Starship Asterisk*

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

There are various theories as to the origin of our Sun and the solar System.

ES0401 Observe an animation showing the origin of the solar system.
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_sc ... page01.cfm

ESRF helps reveal the origin of the Solar System
http://www.esrf.eu/news/pressreleases/stardust

Origin of the Solar SystemHow Planets, Asteroids, and Comets Come to Exist in a System
Nebular Theory and its problems
http://knol.google.com/k/kevin-spauldin ... 4fj02nv/11#

The Solar System's first breath
NASA's Genesis probe offers clues to the Sun's oxygen.

This is great news! It confirms that our solar system formed out of heterogeneous debris [poorly mixed isotopes and elements] left in the equatorial plane after the Sun exploded as a supernova: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
The experimental basis of that conclusion was published over 30 years ago ["Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)]. http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
Oxygen-16 was made near the core of the supernova. In 1976 Clayton et al. found that O-16 is most abundant in meteorites that formed in the inner part of the solar system, near the Sun. http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1976Data.htm
This new measurement shows that the Sun that formed on the collapsed SN core has even more O-16 than the Earth. These data show that oxygen in the Sun is near the lower left corner of this correlation diagram.
With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com http://www.thesunisiron.com/

Two of the prblems with the Nebula theory is that it cannot explain the motions of the planets and the long life of our sun. Suns that form from Nebulae without a compact core only last a few million years. The core is the key issue to the long life and the actual control of heat release and heat control of the solar envelope and to keep the solar envelope from expanding.

Chris if your comments are going to use words like utter rubbish, than back them up with science.

harry wrote:There are various theories as to the origin of our Sun and the solar System.

Yes, there are. And they all are variants of a collapsing cloud of gas and dust.

This is great news! It confirms that our solar system formed out of heterogeneous debris [poorly mixed isotopes and elements] left in the equatorial plane after the Sun exploded as a supernova: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

You need to do a better job sorting the good stuff from the Internet from the bad. These links are to the website of O. Manuel, the iron sun crackpot. He is not a scientist, and his off-the-wall ideas are totally rejected- based on bad theory and not inconsistent with observation.

Two of the prblems with the Nebula theory is that it cannot explain the motions of the planets and the long life of our sun. Suns that form from Nebulae without a compact core only last a few million years. The core is the key issue to the long life and the actual control of heat release and heat control of the solar envelope and to keep the solar envelope from expanding.

Any you are getting this idea where? Neither of these things you suggest are normally given as problems with the "Nebula theory" (assuming by that you mean the class of theories which generally describe the formation of stellar systems).

As I noted before, all theories of stellar system formation begin with a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. From that point, there are several major variants that attempt to explain the dynamics of the coalescing material- each of which has strengths and weaknesses. There is currently no theory of star formation that starts with an existing compact core.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Hello Chris

Please explain your theory as to the motion and long life and stabilty of the sun and planets.

harry wrote:Please explain your theory as to the motion and long life and stabilty of the sun and planets.

It's not my theory. And explain what? AFAIK there is no conflict between the formation of stellar systems from collapsing molecular clouds and any issue of long term orbital dynamics.

G'day Chris

Mate if that is what you think than that is what it is in your mind.

A scientist would look at the various alternative and cover all bases.

harry wrote:A scientist would look at the various alternative and cover all bases.

In other words, you can't tell me what the supposed problem with current theory is.

I'll give some serious consideration to the theory that purple unicorns create stars. That's an alternative that apparently can't be ignored.

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:A scientist would look at the various alternative and cover all bases.

In other words, you can't tell me what the supposed problem with current theory is.

And who, pray tell, made the rule that says we can't consider other theories besides the one which receives the most publicity? Does all mankind have to fall in uni-step with the tin pot dictator who declares what is to be and what is not to be? Must we lose our individual sense of creative thought and join the mass mind? Have you ever considered that a unicorn, through developmental processes in the womb, perhaps caused by gamma ray burst, might be born with two or three horns? And who is to say the creature born is not a Unicorn? And Unicorns, by the way, are found on stone age cave wall paintings in France .. so who was it that first scoffed and said, "Unicorns are myths."

