Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

[HectorDecimal]

Moderator note: This thread is a continuation of discussion that started in the following thread:

[thread=112475]The Hubble tends to validate the bible[/thread]
----

The above are proplyds from the Hubble site (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/)

My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks, likely from intergallactic hydrogen clouds (John Dobson's pet). The disk shown in the lower left is dark in it's center and this does not appear to be the Hubble's "dodger" masking a bright, ignited star, yet the disk is luminous and may contain a plasma jet.

The above shows a plasma jet from a good angle along the disk it is emitting from. For this to occur, a great concentration of gravity would need be present and this is evidenced by the toroid geometry of the disk as material flows toward its center. These jets are truly not very visible, so a filter allows us to see the red ionized hydrogen plasma, still we can see areas where the influx of glowing hot, condensing matter that are opaque, hiding what's behind them. Those opaque areas would be the unignited, condensing star.

From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites. From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree. This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

There is no such thing as an "atheist religion," except in the arcane language of the U.S. government, which commands very little respect.

Furthermore, the phrase "theist religion" is redundant.

If you want to post here, please use the correct terminology.

--The Linguistics Moderator.

 

[James R]

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?

My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks, likely from intergallactic hydrogen clouds (John Dobson's pet). The disk shown in the lower left is dark in it's center and this does not appear to be the Hubble's "dodger" masking a bright, ignited star, yet the disk is luminous and may contain a plasma jet.

Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?

The above shows a plasma jet from a good angle along the disk it is emitting from. For this to occur, a great concentration of gravity would need be present and this is evidenced by the toroid geometry of the disk as material flows toward its center. These jets are truly not very visible, so a filter allows us to see the red ionized hydrogen plasma, still we can see areas where the influx of glowing hot, condensing matter that are opaque, hiding what's behind them. Those opaque areas would be the unignited, condensing star.

Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

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

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

From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites.

You get all that from these shots alone, do you?

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?

From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

Why is the incoming material already luminous?

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.

If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree.

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

This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

Atheism isn't a religion.

What controversy are you referring to?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

HectorD.
Your OP makes more sense this time.
I think I understand what you are getting at.

Sometimes you seem to expect people to understand your point of view without reasonable explanation.
You haven't got a touch of Aspergers have you?

It's not a subject I know much about.
That doesn't always stop me from arguing,
but I'll try to resist the temptation to learn on the hop,
and leave it to others to debate it with you.
I will be following the thread though,
and may come back in if I feel I have something to offer.

Welcome to sciforums.
You look like shaping into one of our great eccentrics,
and the standard is tough.

Good luck with Fraggle and James.
You'll need it.

 

[HectorDecimal]

There is no such thing as an "atheist religion," except in the arcane language of the U.S. government, which commands very little respect.

Furthermore, the phrase "theist religion" is redundant.

If you want to post here, please use the correct terminology.

--The Linguistics Moderator.

Theist = an adjective; a TYPE of belief (Now "theism religion" would be redundant)

Religion = an noun; a belief


Fraggle, I'm an American. I don't know where you are. I started a new post, with the intent of narrowing the scope, lessening the content that could be seen as allegory. Just because a moderator's OPINION conflicts with the English languish which I think the rules states is the language of choice, does not change the definition supplied in many dictionary versions. Yes, the supreme court here in American ruled it a religion, a belief, likely to allow us all more freedom of speech.

Since you seem angry with America's court decisions, would you clue me in to what country you reside in? :shrug:

You may be the linguistics moderator, but that would also give you the responsibility to remain neutral and to be exceptionally careful not to come across as trolling. This post is designed to get under my skin, not contribute. I'm reporting it.

 

[HectorDecimal]

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?

Per the rule, from a scientific approach, I'm comparing ALL religions including atheism, most by implication of the content that the Biblical religion may find some validation, void of saying the others are validated as well.

Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?

I did not say there was no star. I said the star had not ignited. All are subject to speculation and theorization, using math pre se, whether it be this perspective or NASA's or David Levy's or Galileo's.


Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

No. Different objects in the Orion Nebula.

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.

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 get all that from these shots alone, do you?

Not just these alone, but they are good examples.

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

I did a little bit. A real world example is Jello. If we make a 3 gallon batch in a stainless steel container, then pour out say half a gallon into 3 inch diameter x 2 inch high stainless steel dishes, all the same gauge material, and put them in the fridge at the same time, the smaller dishes of Jello will gel first. Left uncovered for a long time, to further the example, a crust would develop first on the smaller dishes of Jello before the heat has left the original 3 gallon pot.

