Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

[Captain Kremmen]

...................to which the answer, if any, should be interesting.

[HectorDecimal]

HectorDecimal:

Why are you posting images of active galactic nuclei when you're talking about star formation? Jets from black holes at the centres of galaxies are not related to star formation.

Probably because that tiny image was on my machine somewhere it wasn't supposed to be and I mistook it for something else. I truly cannot read that small type anymore.

[HectorDecimal]

Taking that into consideration, though, isn't a bad example of a gravitational field in action.

[Grumpy]

HectorDecimal

Taking that into consideration, though, isn't a bad example of a gravitational field in action.

But it bears not the least bit of simularity to the crap you have been trying to promote, which is the point we all have been making. You are trying to greatly complicate a very simple, well established principle only for, as far as I have seen, your own personal agrandizement or that of your belief system. It seems your feelings are hurt because of a lack of "Oohs and Aahs" in recognition to your wonderfulness and genius. You might try a religious forum, they really don't know any better, we do.

Grumpy

[Yazata]

The image of DGtauB only displays a star condensing long prior to ignition... a young star that will likely glow as if it were a brown or red dwarf prior to ignition while the temperature gradually rises to fusion tmperature.

Didn't the Hubble people describe these as photographs of young accreting sysems in which the brightness of the central star is obscured by dust lanes?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../1999/05/text/

They seem to be saying that in most examples of young accreting stellar systems, the brightness of the central star makes it difficult to image accompanying detail. But when the systems happen to be edge-on to us, the accretion disk can block out the star's brilliance, making it easier to image what's surrounding the star and reflecting its light.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/05/image/e/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/1999/05/

An additional problem is that all of this astronomical stuff doesn't appear to have very much relevance to the Genesis 1 cosmology. That connection still needs to be explained.

[HectorDecimal]

HectorDecimal



But it bears not the least bit of simularity to the crap you have been trying to promote, which is the point we all have been making. You are trying to greatly complicate a very simple, well established principle only for, as far as I have seen, your own personal agrandizement or that of your belief system. It seems your feelings are hurt because of a lack of "Oohs and Aahs" in recognition to your wonderfulness and genius. You might try a religious forum, they really don't know any better, we do.

Grumpy

Unfortunately for your blood quest, my feelings don't rely on validation from the Internet. Essentially the same type of remark could be leveled right back at yours. Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic. I don't do latex. I'm coding an editor that will allow me to capture the equations graphically to a jpg that which I have to enter at the keyboard. If I don't do all that fast enough to suit your demands, too bad.

The fact is the religious forum people probably DO know better than the ones so insistent on postulating their own atheistic religion. They take it all on faith and go about singing praises. I don't define that as anything other than a belief and an exersize in their right to believe whatever they want.

Be as mean spirited as you like. It doesn't hurt my feelings, only my respect for your posts.

[HectorDecimal]

Didn't the Hubble people describe these as photographs of young accreting sysems in which the brightness of the central star is obscured by dust lanes?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../1999/05/text/

They seem to be saying that in most examples of young accreting stellar systems, the brightness of the central star makes it difficult to image accompanying detail. But when the systems happen to be edge-on to us, the accretion disk can block out the star's brilliance, making it easier to image what's surrounding the star and reflecting its light.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/05/image/e/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/1999/05/

An additional problem is that all of this astronomical stuff doesn't appear to have very much relevance to the Genesis 1 cosmology. That connection still needs to be explained.

The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such.

[Trippy]

The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such.

Yes there is.

[Arioch]

@Hector --

Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic.

You're the one positing things without demonstrating them, the burden of proof is still on you. Why don't you provide some mathematical proof. And then, for an encore you could demonstrate that your equations accurately reflect observation. So far I've seen none of this from you.

[Trippy]

Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic.

Really?

Time-dependent Accretion by Magnetic Young Stellar Objects as a Launching Mechanism for Stellar Jets

That's one paper. Anyway, the burden of proof is on you.

[Grumpy]

HectorDecimal

"The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such...

...if you ignore the massive infrared radiation seen coming from the dust at rates far above those that gravity alone can account for, that is".

The fact is the religious forum people probably DO know better than the ones so insistent on postulating their own atheistic religion.

I'm not the one saying his religion trumps real science, that would be you. Genesis in no way is supported by the science you are so busy twisting into knots to try to make it do so. Your claims are Religious in nature, I make no such claims and everything I have posted in these forums is either supported by established science or, if not, plainly labeled as my opinion.

Grumpy

[AlexG]

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you.

It's a burden too heavy for HD to carry.

[AlphaNumeric]

Unfortunately for your blood quest, my feelings don't rely on validation from the Internet. Essentially the same type of remark could be leveled right back at yours. Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic. I don't do latex. I'm coding an editor that will allow me to capture the equations graphically to a jpg that which I have to enter at the keyboard. If I don't do all that fast enough to suit your demands, too bad.

I don't believe you do any equations, graphically or otherwise.

[HectorDecimal]

The results are now WIP. What I'm doing is analyzing trhe RGB data of the DG Tau B. Although I still need to collect more samplings than from a single corner, then effectively convert the RGB data to a frequency, it seems the outer fringe contains color that is not being reflected from the jets.