On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:will just take your word for it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Have you ever read even a single cosmology textbook in your entire life?
... for certain Supernovae, it is not the end of a stars life but the transition, due to a loss of stellar mass, to the birth of a solar system.
There is zero evidence to suppoort this incredibly ignorant claim, Gerald... wherever did you get such a wild and crazy idea? Did you just make this up by yourself and pass it along to the denizens of sci.astro.amateur? Do you suppose that folks here
"I suppose our capacity for self-delusion is boundless."
- John Steinbeck
When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason outsidetheir belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.
When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason
I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that idea.Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a
Do you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html
... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now?
When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason
idea.I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that
Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of aDo you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html
... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now?
appreciation of planetary and solar system facts.When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.Stellar evolution has a particular geometry whether it was a post-supernova star like SN1987a or a pre-supernova star like Eta Carinae-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg
I do what I do because my formal education is from the original astronomers and their actual perspectives rather than mathematical impostors, hence I have zero interest in appealing to those who project authority and integrity but lack a basic
As a supernova star can be isolated as an object and its evolution traced using its geometry, it is the one bright spot that mathematicians have but, because they have hollowed out geometry since the Victorian age, they are unable to follow the logicof density/volume imbalances involved in a supernova event.
I could have included the Oort cloud much less the close asteroid belt as signatures of this scheme do exist-
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhToKaEF-DHX5-MiIysjpjg66UV_-Ilq2dw&usqp=CAU
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1017A/production/_109741956_50473482.jpg
The physical consideration of a star moving in its galactic orbital motion along with the other stars also provides a basis for the transition of a pre-supernova star to a solar system star and this includes our own Sun.
So, less ugly language about ignorance and more reasoning at a higher level where astronomical considerations dwell.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:12:38 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason
idea.I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that
now? Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth ofDo you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html
... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is
appreciation of planetary and solar system facts.When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.Stellar evolution has a particular geometry whether it was a post-supernova star like SN1987a or a pre-supernova star like Eta Carinae-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg
I do what I do because my formal education is from the original astronomers and their actual perspectives rather than mathematical impostors, hence I have zero interest in appealing to those who project authority and integrity but lack a basic
of density/volume imbalances involved in a supernova event.As a supernova star can be isolated as an object and its evolution traced using its geometry, it is the one bright spot that mathematicians have but, because they have hollowed out geometry since the Victorian age, they are unable to follow the logic
years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now? Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or aI could have included the Oort cloud much less the close asteroid belt as signatures of this scheme do exist-
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhToKaEF-DHX5-MiIysjpjg66UV_-Ilq2dw&usqp=CAU
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1017A/production/_109741956_50473482.jpg
The physical consideration of a star moving in its galactic orbital motion along with the other stars also provides a basis for the transition of a pre-supernova star to a solar system star and this includes our own Sun.
So, less ugly language about ignorance and more reasoning at a higher level where astronomical considerations dwell.Gerald, you *completely* side-stepped my direct question... "... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33
I know, it is a really tough question to dismiss... "Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making?" I will assume that you have no logical response... which is exactly what I would expect from anyone who makes such a claim.
This is not a contest. You have made an outrageously illogical claim and have no answer for it except to deflect. I fully understand you position. Believe me when I claim that you are definitely *not* reasoning on a higher level...
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 02:57:13 |
Calls: | 6,669 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,217 |
Messages: | 5,338,640 |