Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

[James R]

arauca:

How can you be so positive and attempting to discredit an individual that offers a different view then yours

Up to the present post, I haven't tried to discredit him at all. Did you notice that most of my previous post consisted of questions? What I asked Hector to do was to explain his reasoning and any evidence for his hypothesis. Sadly, it appears that he hasn't added anything much to his initial claim at this point. But more on that below.


HectorDecimal:

I did not say there was no star. I said the star had not ignited.

Is a star a star before it ignites?

What is the Hubble team's explanation of the jets?

Similar to mine. Remind you that specualtion is present in all cases. The Hubble team are satellite people more than the people out here who examine the findings more extensively.

As Bell's post shows, their explanation is quite different to yours, not similar. They claim that there are stars in the dust clouds that have started nuclear fusion. You claim the stars are "unignited". If you can't tell the difference between their explanation and yours, I think you're in trouble.

But then a more disturbing possibility occurs to me - that you have looked at their explanations, but you didn't want to reveal information to me that is unfavourable to your position. And that means you're not really doing science at all.

The first thing any good scientist with an idea does is to try his utmost to knock down his own idea. Why? Reasons of honesty, for one. Also, self-preservation - if he doesn't do it and he is wrong, somebody else will inevitably do it for him, and he may even come out looking naive or incompetent.

How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?

Good point. In this case, though, a keen eye can resolve the geometry of the gravitational field (assuming we are discussing the plasma jet) through inference. You can get a higher res shot at the site. I used smaller ones for browser compatibility courtesy.

You just do it all by eye then, do you? That doesn't seem very rigorous to me.

I'll see what I can do. I may actually have to scan in a page or two from a book and may not have time today, but Hold on to that question for a bit and I'll oblige.

No problem.

Why is the incoming material already luminous?

That's a good question that would lead any scientist to the chalk board, so to speak. For now let's just say "Gravity." What is gravity? Another subject. Tht too can shake some religious folks beliefs, because it may imply that God didn't create Himself, gravity did.

I think you can take it as read that I have a reasonable understanding of gravity. Please be more specific. Why is the incoming material self-luminous? And why does it look an awful lot like the material is reflecting light from a star masked by dust?

Also, on another point, I think you might want to decide fairly soon as to whether you're making a primarily religious claim here or a scientific one. If this is a science thread, then we can move it to one of the science subforums. If it is a religious discussion, then I don't really see the relevance of a detailed discussion of star formation, and I'll most likely bow out of the conversation.

Genesis is a creation myth story, not a science textbook.

We are in an area where we are to compare the two. That's what I'm doing.

I don't think Genesis mentions star formation in Orion.

The supreme court ruled [atheism] is [a religion]. Till that is overturned here in America, it is reduced to semantic refuge.

I'm not bound by your Supreme Court. But I agree we can drop the matter. You won't refer to it and I won't refer to it. Agreed? Whether atheism is a religion or not is an argument that we can have in a different thread if you like. Before you do that, though, please search some of the old threads titled "Is atheism a religion", so we don't rehash old arguments.

All of these shots can only show us what was happening at the time the photons started heading our way. We still do not have shots that make the "tea cup jump together again and back up onto the table." Everyone is guessing a bit.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. The issue here is what the images show, isn't it? How does the photon travel time have any relevant impact?

What the dust lane actually proves is that
1. the symmetry of the forces invovled in the plasma jet picture are toroid.[/quite]

Why toroid? Why not cylindrical? Also, how do you go from the symmetry of the images to the symmtery of the forces involved?

What forces do you believe are involved, by the way?

2. Those particles flowing in are solidified enough to have a reflective, yet possibly autolumination multiplexed, albedo.

I'm a little confused. Which particles are flowing in, and how do you know they are flowing in?

Also, what would the "autolumination" be due to, if it's an explanation? Previously you said "gravity", I think. I'd like a fuller explanation than that.

For what it's worth guys, I'm SYMPATHETIC to the atheist belief. I've been there. Done that. Dismissed it.

