Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

[HectorDecimal]

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.

The points were made unkindly, it would seem.

Compared to many, that's hardly a long post. Most were pics.

Occam's Razor refers to the solution of dispensing with digging through that original thread to repair it. In spite of that, there is some essence of the path of least resistance involved in a star forming. I'm certain many questions will arise, but if this were a table and people were hyped up on... something... slamming fists and demanding you perform according to what each individual sees as correct, what would you do? Would you kiss each of their asses or would you break out a tazer and silence the meanest one?

Occam's Razor likely has something to do with this and even some other threads I'm thinking of composing, especially on that gravity issue, but I think we are a long way from discussing that connection.

 

[HectorDecimal]

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

To remind you:

source

And:

Source

This appears to be from another thread. Just because the mod perverted this thread by making it a continuation of the other one, doesn't mean I agreed to that perversion. You see how I answered James' query. Submit it to me in a format where I can answer it like that and we'll see what I can do. If the question is unreasonable, I'll say that too, but as you can see from the "James" example, I supply rebuttal or just plain old answers as "business as usual." As you can see from the above example to Grumpy, I'm rejecting mean spirited posts or those that even appear to be such.

Bring Garbage In and you'll take Garbage Out (GIGO). I recommend you begin at THIS launch post and reject the moderator's perversion.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Shouldn't you be fixing that plumbing?

 

[HectorDecimal]

Shouldn't you be fixing that plumbing?

Other things cropped up to put that on hold till tomorrow. It's in the high 40's in February here today. It's supposed to be in the 50's tomorrow and high 50's Thursday. For this area, it's a totally different winter.

 

[Trippy]

This appears to be from another thread.

Irrelevant. You used the same images, have presented the same information, and forwarded the same hypothesis. The same objections arise naturally. Dodging them again is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

Just because the mod perverted this thread by making it a continuation of the other one, doesn't mean I agreed to that perversion.

You've presented us with nothing new, simply regurgitated the same hypothesis, and presented the same 'evidence'.

You see how I answered James' query. Submit it to me in a format where I can answer it like that and we'll see what I can do.

I've done that already.

DG Tau B is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro object, therefore does not support your hypothesis, because it contains an ignited star (all be it a very young ignited star).

Even class 0 Herbig haro objects do not support your hypothesis because the contain protostars.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig haro object is, by in large, the lighting.

There is no evidence that the disks in Herbig Haro objects, or in proplyds contain fully formed planets, let alone fully formed planets capable of sustaining plant life. In fact, they arguably demonstrate the opposite, given that the dust lane is thick enough to obscure the central star.

Even if we accept your hypothesis, what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars, which contradicts Genesis which implies that the earth and sun were formed first, and then gravity was created (which also contradicts your hypothesis that god was created by gravity).

Each of these points is a refutation of your hypothesis, and require evidence, and a counter argument to address them.

Bring Garbage In and you'll take Garbage Out (GIGO). I recommend you begin at THIS launch post and reject the moderator's perversion.

You've made this point once before, and I'll say the same thing to you now that I said to you then. If my responses to you are garbage out, then your posts are the garbage that goes in in the first place, so I would be careful about how many times I threw that around, were I in your position.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Irrelevant. You used the same images, have presented the same information, and forwarded the same hypothesis. The same objections arise naturally. Dodging them again is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.


You've presented us with nothing new, simply regurgitated the same hypothesis, and presented the same 'evidence'.


I've done that already.

DG Tau B is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro object, therefore does not support your hypothesis, because it contains an ignited star (all be it a very young ignited star).

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.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.

Even class 0 Herbig haro objects do not support your hypothesis because the contain protostars.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig haro object is, by in large, the lighting.

There is no evidence that the disks in Herbig Haro objects, or in proplyds contain fully formed planets, let alone fully formed planets capable of sustaining plant life. In fact, they arguably demonstrate the opposite, given that the dust lane is thick enough to obscure the central star.

And that may well be. UNfortunately the dust lane obscures the star, so it is only a guess (and likely a hope) that the star is actually ignited.

Even if we accept your hypothesis, what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars, which contradicts Genesis which implies that the earth and sun were formed first, and then gravity was created (which also contradicts your hypothesis that god was created by gravity).

Now how could a deity possibly use gravity to craft the planets and stars if no deity exists?

Each of these points is a refutation of your hypothesis, and require evidence, and a counter argument to address them.

Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.


You've made this point once before, and I'll say the same thing to you now that I said to you then. If my responses to you are garbage out, then your posts are the garbage that goes in in the first place, so I would be careful about how many times I threw that around, were I in your position.

