Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

HectorDecimal

You obviously are of the erronious opinion that you have clarified some point. You have obviously not learned a thing in your off time. If remaining on this forum is your goal I suggest a different approach, starting with dropping this topic like a hot rock. A large portion of being able to win an argument is being able to recognize when you have lost one. You've lost this one and nothing you have shown yourself capable of will change that.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
A large portion of being able to win an argument is being able to recognize when you have lost one.
Click to expand...

A large portion of being able to win an argument is the ability to present a clear, coherent and well-evidenced argument in the first place.
 
attachment.php


This is what I'm representing as a DITOROID or DIROROIDAL field. Obviously if this discussion is a new monkey trial, new terminology will result. It is an appropriate and concise description of 3 dimensional geometry. This would be the shape of the field accreting the material. The field would be extremely eccentric, though elliptical. There are theories published suggesting the field may originate in dark matter and that it exists in the cores of stars.
 
Yazata

A large portion of being able to win an argument is the ability to present a clear, coherent and well-evidenced argument in the first place.
Click to expand...

Which HectorDecimal has shown so far to not be within his capability, pretty pictures included.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
Yazata



Which HectorDecimal has shown so far to not be within his capability, pretty pictures included.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...

You have the right to blieve anything you want Grumpy. I have the right to disbelieve anything I want.

I have the right to believe you are not remotely qualified to comment technically or scientifically about the field shown above.

If we can't get beyond discussing this field geometry, then how can we discuss the deeper meaning of why all that material heading into DG tau B's center just might do that and how that process just might make some of that material luminesce.
 
There, in #83, is a pictorial description of a field that would also process those jets till that dust alley is far more dense than what is seen. That field would grow and envelope the outer fringes. You may notice that in all the information about our sun, there is no longer a hint of any plasma jets. Long gone if ever there. We hear all the time that the sun is only 4.6 Gyears old. 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.
 
HectorDecimal said:
There, in #83, is a pictorial description of a field that would also process those jets till that dust alley is far more dense than what is seen.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think that field is neccessary, and I am equally uncertain as to what you think it might explain better than the current model.
 
Trippy said:
I'm not sure why you think that field is neccessary, and I am equally uncertain as to what you think it might explain better than the current model.
Click to expand...

Discussing #83:

Either a sufficient field to accrete anything at all is there or it won't happen. It would need to happen without the field being there and generated by soimething extemely small and extremely powerful, or gravity would need to be an inbound force that drives all the material into a stream of colision centered on one point, or perhapd a finite number of points, very close, along the same axis.
 
Last edited:
HectorDecimal said:
Discussing #83:

Either a sufficient field to accrete anything at all is there or it won't happen. It would need to happen without the field being there and generated by soimething extemely small and extremely powerful, or gravity would need to be an inbound force that drives all the material into a stream of colision centered on one point, or perhapd a finite number of points, very close, along the same axis.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all.

Under the mainstream model, all that's really required is a knot of sufficient density, at an appropriate temperature, and everythign follows naturally from that according to gravity, the conservation of angular momentum, and perhaps some electromagnetism.

There's even a number of different models for knots to reach said temperature and density.
 
HectorDecimal said:
I recently modeled an example of the field around the forming star. I have to import it to this machine and reduce it for the board...

probably later today.
Click to expand...
Let's see your equations. It's easy to come up with a surface parametrisation which gives the thing you have in your picture. Justifying it from a plasma & GR construct is entirely different.

HectorDecimal said:
I have the right to believe you are not remotely qualified to comment technically or scientifically about the field shown above.

If we can't get beyond discussing this field geometry, then how can we discuss the deeper meaning of why all that material heading into DG tau B's center just might do that and how that process just might make some of that material luminesce.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely qualified to talk about differential geometry, general relativity, black holes and particle physics. I've repeatedly asked you to give details but you not only don't, you ignore my requests.

It's a sign you're knowingly dishonest.
 
Trippy said:
This makes no sense at all.

Under the mainstream model, all that's really required is a knot of sufficient density, at an appropriate temperature, and everythign follows naturally from that according to gravity, the conservation of angular momentum, and perhaps some electromagnetism.

There's even a number of different models for knots to reach said temperature and density.
Click to expand...

We just said basically the same thing, only you left out the alternative.
 
It's a sign you're knowingly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited?

It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse?

Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material.

attachment.php



The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83
 
Last edited:
HectorDecimal said:
We just said basically the same thing, only you left out the alternative.
Click to expand...

No, we did not.

What you said reads like a stream of gibberish strung together at random. What I said was a genuine effort at describing the forces involved in a reasonably understandable manner.
 
HectorDecimal said:
Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited?
Click to expand...
I've asked you more than once, you've ignored each time. Besides, you're the one saying to people they aren't sufficiently qualified to discuss the stuff with you, hardly taking the moral high ground are you? Particularly since you're obviously not sufficiently qualified to talk about this stuff with any confidence yourself.

HectorDecimal said:
It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse?
Click to expand...
You don't need an equation editor, the forum supports LaTeX. For example, $$G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab}$$.

As for the ellipse, the reason I'm asking you to provide your working is so you can show the derivation. The whole point is that you state your base assumptions and work through to your conclusion. Until then you're just pulling a shape out of your backside.

HectorDecimal said:
Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material.
Click to expand...
Talk is cheap. Let's see some calculus.

HectorDecimal said:
The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83
Click to expand...
Jets from things like black holes don't require the star to be ignited. That's not a new concept. That's how radio galaxies form.

Come on, put your maths where your mouth is.
 
HectorDecimal said:
Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited?

It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse?

Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material.

attachment.php



The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83
Click to expand...

The images in your OP are very much of "ignited" stars. NASA and the Hubble Team within Nasa state so. There have been dozens of papers written about those images, many of them have been linked in this thread. And every single one of them discounts your claims and your arguments. You even went so far as to try to claim that their [Hubble Team] findings were "similar" to yours. They were not. They also hold and so does everyone else, that the disks of dust from the images in your OP in the Orion Nebula do not form into planets because they are being bombarded by nearby stars and the stars the dust is circling is also preventing them from forming into planets (in other words, as the particles of dust swirl together, they are then broken up again by nearby stars and the star they are circling).

What is funny about this thread is that you have consistently ignored questions from several very qualified individuals and you are still doing it.
What is not funny is that it resulted in your being banned once and I can assure you, you will be banned again if you persist in this fashion.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top