Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home                 store                 policies                 features                contact

The "Dance" of Mainstream Astronomy

A recent article from Science Daily (Aug 22, 2008) at

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080822085113.htm

is a prime example of the misleading and obfuscating "dance" by mainstream astronomy over the origin of stars and the nature of star power source. The article admits that some changes need to be made:

"The systematics of celestial bodies apparently needs to be revised. Researchers at the Argelander Institute of Astronomy of the University of Bonn have discovered that brown dwarfs need to be treated as a separate class in addition to stars and planets. The systematics of celestial bodies apparently needs to be revised. Researchers at the Argelander Institute of Astronomy of the University of Bonn have discovered that brown dwarfs need to be treated as a separate class in addition to stars and planets."

This article misses the boat in two main ways:
1. It contains errors of fact and nothing new.
2. It uses overly `cute' euphemisms to mask information deficits.

In the first category above:

It has been well known for years that `brown dwarf' stars are not massive enough to `ignite' internal hydrogen fusion reactions. This article in no way responds to that problem. It just says dwarfs now should be put into a `different category'. That doesn't answer the question where does their energy come from?. How can they emit x-rays?

Astronomers are really `hung up' on the importance of `categories' remember the flap about "Is Pluto really a planet?" Pluto doesn't really care. Putting normal stars and brown dwarfs into `different categories' is not a substitute for explaining WHY one doesn't obey the theory put forward for the other one. When you are confronted with a falsifying counter-example, putting it into `another category' is just an attempt to weasel out of facing up to the demonstrated failure of your previous model.

There are many examples of binary stars that are extremely closely spaced. There is also an upper limit to the separation distance of `normal' binary stars too. So what? This is obfuscation. There are also many closely spaced `giant gas planets' and normal stars (like the Sun and Jupiter). So what?

"..there are hardly any mixed pairs consisting of suns and brown dwarfs far fewer than expected."

Expected by whom? Astronomers whose theories are falling apart? Our Sun has four giant gas planets. Is there a problem with that?

"Despite this contradiction the astronomic community has previously stuck to the theory of a joint origin."

Do they not `stick to' all their crumbling theories? Have they EVER announced they were previously wrong on anything?

"Since almost all stars are born in star clusters,"

This is not supported by ANY observational evidence. Since many (almost all) stars are observed to be in twisted strings, it is more likely that they are BORN in those strings. Globular clusters are
rare exceptions to this.

"Thus there are presumably three quite different celestial bodies: planets, brown dwarfs and stars."

This is what they have always maintained. There is nothing newsworthy about this. There is evidence all stars (dwarf and otherwise) are members of a continuum, just as there is no inherent difference between comets and asteroids.

In the second category:

"Until now, brown dwarfs had been merely regarded as stars which were below normal size. However, they may well be stellar 'miscarriages.'"

Stellar miscarriages?  Cute but no information content.

"Stars often occur in pairs, which dance around each other."

As Earth `dances around' the Sun?

"a system consisting of three embryonic stars disintegrates due to the mutual attraction of masses,.."

 What is an `embryonic star'?

They seem to love such "twinkle-toes" phraseology. Carl Sagan used to revel in this stuff. So did Mr. Rogers when he talked (down) to his audience. Mr. Rogers was a TV personality he had a show for kiddies. It was at about the same intellectual level as this article.

 

 home                 store                 policies                  features                contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665