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?

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.



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.

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.

I don't do latex and I notice these editors aren't equation friendly. Put that on my "to do" list. I'll either use my equation editor and do a screen grab or find my old notes and scan them in.



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.



Atheism isn't a religion.

That is up for debate. The supreme court ruled it is. Till that is overturned here in America, it is reduced to semantic refuge.

What controversy are you referring to?

See your last comment and my rebuttal


There's most of it, for starters. I won't be able to do a lot of "fetch the stick" routines for a day or two. It's getting warm enough for me to fix an outside plumbing problem that would find some lying face down in it, so that's my priority. Just so all know, I'm not ignoring your posts. I'll get to them as long as they are pretty much on the surface. By that I'm saying, don't bury everything in a big, flustered hurry.

(And that @#@%$$^% pod bay door better be open when I get back, HAL...)

 

[HectorDecimal]

HectorD.
Your OP makes more sense this time.
I think I understand what you are getting at.

Sometimes you seem to expect people to understand your point of view without reasonable explanation.
You haven't got a touch of Aspergers have you?

I may look into that. I don't believe ANYONE is perfectly without some cracked plumbing in places. Fact is, my other half is a psychiatric nurse, but MS has pretty much cancelled her career save for conversing with me. I have discussed the "essence" of simply assuming everyone sees things I think are simple to grasp.

It's not a subject I know much about.
That doesn't always stop me from arguing,
but I'll try to resist the temptation to learn on the hop,
and leave it to others to debate it with you.
I will be following the thread though,
and may come back in if I feel I have something to offer.

Welcome to sciforums.
You look like shaping into one of our great eccentrics,
and the standard is tough.

Good luck with Fraggle and James.
You'll need it.

Thankyou for the post. As long as they are civil and word their posts in a non-inflamatory style, VOID OF AMBIGUITY that might make them seem heated, we might all get along.

Oh and Yes, I'm eccentric. Sometimes we eccentric minds produce the very thing everyone was looking for. Look at Farnsworth. Eccentric, yet pragmatic. He invented the TV.

 

[Bells]

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

It is unfortunate he did not refer to the Hubble Team's explanation about the image he posted:

DG Tauri B: A Star With a Thick Dust Lane and Bright Gas Jet

DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.

http://m.hubblesite.org/vote/pr1999005k
​

They then provide a link to a full series of images which discusses the possible birth of planets around new young stars.

Although these pictures from the Hubble telescope don't show planets, the edge-on disks seen by the telescope provide some of the clearest views to date of potential planetary construction zones, say researchers. The images also offer a peek at what happened 4.5 billion years ago when the Earth and other planets in our solar system began to condense out of a pancake-shaped disk of dust and gas centered on the young Sun. These images were taken by Hubble's infrared camera. All of the objects in these pictures are extremely young stars, buried in the centers of these pictures. The wisps of material surrounding the young stars are glowing from reflected starlight.
​

_______________________________________________________________

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.

Are you claiming to know more than the "Hubble Team"?

The "Hubble Team" determined that the opaque and dark area is actually a disk of dust surrounding the star. It does not indicate an "unignited star". Quite the contrary.

The jets are actually illuminated by the star itself, which you can see the scientists who study the Hubble images have already stated.

Do you have evidence which would prove them wrong?

Because NASA have clearly stated that the Hubble images you posted amounted to disks of dust circling young stars.. Which clearly defies your argument that it supports Genesis, which states that Earth formed before our sun. Unless of course you have other evidence which contradicts NASA and the "Hubble Team"?

 

[HectorDecimal]

the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk.

See? While I'm getting my hip waders on, someone fetches the "stick" for me. (Hopefully a fresh diaper for that poor baby... )

Hip waders = plumbing nightmare in real life (you wouldn't want this project and a plumber wants $15k to do it...)

As for do I think I know more than the HST team? That's a meaningless question? Let's say I believe I'm at least as educated about physics as they are.

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.

At over 200 posts, I've grown to know some of you a bit and the nature of posting here. We can't dismiss either perspective and the HST team can't provide time lapse photography of all this yet.

We can only test telescopic views through inference. Sometimes an inference can be delineated by working the numbers of the failing hypothesis.

What the dust lane actually proves is that
1. the symmetry of the forces invovled in the plasma jet picture are toroid.
2. Those particles flowing in are solidified enough to have a reflective, yet possibly autolumination multiplexed, albedo.

We measure microwaves, x-rays, etcetera, of a small area of the sky. It's a big ass sky.

