and then there would be the release of nuclear energy, which would blow the aggregate apart. The one other configuration would be opposite charges traveling in opposite directions. These would get pinched into the same axis. But the relativistic collisions of counter-streaming particles would blow the thing apart. So there just isn't a configuration of the magnetic pinch effect that would create stable aggregates.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: The problem that I have with z pinches forming stars is that z pinches operate selectively on charged particles, where the greater the charge, the greater the pinch. Also note that polarity matters. In a magnetic pinch, like charges are pushed together, while opposite charges are pushed apart (assuming they'll all traveling in the same direction). So a z pinch pushes like charges together. But like charges repel, and cannot be forced to condense into any sort of aggregate (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma), due to the electric force, which is much more powerful than gravity and the magnetic force put together. Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force generated by moving charged particles become equal to the electric force. But if it were possible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, the matter wouldn't condense — it would fuse, and then there would be the release of nuclear energy, which would blow the aggregate apart. The one other configuration would be opposite charges traveling in opposite directions. These would get pinched into the same axis. But the relativistic collisions of counter-streaming particles would blow the thing apart. So there just isn't a configuration of the magnetic pinch effect that would create stable aggregates.
that's fine. My problem is that we still have to show a picture of a star being born. There are hundreds of billions of them, surely taking a picture of one being born should be easy. I mean, we can theorize all day, but without pictures of what we are talking about, its no use. We might as well be writing a fantasy fiction novel.