Off topic, perhaps, but what did you dismiss it in favour of?

I find it disgusting, though, when the dogmatic GIGO from ANY religion interferes with what would perhaps be defined better as a theoanaesthetic perspective. It's a meaningless grasp for a dopamine rush to slam the table and insist one belief or another is an absolute.

What is a "theoanaesthetic perspective"?

One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified.

Are you a Christian, then?

Some think Allister Crowley was God. I can't disprove that, but I can refuse to accept it.

Who is Allister Crowley?

This view is strictly from the theoanaesthetic perspective. It actually predates my return to theism.

Ok, I think I'm getting it now. You were atheist for a time, then you went "theoanaesthetic" (whatever that is) and now you're a theist again.

What brand of theist are you?

For the most part, let's explore that star from the design perspective. How would you design a star that works out of that ditoroid geodesic function? That much we know.

What is a ditoroid geodesic function?

You use a lot of complicated words.

 

[Grumpy]

HectorDecimal

Neither qualifies as a logical option for either the way they are written.

Let's see if I'm understanding you void of grammar critique.

1. The picture makes no representation to a deity.

2. All we need is gravity to get from an absolute vacuum as in nothing, nottagotta, all the way to my responding to your post.

What I was saying is that gravity explains the collapse of HYDROGEN GAS CLOUDS(with impurities, mostly Helium and a smidge of Lithium with trace amouts of all other elements)into stars, no supernatural stirring or magic hockus pokus needed. If a planet with the right conditions forms at the right distance from that star, then yes, gravity is all that is needed to produce you(that is, after all, how Earth was formed).

Check out the toroid field representing the constrictor point. I don't want to call this a singularity, because there are more than one concepts of a singularity, but constriction radius, likely approaching 0, would be a similar, deeper symmetry concentric to the geometry entailing the true surface of the Schwartschild Radius. What particle would fit through that consrtriction if we were to process entropy into enthalpy approaching infinity? What would be the enthalpy after passing through the constriction radius. The speed? The vector? How and how soon would the vector change. Why would it change and what would be the resultant trajectory?

This is pseudoscientific babble. Please enlighten us about what you think a Swartschild radius is.

Occam's Razor is a lazy bum! Why would it bother to make a universe in the first place when it could exist easier as a concept, never manifest at all? Assuming Occam's Razor just had to get it all going, the work would build something to take over the work as soon as possible. It would have to be a process or a robot that would go on eternally, otherwise Occam's Razor would have to get off it's lazy ass and do it all over. (String theory, per Susskind's own writings, fails here.) The simplest manner is to create an eternal being to do the work and once the dang thing works don't fix it.

This is damned stupid pseudoscientific babble. All Occam's Razor says is that if you have two competing explanations the simplest one is almost always the correct one, as I demonstrated in the two statements at the beginning of my post(IE gravity is sufficient to explain the collapse of gas clouds into stars, to which you added a supernatural force). And a god is not a more parsimonious explanation as you then have to explain where such a being comes from. You don't even understand Occam, you are not a scientist or you would know that Occam is not a cause of anything, it just establishes parsimony in scientific explanations(IE do not introduce unnecessary entities, better known as the KISS(keep it simple, stupid)principle).

You've provided no reason to think that, and many to doubt it.

That's a matter of opinion, but in reallity I'm getting warmed up. What sense does it make to really get going till you explore your audience and find out what questions they may have. I'll imagine that most of you folks just might have taken in a lecture or five.

I've given many lectures myself, you're fooling no one, you're a fake(at best).

