Galaxy NGC 4214: A star formation laboratory

Thanks for the report.

We definitely need to improve our understanding of the formation, composition, and source of energy of stars.

If we continue to live with the illusion that we can control NATURE, instead of listening to messages (information) from NATURE, we will live in ignorance and the threat of destruction by unexpected events and surprising observations, e.g.,

1. "Scientists surprised by solar wind data . . ."

www.physorg.com/n...ion.html

2. Scientists surprised by explosions in the Crab Nebula . . .

Sometimes nature herself intervenes, like todays news reports of explosions in the remains of the Crab Nebula, the supernova that exploded in ~1054 AD.

www.physorg.com/n...ula.html

www.bbc.co.uk/new...13362958

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Misinformation about the origin, composition, and operation of the Sun - Earth's heat source [1] tricked:

The US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, world leaders (Al Gore & Associates), and government research agencies, leading research journals (Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy and the UK's Royal Society) and the news media (BBC, PBS, CBS, The New York Times, etc) into believing that

1.) Mankind can control NATURE, and

2.) We can ignore data and observations on NATURE.

The result: The USA is in decline. The misuse of science as a propaganda tool is dangerous.

[1] "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

So all these 'young' stars formed simultaneously in the same region, before just one or two could blow a bubble in the same region, shutting down the cloud condensation process? Is that what I am supposed to believe??? Tell me more....

No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

You can believe anything you want. Without the benefit of a few million years to watch a cloud and collapse into a star, I would say that the current theory fits the evidence we have pretty well. A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available.

Until you present evidence (FACTS) to the contrary, or provide a logical explanation that fits the facts better, you should stop complaining, and leave these deductions to the experts.. Do you find sherlock holmes novels to be utterly confusing as well?

@Johannes414: You are ABSOLUTELY right. The concept that stars form from "self-collapsing clouds" can never be explained in detail. If you read the attempted sequence of events, it simply is not possible, and of course it is because it doesn't happen that way! Instead, when Suns shed a portion of themselves, then all those gas clouds (nebulous clouds) are merely the "afterbirth" of such an event. Only when this is caught on tape will it be possible to do away with the accretion theory.

P.S. For those of you who believe in the accretion theory, have you ever wondered how these clouds decide who gets to be a Sun or a Planet or a Moon? (This should have been a clue as to how and why this theory is so erroneous.)

No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

And your alternative theory? I'm sure you have one. Why not just say it?

Your 'argument' - if I may be so generous as to term it that - is very familiar; 'no one has ever personally observed x'. Usually, 'x' is replaced with 'evolution', or with 'abiogenesis', and the argument is one of the tired old horses ridden by the creationist gang.

Thus, I conjecture that your alternative 'theory' is: 'god did it'. Am I wrong?

No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

Your 'argument' - if I may be so generous as to term it that - is very familiar; 'no one has ever personally observed x'. Usually, 'x' is replaced with 'evolution', or with 'abiogenesis', and the argument is one of the tired old horses ridden by the creationist gang.

Thus, I conjecture that your alternative 'theory' is: 'god did it'. Am I wrong?

Yes, it is wrong to think that you know what other people are thinking.

No matter how often scientists use words like "star formation lab" or "baby galaxies", they still cannot deny that no one has observed the actual birth of a star. Its all vague conjecture based on unverifiable assumptions about supposed self-collapsing gas clouds.

You are right.

Misinformation about the formation of the Sun - Earth's heat source - is at the core of the ill-advised efforts by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government paid climatologists to claim that they can stop climate change.

Continuous climate change is recorded in the geologic record of this planet and in the evolution of life itself on the Earth's skin (biosphere).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Oliver - the day I take moral pointers from a man like you will never, ever come.

Regardless; I never claimed knowledge, I hypothesised. His 'argument' is typical of deniers of science.

"A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available."

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?

Straw man. I didn't say what I believed. Nor did I call myself anything. You posted a well-worn 'argument' which is very often used by creationists. I asked you to clarify your position... You object to the standard scientific model of stellar formation; I don't have a problem with that. What do you propose as the alternative?

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?

Yes. That is how the herd instinct works in "wanna-be" scientists and a few not-too bright leaders of popular cosmology.

There is, in fact, no conflict between cosmology and spirituality [1]:

[1] "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

- Oliver

I never claimed knowledge, I hypothesised. His 'argument' is typical of deniers of science.

And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)

And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)

My hypothesis that Johannes sports a creationist agenda? I don't know, Chester - you tell me. What is it typical of?

"A large portion of accepted theories are accepted because most intelligent people believe the theory makes the most sense out of the theories available."

So a theory is true because a controlled group of people believe in it? And you call yourself a critic of religion?

...I didn't even bring up religion, much less call myself a critic. Please, practice critical reading skills!!!

My point is that in a case like star formation, the intelligent deductions are the most likely to be right out of our pool of knowledge. They're not always going to be right, but this is the way we got the theory that we are made of atoms, newtons laws of gravity, the earth being round and orbiting the sun. I'd say this one is in league with a fairly good track record.

I am a critic of non-process non-empirical spiritual thinking trying to argue with scientific thinking. They are seperate things. if you don't believe in science, then why are you on a science site?

And your hypothesis is typical of . . . (?)

My hypothesis that Johannes sports a creationist agenda? I don't know, Chester - you tell me. What is it typical of?

Oliver, the day I take moral pointers from a man like you will never come

LOL

I'd like to ad a question for oliver on how his relationship with god affects his actions in his family and personal life. or does god only affect things in the scientific world for him and not the spiritual one?

@pauliemac - I think that critic of religion thing was aimed at me, because he was quoting my comment.

It's a shame that intelligent people like all of you on this site cannot refrain from interposing a god into the formation of stars. I am sick and tired of trying to read perhaps some informative comments but instead, get bogged down in religious dogma. All of this garbage garble and not one ounce of "star formation" subject. It's time to stop it!

Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.

Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.

What's the explanation in your case? You have god on your side, but are definitely NOT intelligent. Is this proof that god makes mistakes! LOL

You're proof there is not god, because if there were one, he wouldn't have made a person so incredibly stupid he would go to science sites to preach religion.

Without God there would be no intelligence at all, and knowledge would be impossible. Matter does not know about abstract laws of physics and the laws of logic and reasoning. It takes intelligence to form intelligent beings, not a random process.

Please.

Science and spirituality do not conflict.
See: "Is the Universe Expanding?"
Journal of Cosmology 13 (2011) 4187-4190
http://journalofc...102.html

But dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists generate conflict with almost everyone.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

@pauliemac - I think that critic of religion thing was aimed at me, because he was quoting my comment.

He he yeah, just spotted that... Momentary failure of reading comprehension on my part, apologies!