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:There are various theories as to the origin of our Sun and the solar System.

Yes, there are. And they all are variants of a collapsing cloud of gas and dust.

Nope.

Chris wrote:As I noted before, all theories of stellar system formation begin with a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. From that point, there are several major variants that attempt to explain the dynamics of the coalescing material- each of which has strengths and weaknesses. There is currently no theory of star formation that starts with an existing compact core.

Nope, again.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And who, pray tell, made the rule that says we can't consider other theories besides the one which receives the most publicity?

You are, of course, welcome to entertain any ideas you want (although many you have suggested don't meet the definition of "theory" by the usual definitions of the scientific community). But don't expect all the scientists in the world to drop what they're doing and rush to examine these ideas. There is a protocol for presenting ideas, and those that refuse to follow it are not going to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's just the way things work (and for a good reason, IMO).

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:And who, pray tell, made the rule that says we can't consider other theories besides the one which receives the most publicity?

You are, of course, welcome to entertain any ideas you want (although many you have suggested don't meet the definition of "theory" by the usual definitions of the scientific community). But don't expect all the scientists in the world to drop what they're doing and rush to examine these ideas. There is a protocol for presenting ideas, and those that refuse to follow it are not going to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's just the way things work (and for a good reason, IMO).

Even those who follow protocol to the cross on the 't' and the dot above the 'i' are often scorned, Chris, scorned and later there scorners feel themselves somewhat embarrased. I feel myself fortunate that my lack of education permits me freedom from that kind of scorning, for who would not find entertainment in a fool?

Unfortunately, the mass of consensus inhibits presentation of ideas by those who are educated enough to be met with scorn.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Unfortunately, the mass of consensus inhibits presentation of ideas by those who are educated enough to be met with scorn.

I disagree. The "mass of consensus" appropriately shifts the burden of proof to those making new (and especially, extraordinary) claims. Without such a system, all of science would be swimming in a sea of claims, with no method of sorting them out. Above all, the current system works.

To understand the ''End'' . You must first completely understand the ''Beginning''. Half a picture, does not make a hole.

Mark.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Unfortunately, the mass of consensus inhibits presentation of ideas by those who are educated enough to be met with scorn.

I disagree. The "mass of consensus" appropriately shifts the burden of proof to those making new (and especially, extraordinary) claims. Without such a system, all of science would be swimming in a sea of claims, with no method of sorting them out. Above all, the current system works.

Then why does the U.S. lag far behind the Russians in technology, economics, and, seemingly, the sciences? (Of course, the U.S. may have something they aren't leaking .. but so may have the Russians.) In fact, the U.S. system of education lagged far behind the Canadians at the time of the Arrow supersonic jet fighter, and even before that, with Peterborough, Ontario, being the first city in the world whose streetlights were wholly electric lit; and this seems still to be true, as evidenced by the Blackberry. The U.S. system has always been based on mass merchandising over innovation, the Canadian invention of the lightbulb being an example, Telsa from Eastern Europe being another example. The U.S., with its mild climate and brute military might fed by (now almost wholly depleted) natural resources, has not needed to be innovative, so the virtue of innovation has not been elevated, with consensus' rule effectively discouraging independant thought. I think the present U.S. crisis is already rapidly reshaping your educational systems .. and your nation will out of dire urgency begin to play catchup on the rest of the industrialized world. Consensus will take its rightful, lower, place.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Unfortunately, the mass of consensus inhibits presentation of ideas by those who are educated enough to be met with scorn.

I disagree. The "mass of consensus" appropriately shifts the burden of proof to those making new (and especially, extraordinary) claims. Without such a system, all of science would be swimming in a sea of claims, with no method of sorting them out. Above all, the current system works.