He get's the gong. For all to be squeezed sufficiently for such an effect to take place as in that toroid field, that as a guy who can paint a portrait of your whole family, retouch it with airbrush, by hand to look a lot like it were done in Poser, meaning good art, I can see the toroid geometry of the overall energy flow. For some reason, I tend to believe someone else on this planet can see that 3D geometry. Somewhere there was a spec of dark matter, dark energy or something at the least beginning that field, so that squeezer is right there and it should be able to be the effective "Maxwell's Demon" device he sought after. The energy enters near zero and emerges near infinity. I don't think Maxwell envisioned that, but Einstein may have. The toroid geometry is what I see. Maybe I'll take that NASA shot (thanx guys) and draw some lines through it... It should be a little different from the model, in that the geometry is really ditoroid, meaning imagine a cell splitting.

More babble about things you know nothing about, think donuts with the star being the mass growing in the hole.

I think you just might have enough now. But yes, a hypothesis is a hypothesis till nullified whence it becomes a theory. A theory must be falable.

The hypothesi:

There is God.

The antithesis, or hyperthesis:

There is no god.

Theory 1: There is God

Theory 2: There is no god.

This is a simple example, of what constitutes a theory. What constitutes a Law is a proven theory. At first there was the hypothesis and antithesis of relativelty, sometimes thought to be quantum mechanics, so both become theories. Relativity is now a proven theory, so a law. Quantum mechanics has spawned many laws in thermodynamics. So now we have 2 theories established, let's discuss my theory and we'll decide whether to tag the antithesis theory onto it or do another thread.

No, it does not even resemble a discription of a theory, might I point you to Professor Popper and the Scientific method?

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis or model to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature(archaitic). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified(it is falsified).

And now you have finally attended a scientific lecture, though it remains to be seen whether any of it sinks in. Notice how the word nullified is completely missing from this explanation, that's because it is pure non-sense and meaningless in this context. Your statement that there is a god is not a theory, it is an unevidenced hypothesis at best, as would be a statement that there is no god(a statement I do not make). But Occam's Razor tells us not to add entities that are not in evidence and are superflourous to the needs of the explanation. Gravity explains star formation without the need of additional speculations.

It would not be unreasonable to imagine that much of that incoming matter is largely composed of supercooled ice contracted through compression by intense gravity

Yes, that would be highly unreasonable, given that the vast majority of the gas we see in such clouds(look up spectroscopic observations)is elemental Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of the Oxygen needed to form ice. You really know nothing about stars and how they form.

Goddidit is a pretty good sign of a Creationist troll trying to twist science to justify his preconceived beliefs, that's where you stand in this discussion until you start acting otherwise. (And that is as politely as I can express that conclusion).

Grumpy

 

[HectorDecimal]

Is a star a star before it ignites?

Is a star a star after it collapses?

 

[Trippy]

Is a star a star after it collapses?

Distraction and misdirection.

More dishonesty.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Distraction and misdirection.

More dishonesty.

Wrong. As usual.


It's a legitimate question with a reason. The answer to this question is the answer to his.

It continues afterward.

 

[HectorDecimal]

HectorDecimal



What I was saying is that gravity explains the collapse of HYDROGEN GAS CLOUDS(with impurities, mostly Helium and a smidge of Lithium with trace amouts of all other elements)into stars, no supernatural stirring or magic hockus pokus needed. If a planet with the right conditions forms at the right distance from that star, then yes, gravity is all that is needed to produce you(that is, after all, how Earth was formed).

Hmmm... sounds like what I was describing, with some parts left out.



This is pseudoscientific babble. Please enlighten us about what you think a Swartschild radius is.

Go fish in wiki. I didn't start this to be your homework paper. I'll explain that what I meant by its surface geometry is that such might be turbulent or grainy or streated, etcetera.



This is damned stupid pseudoscientific babble. All Occam's Razor says is that if you have two competing explanations the simplest one is almost always the correct one, as I demonstrated in the two statements at the beginning of my post(IE gravity is sufficient to explain the collapse of gas clouds into stars, to which you added a supernatural force). And a god is not a more parsimonious explanation as you then have to explain where such a being comes from. You don't even understand Occam, you are not a scientist or you would know that Occam is not a cause of anything, it just establishes parsimony in scientific explanations(IE do not introduce unnecessary entities, better known as the KISS(keep it simple, stupid)principle).



