Guest Pahu Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked? The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, "Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars are evolving?" Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence. This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said-or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing. Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (called a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, or maybe something nearby exploded. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: "Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. Soon it will become a star." Still other interpretations are possible. NASA's claim in 1995 that these pictures showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative "EGG-star formation theory." It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. "The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation." [Ron Cowen, "Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle's EGG, Not So Fertile," Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171-172.] What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun's gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud's temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud. If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions, and insist on seeing real evidence. Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate http://www.creationscience.com/ Quote
Guest John Smith Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1184608014.719891.327470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked? > > The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen > evolving and that pictures of these stellar nurseries prove it. Popular media is not science, and if it IS in the "popular media - why don't you provide a reference? > Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula are usually shown. Many people > accept the claim without asking themselves, "Do the pictures contain > anything that shows stars are evolving?" Of course not. If stars were > evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are > those measurements? Silence. We CAN NOT see stars evolving - it happens over two long a period of time. That's why you'll NEVER hear that as a scientific claim. Science, however DOES see evidence of a while variety of "areas of the sky" where stars are IN THE PROCESS which will LEAD to becoming a star. > > This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale > in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. > Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, > people preferred to accept what others said-or at least not object. > Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing. That analogy applies perfectly to the creationist idiots, who know nothing about science, ylet constantly bellow inane arguments against it. > > Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the > atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from > space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made > infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust > and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. > Perhaps a dim star (called a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, or > maybe something nearby exploded. Those who struggled to understand how > stars evolved had a different interpretation: "Gravity is collapsing > the cloud, raising its temperature. Soon it will become a star." > Still other interpretations are possible. > > NASA's claim in 1995 that these pictures showed hundreds to thousands > of stars forming was based on the speculative "EGG-star formation > theory." It has recently been tested independently with two infrared > detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, > and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star > formation. "The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still > have to learn about star formation." [Ron Cowen, "Rethinking an > Astronomical Icon: The Eagle's EGG, Not So Fertile," Science News, > Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171-172.] Gee ......... scientists need to learn more about stellar creation. As opposed to religious fanatics who stick their heads up their asses - bellowing "gogdidit"! > > What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun's gravity does not > pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a > tight ball that then ignites as a star. Yes, they often do Each cloud of dust and gas in > space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular > momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight > collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. WOW! You don't know SHIT about science - do you!?!?!?!? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.