Then why does the U.S. lag far behind the Russians in technology, economics, and, seemingly, the sciences?

We don't. Russia has some of the worst science in the world- the worst sort of pseudoscience. Paranormal research, even. And much good science in Russia remains crippled even this long after the Soviet era by poor access to technology. And if you think the Russian economy is working better than ours, well... what can anybody say to that?

Our education system lags that of many developed countries. Mainly because we don't have a national system of standards. But we still produce, by a good margin, the best science in the world.

aristarchusinexile wrote: Then why does the U.S. lag far behind the Russians in technology, economics, and, seemingly, the sciences?

Chris wrote:We don't. Russia has some of the worst science in the world- the worst sort of pseudoscience. Paranormal research, even. And much good science in Russia remains crippled even this long after the Soviet era by poor access to technology. And if you think the Russian economy is working better than ours, well... what can anybody say to that?

You don't keep up with current events, Chris. Russia has no national debt, is hugely wealthy on oil and gas, diamonds, gold, etc. Unemployment is so low they are scouring the world for construction trades workers to build homes. The Russians developed ice therapy for heart operations (now being adopted worldwide).The Russian heavy lift rocket was used for the largest sections of the ISS because the U.S. didn't have the technology. The Russians have a 600 mph torpedo whereas the U.S. has fired a bullet underwater at high speeds. Russian fighter jets fly circles around U.S. fighters. Even decades ago the Soviets landed on Venus when the U.S. said it was impossible (the old 'man was not made to fly' consensus. Russia (and formerly Poland) have been far ahead of the rest of the world in science exploration. Paranormal is nothing more exotic than non-locality. Chris, you need to expand your reading, but I realize you are heavily involved in astronomical outreach, so you probably just don't have sufficient time.

Chris wrote: ... we still produce, by a good margin, the best science in the world.

[/quote]

According to everything I have read that view is true only in cosmology, and is now historical, and was of extremely short duration, between WW 1 and WW 2. The Soviets saw no purpose in sending men to the moon because robots were far more cost and research efficient. Of course, the human value of manned exploration is priceless, but Chris, it is a fact that without the Canadians from the cancelled Avro Arrow, the U.S. would not have made it to the moon. Furthermore, the scientific achievements of the U.S. have almost always come from immigrants educated elsewhere, Eastern Europe particularly .. Telsa a good example. What the U.S. has always been good at is mass production, mass consumerism, and exporting the image of the consumer to the world .. this in the past resulted in exports of manufactured goods, that era now finished.

aristarchusinexile wrote:You don't keep up with current events, Chris. Russia has no national debt, is hugely wealthy on oil and gas, diamonds, gold, etc...

I know a number of Russian scientists who have come here over the last few years, and find things much, much better here. And I know a couple still in Russia who would kill for a position at an American university. Life isn't so good for most people over there, and that includes most academics.

Paranormal is nothing more exotic than non-locality.

Anybody who believes that is a waste of oxygen. It's as simple as that. I knew you believed some crazy stuff, but now I know that there's no point in arguing anything with you, since you are, utterly and completely, irrational. Ciao.

Chris Peterson wrote:... I knew you believed some crazy stuff, but now I know that there's no point in arguing anything with you, since you are, utterly and completely, irrational. Ciao.

Yes, well, you see, it all started with that US and GB conspiracy to shut down the Avro Arrow.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote: Then why does the U.S. lag far behind the Russians in technology, economics, and, seemingly, the sciences?

Chris wrote:We don't. Russia has some of the worst science in the world- the worst sort of pseudoscience. Paranormal research, even. And much good science in Russia remains crippled even this long after the Soviet era by poor access to technology. And if you think the Russian economy is working better than ours, well... what can anybody say to that?