I've given many lectures myself, you're fooling no one, you're a fake(at best).

Considering that you have sidestepped the equivocation questions associated with that toroid model, I'd tend to not believe you have given lectures. Anyone can say that if they are a 3rd grader. It being true is another issue. You tend to point out that YOU are the fake here. Let's cut to the chase. You're a high school frshman looking for a science paper, No?



More babble about things you know nothing about, think donuts with the star being the mass growing in the hole.

Are you saying you can't imagine betond 2D? Gosh... I wonder how Walt Disney would get Grumpy the Dwarf to think in 4D.



No, it does not even resemble a discription of a theory, might I point you to Professor Popper and the Scientific method?

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis or model to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature(archaitic). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified(it is falsified).

And now you have finally attended a scientific lecture, though it remains to be seen whether any of it sinks in. Notice how the word nullified is completely missing from this explanation, that's because it is pure non-sense and meaningless in this context. Your statement that there is a god is not a theory, it is an unevidenced hypothesis at best, as would be a statement that there is no god(a statement I do not make). But Occam's Razor tells us not to add entities that are not in evidence and are superflourous to the needs of the explanation. Gravity explains star formation without the need of additional speculations.



Yes, that would be highly unreasonable, given that the vast majority of the gas we see in such clouds(look up spectroscopic observations)is elemental Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of the Oxygen needed to form ice. You really know nothing about stars and how they form.

Goddidit is a pretty good sign of a Creationist troll trying to twist science to justify his preconceived beliefs, that's where you stand in this discussion until you start acting otherwise. (And that is as politely as I can express that conclusion).

And there you go again with the disruptive bologna. you make unimaginative, feeble critique about something you can't understand. I'm not obligated to go further with you till you answer my legitimate questions about that toroid model. If you can't maybe someone else can.

Grumpy

Here's the definitions of hypothesis and such, links to the scientific process as "online" describes it. You kids don't seem that familiar with books. I learned from books, not a laptop. Yes. Old dude. Old school.


plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Definition of HYPOTHESIS
An unproved theory, proposition, etcetera, tntatively accepted to explain certain facts or (working hypothesis) to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etcetera.

Theory

1. An idea or plan of the way to do something.
2. A systematic statement of priciples involved
3.A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
4. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than its practice.
5.(popularly) A mere conjecture, guess, etcetera.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Null_hypothesis

scientific process

http://www.windows2universe.org/people/scientific_process.html

Antithesis or alternative hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_hypothesis

SHow us what you KNOW guys, not how well you can avoid my questions. If I ask something it is to draw the answer out in stages. For one this tends to obfuscate something that a student can simply c&p for his homework.

Grumpy wants us to think he's a professor. I don't buy it.

 

[HectorDecimal]

What is a "theoanaesthetic perspective"?

Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

I recommend you compose offline. Review everything and reduce your posts to a reasonable discussion. Bells example was just that. A short, concise query. The response was a short, concise answer, or rebuttal.

When you overwhelm with fluff, your paper gets rejected because you aren't following the process asked for. I know instructors who would have marked an F on your tirade and handed it back to you in a paper sack.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

In the very early life of a main sequence star, there is a brief period during which it is actually brighter than when it fires up and goes nuclear.


A star spends a brief childhood as a protostar, a star powered purely by its own gravitational contraction. In this prologue to its life on the main sequence, the star achieves hydrostatic equilibrium, where its internal pressure fully counteracts its self-gravity. The protostar begins its evolution to the main sequence at a luminosity far above its main-sequence luminosity, but with a photospheric temperature that is not much smaller than the main-sequence value. On a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is a plot of a star's luminosity against the star's photospheric temperature, a protostar evolves along a line of nearly-constant temperature and falling luminosity. This track, which is nearly-vertical on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, is called a Hayashi track.

from http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/Protostars.html

The period is brief, only a few hundred years.
But long enough for the growing of a few fruit trees on nearby planets, should God be so minded.
I'm not sure this lets Hector off the hook, though.
I don't know what the diameter of the sun was at this stage.