And I'm not reflecting on this as GIGO, now am I? You did as I asked. I answered as you asked. Now that we've worked together and formed a theory, perhaps you'd like to help me with the plumbing

 

[HectorDecimal]

...and here's a bit to describe the artist and engineer in me. I wasn't kidding. The riser on the van I built, pretty much refurbished the old F-150 and painted the mural on the side. The mural took me about 2 man-hours, not inclusive of prepping the surface and mixing the colors.


I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe...

I see an unignited, forming star

This may depict the gravitational field that begins the main accretion phase.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Are you that James Taylor lookalike?
He's one of my all-time favourites actually.

When you start on the plumbing,
could you post some pictures?
I've almost lost the will to live reading this thread,
but I'd like to see the plumbing problem.

 

[Grumpy]

HectorDecimal

what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars

What we see here is gravity forming the star and possibly planets.

Apply Occam's Razor to these two statements, which is the more likely according to Occam? God is simply not needed, nor is there anything in the image to indicate his presence. Gravity alone does a fine job all on it's own, so the razor slices your addition of a supernatural force all to shreds.

I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe...

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

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.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.

If it has a jet the star is ignited already, if it is lit from within, the star is already ignited.

Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.

You don't even know the first thing about what a theory is, do you? A theory is not formed by nullification, nor can one call a hypothesis a theory if one produces nothing to support the theory. Now we know you have no scientific training whatsoever.

Grumpy

 

[Trippy]

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.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.

Do you think that that single page is the extent of the literature available on DG Tau B?

I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There is other literature available, regarding DG Tau B that Identifies it as a young (ignited) star, rather than a protostar.

And that may well be. UNfortunately the dust lane obscures the star, so it is only a guess (and likely a hope) that the star is actually ignited.

Again, I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There are other lines of evidence that allow us to infer whether or not an object is capable of sustaining fusion.

Now how could a deity possibly use gravity to craft the planets and stars if no deity exists?

Dishonest hack. Do not avoid the question. Address it.

My personal opinion on the existence or non existence of some 'thing' has no bearing, and no relevance to my considerations of the consequences of the existence of that 'thing'. I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea, and deducing from that idea its logical consequences without accepting that idea.

Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.

You have yet to actually address anything I have raised in any depth.

And I'm not reflecting on this as GIGO, now am I? You did as I asked. I answered as you asked. Now that we've worked together and formed a theory, perhaps you'd like to help me with the plumbing.

You're a dishonest hack. The points I raised were the same points I have raised half a dozen times already that I would expect any anglophone of at least average intelligence and attention span to be able to parse from my original post. It doesn't even require a terribly advanced level of prose literacy to be able to do so.

 

[HectorDecimal]

are you that james taylor lookalike?
He's one of my all-time favourites actually.

When you start on the plumbing,
could you post some pictures?
I've almost lost the will to live reading this thread,
but i'd like to see the plumbing problem.

rofl

 

[spidergoat]

Here's a nifty fact, the Earth was around for 4.5 billion years or so before there were any people, funny that Genesis never mentions that.

 

[HectorDecimal]

HectorDecimal



What we see here is gravity forming the star and possibly planets.

Yes.

Apply Occam's Razor to these two statements, which is the more likely according to Occam? God is simply not needed, nor is there anything in the image to indicate his presence. Gravity alone does a fine job all on it's own, so the razor slices your addition of a supernatural force all to shreds.

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.

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?


back to the query:

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.



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.


If it has a jet the star is ignited already, if it is lit from within, the star is already ignited.

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.



You don't even know the first thing about what a theory is, do you? A theory is not formed by nullification, nor can one call a hypothesis a theory if one produces nothing to support the theory. Now we know you have no scientific training whatsoever.

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.




Grumpy

I know you won't stop being grumpy, but I hope that's a bit more satisfying.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Do you think that that single page is the extent of the literature available on DG Tau B?

I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There is other literature available, regarding DG Tau B that Identifies it as a young (ignited) star, rather than a protostar.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483L.127M
Not by this other NASA abstract. Young? Yes. Ignited? No.


Again, I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There are other lines of evidence that allow us to infer whether or not an object is capable of sustaining fusion.


Dishonest hack. Do not avoid the question. Address it.

Excuse Me? YOU can answer your own mean spirited questions till you man up to an apology.

My personal opinion on the existence or non existence of some 'thing' has no bearing, and no relevance to my considerations of the consequences of the existence of that 'thing'. I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea, and deducing from that idea its logical consequences without accepting that idea.


You have yet to actually address anything I have raised in any depth.


You're a dishonest hack. The points I raised were the same points I have raised half a dozen times already that I would expect any anglophone of at least average intelligence and attention span to be able to parse from my original post. It doesn't even require a terribly advanced level of prose literacy to be able to do so.

I think that last blue line says it.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Here's a nifty fact, the Earth was around for 4.5 billion years or so before there were any people, funny that Genesis never mentions that.