You don't keep up with current events, Chris. Russia has no national debt, is hugely wealthy on oil and gas, diamonds, gold, etc. Unemployment is so low they are scouring the world for construction trades workers to build homes. The Russians developed ice therapy for heart operations (now being adopted worldwide).The Russian heavy lift rocket was used for the largest sections of the ISS because the U.S. didn't have the technology. The Russians have a 600 mph torpedo whereas the U.S. has fired a bullet underwater at high speeds. Russian fighter jets fly circles around U.S. fighters. Even decades ago the Soviets landed on Venus when the U.S. said it was impossible (the old 'man was not made to fly' consensus. Russia (and formerly Poland) have been far ahead of the rest of the world in science exploration. Paranormal is nothing more exotic than non-locality. Chris, you need to expand your reading, but I realize you are heavily involved in astronomical outreach, so you probably just don't have sufficient time.

Per Capita Wealth comparisons
Gross National Product per capita
World Oil Reserves by country/continent
national debt figures

It would appear that Russia Does have a similar ammount of oil reserves within its boarders as North American countries do
but as far as wealth goes, world wide Gross National Product totals lists Russia as 102 of 224 countries with a GNP that is approximately 10% that of the USA and as for Per Capita Wealth USA is third behind New Zealand then Switzerland and Russia is Last. And while the USA Debt figures are staggaringly high, Russia certainly isn't Debt Free.

Though I am none to happy about this statistic

I guess nobody has anything more to say about debris from a planetary nebula.

uhh one of the debri is still here on earth and ... uhhh ok i didnt say anything.

BMAONE23 wrote:Per Capita Wealth comparisons
Gross National Product per capita
World Oil Reserves by country/continent
national debt figures

It would appear that Russia Does have a similar amount of oil reserves within its boarders as North American countries do
but as far as wealth goes, world wide Gross National Product totals lists Russia as 102 of 224 countries with a GNP that is approximately 10% that of the USA and as for Per Capita Wealth USA is third behind New Zealand then Switzerland and Russia is Last. And while the USA Debt figures are staggeringly high, Russia certainly isn't Debt Free.

Though I am none to happy about this statistic

Does Russia's GNP include automobile repair as do North America's? Time magazine? One of the chiefest propaganda tools of the New World Order? I can;t believe their statistics for a moment. Anyway .. I must remind myself, "my kingdom is not of this world."

aristarchusinexile wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:Per Capita Wealth comparisons
Gross National Product per capita
World Oil Reserves by country/continent
national debt figures

It would appear that Russia Does have a similar amount of oil reserves within its boarders as North American countries do
but as far as wealth goes, world wide Gross National Product totals lists Russia as 102 of 224 countries with a GNP that is approximately 10% that of the USA and as for Per Capita Wealth USA is third behind New Zealand then Switzerland and Russia is Last. And while the USA Debt figures are staggeringly high, Russia certainly isn't Debt Free.

Though I am none to happy about this statistic

Does Russia's GNP include automobile repair as do North America's? Time magazine? One of the chiefest propaganda tools of the New World Order? I can;t believe their statistics for a moment. Anyway .. I must remind myself, "my kingdom is not of this world."

I would imagine so
Gross Natinal Product definition
In Russia, it would likely also include Vodka production and sale, Volga production and repair, (Time Magazine) Pravda (one of their chief propoganda tools in the eastern block.) and when you switch over to the russian language version, you are treated to decadent russian language format complete with porn links

Then lets not forget Russias other great export
What a great country (to get away from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil <<<<< Is this nebula debris going to matter?

Mark

BMAONE23 wrote: Then lets not forget Russias other great export
What a great country (to get away from)

Send some this way, Comrade! Russian women are at least as attractive as the U.S. and Canadian 'working girls' 'employed' in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and almost certainly China now that Mao is awaiting ressurection. I will give you this, BMA, the U.S. has great climate in places, when it's not burning to the ground or being covered with water. If I had my life to live over again, I might live it in Hawaii as long as conscientious objector laws thrived. Honolulu is a great city, smells like a flower shop, nice people .. the best of what the U.S. can offer.