Being inside the sun would not be good for fruit trees.

 

[HectorDecimal]

In the very early life of a main sequence star, there is a brief period during which it is actually brighter than when it fires up and goes nuclear.


A star spends a brief childhood as a protostar, a star powered purely by its own gravitational contraction. In this prologue to its life on the main sequence, the star achieves hydrostatic equilibrium, where its internal pressure fully counteracts its self-gravity. The protostar begins its evolution to the main sequence at a luminosity far above its main-sequence luminosity, but with a photospheric temperature that is not much smaller than the main-sequence value. On a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is a plot of a star's luminosity against the star's photospheric temperature, a protostar evolves along a line of nearly-constant temperature and falling luminosity. This track, which is nearly-vertical on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, is called a Hayashi track.

from http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/Protostars.html

The period is brief, only a few hundred years.
But long enough for the growing of a few fruit trees on nearby planets, should God be so minded.
I'm not sure this lets Hector off the hook, though.
I don't know what the diameter of the sun was at this stage.

Being inside the sun would not be good for fruit trees.

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.

Let's stay to theo-anaesthetic, or neutral discussion. It's tough to leave the God Particle" out of it all when that keeps getting introduced back in. I'm really wanting everyone to see how that gravitational field pulling all that matter together comes about in the first place.

How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.

 

[HectorDecimal]

BTW... wish me luck on that plumbing today. When I have it finished, I'll take a shot of it. By finished, I mean worthy of critique, as in in the system is finished. Today is just a bypass to get through the winter, if it can be called winter.

 

[Bells]

Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

I recommend you compose offline. Review everything and reduce your posts to a reasonable discussion. Bells example was just that. A short, concise query. The response was a short, concise answer, or rebuttal.

When you overwhelm with fluff, your paper gets rejected because you aren't following the process asked for. I know instructors who would have marked an F on your tirade and handed it back to you in a paper sack.

You are still not answering the questions or providing the examples and evidence requested of you to back up your claims. James R asked you several questions pertinent to the claims you have made in this thread and you have not addressed them at all. As have others.

Telling people to go and 'fish in wiki' or to look up the answers to respond to the questions asked of you is not sufficient. If you make any claim or statement, you need to be in a position to back it up. It is up to you to do so, not others to do your work for you in this thread.

You have been avoiding questions like they are the plague. In short, it is time to put up or shut up.. In other words, cite your examples that the images you posted support Genesis or shut up about it. Yes, it is that simple. Thus far, nothing you have provided supports your position, quite the contrary. The evidence we have provided that shows the truth and completely contradicts your unsupported claims tend to show that you are, well, pulling the whole 'it supports Genesis' out of your proverbial backside (insert joke about your plumbing here)..

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.

Let's stay to theo-anaesthetic, or neutral discussion. It's tough to leave the God Particle" out of it all when that keeps getting introduced back in. I'm really wanting everyone to see how that gravitational field pulling all that matter together comes about in the first place.

How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.

This thread and it's predecessor would have made three good threads, had you not tried to combine the subjects.

The question of how a rational believer can square his religious belief in a personal God with the knowledge gained through science is one subject.

The early life of a main sequence star as a Protostar is another good subject.

The whys and wherefores of the chronological sequence of Genesis is a third good subject.

Put together, they are a mess. I think you know that.
Why not hold up your hand and admit it?
Good luck with your plumbing.

 

[Rhaedas]

Is a star a star after it collapses?

Yes.