Unfortunately, most don't read the whole book. It's really dry, so who can blame anyone? If you only read the first lesson in "Gravitation," you won't thoroughly be able to interpret what I'm explaining about that toroid field. The same is for the Bible. "Day" in Genesis is truly timeless because it means the same as "era." It's like "In those days, there were shepherds in the fields, watching over their flocks by night." We need to get away from the monkey trial.

Most understand that an era is a day for God.

 

[Trippy]

Excuse Me? YOU can answer your own mean spirited questions till you man up to an apology.

At this point you are not in a position to demand apologies of anybody.

What you did was that height of fraud and intellectual dishonesty, I stand by my statement, and consider it to be demonstrated empericaly proven.

I asked you a perfectly reasonably question based on YOUR scenario.

IF Genesis gives the correct timeline[sup]1[/sup] AND we see god creating planets and stars using gravity[sup]2[/sup] THEN why does Genesis suggest god created gravity on the second day instead of the first[sup]3[/sup]?

The first point (labeled 1) is your assertion.
The second point (labeled 2) is an observation, framed in terms of your paradigm based on the evidence you yourself have presented.
The third point (labeled 3) is a logical contradiction we are presented with when considering 1 and 2.

There is nothing mean spirited in any of this, it is observation combined with logic and reasoning. If it presents with a logical contradiction, it is because your hypothesis is flawed, and not internally consistent.

Get over it, man up, address the point honestly, and in good faith, and I will consider retracting my comments.

Until that point, the ball is in your court, and I will consider my assertion to be proven emperically. All you have ever had to do is address the point I have raised.

 

[Bells]

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.

And if you read the literature provided by NASA and by many other institutions, that ring of dust do not contain planets at all. In fact, they are clear to state the dust rings surrounding the young ignited stars in the Orion nebula are being blasted by nearby bigger stars which would make your suggestion in this thread (as well as the other thread) completely incorrect. In short, you are claiming there could be planets in there and NASA and everyone else are saying that there cannot be.

So please provide evidence that there are planets there and that they are forming before the stars form. Because every single expert studying this is contradicting you and Genesis.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe....

Let's see it then. Let's see you do what is considered particularly unpleasant astrophysics, ie combining plasma physics and general relativity. I'm versed in GR to postgrad level and I've some experience with fluid mechanics, you can't use the excuse "It'd be lost on you". Let's see you do more than just spout assertions and be evasive.

 

[Trippy]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483L.127M
Not by this other NASA abstract. Young? Yes. Ignited? No.

DG Tau B is a class II object.
EG:
herschel.esac.esa.int/Publ/2010/Goteborg/presentations/Podio.pdf
http://books.google.co.nz/books/abo...und_young_st.html?id=1CFPHsj10FEC&redir_esc=y

In Class II YSOs, the cloud starts to clear, in part due to the intense light of the young star. Accretion slows even more. In the inner disk, planets may begin to form by accumulation—starting with clumps of dust, which may collide and merge, some growing in size, and others disintegrating. This third chapter lasts approximately 1 million years.

Source

The only thing I am uncertain of at this stageis whether the primary source of energy for the light is gravity or fusion. Either way, even if it is gravity that is the primary energy source, this is still light caused by gravity, not light before gravity as described in Genesis.

 

[HectorDecimal]

And if you read the literature provided by NASA and by many other institutions, that ring of dust do not contain planets at all. In fact, they are clear to state the dust rings surrounding the young ignited stars in the Orion nebula are being blasted by nearby bigger stars which would make your suggestion in this thread (as well as the other thread) completely incorrect. In short, you are claiming there could be planets in there and NASA and everyone else are saying that there cannot be.

So please provide evidence that there are planets there and that they are forming before the stars form. Because every single expert studying this is contradicting you and Genesis.

I did not say any of them contained planets that were in those examples. I showed a young star system that had a gas giant. That was dodged. I mentioned befoer that was only to introduce the page ad obviously I omitted it from this thread to reduce scope and confusion. I used them to depict essentially that we have these so far and that some of these are jets, others are proplyds, others are young star systems around an already ignited star. The DG tau B would, as stated, be the unignited collective proimordial matter we see collecting in a toroid shape to contract into a star. 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, likely dark matter impurities, as a seed, not unlike bubble nucleation in that it needs some impurity to grow larger. The bubble is solidification mechanics in reverse.

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

I mean... have any of you shown any shots of DG tau B that show the star is ignited? Did you catch anything about the filters used to take the shots.

For whatever it's worth, I saw where the shutte was doing some work on the Hubble a couple years back. I was curious if any of you were aware of whether that was to install a more creative masking system? These new shots dodge the brighter areas far better than just a few years back.