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

Sometime I'll start a thread examining the subject of that gravity query: Is their a void?

I think we'd ALL like to know for certain, but like Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet "The facts, ma'am. Just the facts."

One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified. Beyond that, we must sort out for ourselves. It's been MANY years since I read the book that was in. I think it was "The Story of Mankind" or something like that. I don't have the book anymore, unfortunately a casualty to my first marriage and divorce.

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

 

[HectorDecimal]

And I started out subscribing to witchcraft...

 

[Yazata]

Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

Why does the subject line contain a reference to Ockham's razor? That heuristic principle suggests that simpler theories should be preferred over needlessly complex theories. So how does linking some Hubble photographs to ancient cosmological speculations result in a simpler theory than just treating the photographs as illustrations of astrophysical events, without introducing all of the extraneous religious stuff?

The Hubble tends to validate the bible

I disagree. I don't think that the Hubble photographs have much relevence to the Bible at all.

My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks

Ok, that's not very controversial.

From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites.

But what makes you think that planets have already formed in there? You seem to be sneaking in your desired conclusion among your assumptions.

From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

We still need convincing reason to believe that there isn't already a bright young star in there that's illuminating the gas. That's how the astronomers associated with Hubble seem to interpret it.

Any talk of "these new planets" is still just your own conjecture. The planets still need to be demonstrated.

And "likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting" seems to be entirely gratuitous. Nothing in the Hubble imagery even remotely suggests that.

If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree.

Of course Genesis suggests that the Earth was the very first thing created. That would make it the oldest object in the universe. So all this talk about accretion disks and planetary formation, if it's applied to the Earth, would appear to already contradict Genesis.

This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

You shouldn't end your posts with trollish little zingers like that.

 

[arauca]

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?



Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?



Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

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

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



You get all that from these shots alone, do you?

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?



Why is the incoming material already luminous?

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.



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



Atheism isn't a religion.

What controversy are you referring to?

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

 

[HectorDecimal]

Why does the subject line contain a reference to Ockham's razor? That heuristic principle suggests that simpler theories should be preferred over needlessly complex theories. So how does linking some Hubble photographs to ancient cosmological speculations result in a simpler theory than just treating the photographs as illustrations of astrophysical events, without introducing all of the extraneous religious stuff?



I disagree. I don't think that the Hubble photographs have much relevence to the Bible at all.



Ok, that's not very controversial.



But what makes you think that planets have already formed in there? You seem to be sneaking in your desired conclusion among your assumptions.



We still need convincing reason to believe that there isn't already a bright young star in there that's illuminating the gas. That's how the astronomers associated with Hubble seem to interpret it.

Any talk of "these new planets" is still just your own conjecture. The planets still need to be demonstrated.

And "likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting" seems to be entirely gratuitous. Nothing in the Hubble imagery even remotely suggests that.



Of course Genesis suggests that the Earth was the very first thing created. That would make it the oldest object in the universe. So all this talk about accretion disks and planetary formation, if it's applied to the Earth, would appear to already contradict Genesis.



You shouldn't end your posts with trollish little zingers like that.

It would seem that, in an easiest path, Auruca has answered all your questions. That last statement of your post, though, could be mirrored right backatcha.

Do you drink a lot of coffee? Your post seems to be slamming a fist on the table at best, while grabbing a row of some reseacher's already sequenced vials of DNA and thrusting them, now randomized, into their face. Here in INdiana, if someone does that, even if it was Eli Lilly's CEO, the worker could call the cops and have the disruptive individual arrested for criminal mischief within a scientific facility. It's a Class D felony.

Please, Yazata, show us that you respect ypour own intelligence and others as well. Pull one metaphorical vial at a time and ask what it means. If you overwhelm me with queries, I can interpret that as disruption and I'm in no way obligated to answer a disruptive post.

 

[Grumpy]

arauca

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

It's called "knowledge", or "science", and pointing out the disinformation and misunderstanding of others is to discredit their statements, not the individual. Heactor claims to be some sort of scientist, but his statements indicate otherwise, he keeps trying to fit science into his belief system, twisting the explanations of these Hubble images to fit his preconceived beliefs, that is in no way scientific. The fact is that the inner planets being rocky indicates they formed after the sun ignited and blew the lighter elements outward to where the gas/ice planets formed, leaving behind the heavier rocks and dust to form Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars plus the rubble of the asteroid belt. Hector's "view" is simply not supported by the facts and pointing that out is not an attack on the person, but on the ideas expressed by that person.