The basic definition of a star is it being self-luminous. A protostar or large gas giant, having not begun fusion reactions, do not produce their own light, so are not stars. Main sequence stars as well as their death ends do. Certainly white dwarfs or neutron stars do. A black hole questionably may produce something in the interior, but nothing can get out, so it's an anomaly, but would fall under the star category still.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

But isnt viable, is it? Science, based on methological naturalism, is inherently non-theistic - maybe agnostic, maybe atheistic - but it seems that theoaestheism is not possible at all - for science must either test and then put on hold, confirm or falsify theological claims. Non-fallisifiable claims naturally are precluded from authority of assertions for reality since they offer no means for certainty. Ergo, theistic science is not possible - therefore science must be non-theistic. The uncoupling of science and theology requires either that theology stand up to the rigourious demands of science or theological claims fall back to being opinions or concepts, not truths and beliefs.

You can see why there is friction between science and religion today, with science continuously filling in the places where religion happily resided and with religion goes theism. It is not wonder that atheism wasn't popular in the 1600s or that today is the time when non-believers have reached 1.3 billion in number and climbing.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You are still not answering the questions or providing the examples and evidence requested of you to back up your claims. James R asked you several questions pertinent to the claims you have made in this thread and you have not addressed them at all. As have others.

Telling people to go and 'fish in wiki' or to look up the answers to respond to the questions asked of you is not sufficient. If you make any claim or statement, you need to be in a position to back it up. It is up to you to do so, not others to do your work for you in this thread.

You have been avoiding questions like they are the plague. In short, it is time to put up or shut up.. In other words, cite your examples that the images you posted support Genesis or shut up about it. Yes, it is that simple. Thus far, nothing you have provided supports your position, quite the contrary. The evidence we have provided that shows the truth and completely contradicts your unsupported claims tend to show that you are, well, pulling the whole 'it supports Genesis' out of your proverbial backside (insert joke about your plumbing here)..

Seconded, for what its worth. Anyone else?

 

[Yazata]

Here's my view of where this thread's argument stands at the moment.

1. Accretion disks might have formed around protostars before fusion ignition has occurred. That might very well be a defensible assertion. But since Hector wants to argue that his Hubble photographs actually illustrate this, he still needs to make a convincing case for why they don't illustrate planetary accretion disks around bright young stars.

2. Planets will have already formed in those disks. That's a major component of Hector's ultimate conclusion, so he can't just introduce the existence of planets as a speculative premise. The presence of extrasolar planets in these disks needs to actually be demonstrated. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in doing that needs to be explained.

3. The hypothetical planets will already be cool, have solid surfaces and water oceans, and will be suitable for life. The early formative stage in which protoplanets are ceaselessly bombarded by small and large planetesmals will have had to have already ceased, and ceased long enough prior to fusion ignition of the star that conditions would have stabilized and become conducive to life. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in reaching that conclusion needs to be explained.

4. It isn't unreasonable to assume that advanced, highly evolved lifeforms may already exist on these planets, before the star's fusion ignition. That's apparently just a gratuitous assumption kind of tossed in there. It needs lots of argument that it hasn't even begun to receive.

5. All of this validates the truth of the Genesis chronology in the Bible. That presents its own set of problems that need to be addressed.

5a. Genesis is talking about the Earth, not about accretion disks in Orion. The writers of the Genesis creation account don't seem to have even been aware of the existence of any planets other than Earth, nor were they aware that the stars were anything more than little lights up on the nighttime surface of the sky. So the Hubble astronomical observations need to be brought home so to speak, and some explanation provided of how they are relevant to our Earth.

5b. Genesis says that the Earth was the first thing created, which would make it the oldest object in the universe. So we need an explanation of how talk of pre-planetary accretion wouldn't constitute a contradiction of Genesis all by itself, if it was applied to the Earth.

5c. We still need a much fuller account of how the Genesis chronology can be squared both with mainstream scientific cosmology and the history of life here on Earth. Many astronomical objects are observed which appear to be older than the Earth. And simple prokaryotes appear to have been the earliest forms of life on Earth, appearing in the oceans long after the Sun had ignited. Flowering plants on land appeared much later.

 

[Trippy]

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.

No it won't, because the theory makes predictions about things such as emissions at IR wavelengths which can, and have, been confirmed by observation - but you should know that given your claimed expertise in astrophysics, because that's how YSO's are classified. We measure the IR radiation, calculate a ratio, and that, when compared with our models and predictions gives us information about what stage of development the object is at.

How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.

Gravity.

 

[Trippy]

wrong. As usual.


It's a legitimate question with a reason. The answer to this question is the answer to his.

It continues afterward.

roflmao

 

[Trippy]

Seconded, for what its worth. Anyone else?

Motion carried.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Here's my view of where this thread's argument stands at the moment.

1. Accretion disks might have formed around protostars before fusion ignition has occurred. That might very well be a defensible assertion. But since Hector wants to argue that his Hubble photographs actually illustrate this, he still needs to make a convincing case for why they don't illustrate planetary accretion disks around bright young stars.

I think you are confusing what is said. I have not referred to the images as examples of what I'm deriving from the various branches of physics to be going on. Something else, that some may not be taking into consideration is that not all stars build a planetary system. They live quick lives and explode to add to the millieu of primordial matter.

2. Planets will have already formed in those disks. That's a major component of Hector's ultimate conclusion, so he can't just introduce the existence of planets as a speculative premise. The presence of extrasolar planets in these disks needs to actually be demonstrated. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in doing that needs to be explained.

Pretty much the answer here is deerived from the one above.

3. The hypothetical planets will already be cool, have solid surfaces and water oceans, and will be suitable for life. The early formative stage in which protoplanets are ceaselessly bombarded by small and large planetesmals will have had to have already ceased, and ceased long enough prior to fusion ignition of the star that conditions would have stabilized and become conducive to life. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in reaching that conclusion needs to be explained.

I'm going to reference the toroid model again. We need to look at the forces surrounding that and, because of DG tau B being used as an example, we need to discuss the forces at the center of that model. The images are not going to prove one way or the other. I don't think we have ANY shots from ANY of the telescopes that prove one way or the other. I'm using them as examples of (DG tau B) the forces surrounding a forming star and the influx of matter. The first shot pointed out depicts a luminous disk surrounding an unignited star.

4. It isn't unreasonable to assume that advanced, highly evolved lifeforms may already exist on these planets, before the star's fusion ignition. That's apparently just a gratuitous assumption kind of tossed in there. It needs lots of argument that it hasn't even begun to receive.

The toroid force issue first.

5. All of this validates the truth of the Genesis chronology in the Bible. That presents its own set of problems that need to be addressed.

Same as above

5a. Genesis is talking about the Earth, not about accretion disks in Orion. The writers of the Genesis creation account don't seem to have even been aware of the existence of any planets other than Earth, nor were they aware that the stars were anything more than little lights up on the nighttime surface of the sky. So the Hubble astronomical observations need to be brought home so to speak, and some explanation provided of how they are relevant to our Earth.

theoanaesthetic approach first. The rest will hang on that.

5b. Genesis says that the Earth was the first thing created, which would make it the oldest object in the universe. So we need an explanation of how talk of pre-planetary accretion wouldn't constitute a contradiction of Genesis all by itself, if it was applied to the Earth.

Back to twisting (perverting) what I have actually stated?

5c. We still need a much fuller account of how the Genesis chronology can be squared both with mainstream scientific cosmology and the history of life here on Earth. Many astronomical objects are observed which appear to be older than the Earth. And simple prokaryotes appear to have been the earliest forms of life on Earth, appearing in the oceans long after the Sun had ignited. Flowering plants on land appeared much later.

Leave Genesis out of it for now. Let's do the Occam's Razor part. Occam's Razor is a brainless bum. The path of least resistance is zero to zero.

The forces around the toroid, in fact a ditoroid, need to be demonstarted. If you don't understand the forces there, we cannot dioscuss the validity of the further aspects of the hypothesis/theory. How did that gravitational totoid field get there in the first place? Not good enough to say it came from old stars. We are discussing the original stars.