Grumpy

 

[HectorDecimal]

arauca



It's called "knowledge", or "science", and pointing out the disinformation and misunderstanding of others is to discredit their statements, not the individual. Heactor claims to be some sort of scientist, but his statements indicate otherwise, he keeps trying to fit science into his belief system, twisting the explanations of these Hubble images to fit his preconceived beliefs, that is in no way scientific. The fact is that the inner planets being rocky indicates they formed after the sun ignited and blew the lighter elements outward to where the gas/ice planets formed, leaving behind the heavier rocks and dust to form Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars plus the rubble of the asteroid belt. Hector's "view" is simply not supported by the facts and pointing that out is not an attack on the person, but on the ideas expressed by that person.

Grumpy

Actually I do not do as you seem to think, Grumpy. A little later I'll respond to this in better depth, but for the meantime, I treat science as a probe only. A scientist usually has a feel for things and explores an avenue based upon their hunch. Some people think in terms of 2D... cartoon characters. Others think in 4D and translate 3D into 2D and add frames to it all, Voila!
We have Pummillo Fatuas moving across the screen.

It took Walt Disney a small army of animators to represent his 4D thoughts to those who think in 2D.

 

[Grumpy]

HectorDecimal

Actually I do not do as you seem to think, Grumpy. A little later I'll respond to this in better depth, but for the meantime, I treat science as a probe only. A scientist usually has a feel for things and explores an avenue based upon their hunch. Some people think in terms of 2D... cartoon characters. Others think in 4D and translate 3D into 2D and add frames to it all, Voila!
We have Pummillo Fatuas moving across the screen.

It took Walt Disney a small army of animators to represent his 4D thoughts to those who think in 2D.

I don't think you twist and distort science to justify your preconceived beliefs, every post you make demonstrates that is exactly what you do. I seriously doubt you know anything about what scientists actually do, you certainly don't know anything about what they have found actually means.

Grumpy

 

[origin]

One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified. Beyond that, we must sort out for ourselves.

Wow, contemporary letters from the time of Jesus, as opposed to much later, and they are actually discussing Jesus; this is a big find.

It's been MANY years since I read the book that was in. I think it was "The Story of Mankind" or something like that.

Oh no! you lost the book and don't remember the name. Darn, well I am sure you have faith it existed.

 

[Trippy]

So, HD, are you going to address my points yet? I see James has raised similar points.

To remind you:

Herbig Haro objects, of which DG Tau B is one, have ignited stars in their core. Except Class 0 (there are three classes, defined I believe by their spectral characteristics), which have proto-stars in their cores.

So, all but the very youngest of Herbig Haro objects have ignited stars in their cores (but they haven't neccessarily reached equilibrium yet, like T-Tauri variables).

The literature I have read in relation to DG Tau B suggests that it is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro.

Proto-planetary disks form with the star, as part of the accretionary process. In other words, the accretion disk that the star forms within becomes the protoplanetary disk that forms the planets. No proto-star, means no accretionary disk, means no planets.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig-haro object is that the proplyds are externally illuminated, where the herbig haro objects are not (well, not significantly anyway).

source

And:

If gravity existed by this point, the oceans would have already 'gathered into one place', but the bible explicitly states that it occurs on the second day, not the first day, when the sky is created.

Source

 

[Yazata]

Please, Yazata, show us that you respect ypour own intelligence and others as well. Pull one metaphorical vial at a time and ask what it means. If you overwhelm me with queries, I can interpret that as disruption and I'm in no way obligated to answer a disruptive post.

You're not obligated to do anything, Hector. But you did start a thread with a long post in which you made a whole variety of controversial claims. I quoted from your post and commented on some of your points.

I asked why you had referred to Ockham's razor, pointed out some statements in your text that appear to go far beyond anything that the Hubble images actually show, and ended by pointing out that even if your argument was correct, it would still contradict Genesis.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Wow, contemporary letters from the time of Jesus, as opposed to much later, and they are actually discussing Jesus; this is a big find.



Oh no! you lost the book and don't remember the name. Darn, well I am sure you have faith it existed.



Oh no! that fellow named Jesus said that if a man divorces and remarries then he is an adulterer. Yikes - hope you didn't remarry!

http://www.hotbooksale.com/store/pr...BS05_80605_00_*GeoUSCA*__the story of mankind


Guess I did get the title dredged up from memory correctly. You may find it at a public library, too...


FWIW... I'm not remarried. Bye bye to your strawman...