ENOCH 2021: Define -- The "Scientific" theory of evolution....?
1. In what capacity? 2. In a broad sense a scientific theory of evolution would be a scientific theory 3. that describes and explains how X changes over time.
Round and Round we go...
1. In the... "Define the Scientific theory of evolution" capacity......?
2. So a Scientific Theory of evolution would be a Scientific Theory...? Yes, That's the idea...Thanks. Go ahead ........?
3. Scientific Theories don't "Describe", they "EXPLAIN" the 'HOW"....Specific Mechanism. Go ahead.....?
We want it "Officially" since this is Science. So Again: Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution......?
GOKU: It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human lifetime.
ENOCH 2021: It appears you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between SCIENTIFIC LAW VIOLATING "fairytales" and Science; here I'll "lift the fog" for you....
Science: Methodology ---- The Scientific Method.
Fairytales: Methodology ----- "Imagination".
Please Explain in some detail "Star Formation" in the "CONTEXT" of : 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass......mmmm K?
STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." ---- Sun And Stars, p.111
It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" ------ because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/ and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and beats them Senseless.
Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory....
"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics...“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998How's your "protostar" fairytale nonsense you just "Parroted" (from who knows where) fairing now ??Can I ask you, seriously.....Do you just make stuff up?
GOKU: So because we don't understand something it can't happen, makes perfect sense!
Round and Round we go.....
1. I never said that; Ergo.... Straw Man (Fallacy). You said as a Matter of Fact How YOU understand it...then I REFUTED IT!! Following?
2. If "WE" don't understand it (as you say) then HOW/By what Authority could you state that YOU DID UNDERSTAND IT....
GOKU: "It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human"
I suppose it would be the Acme of Foolishness @ this point to say that your responses are: Completely Absurd, Self Contradictory, Straw Man Fallacies, and make no sense Whatsoever??
GOKU: The birth of a star is not a fireworks display like a supernova.
ENOCH 2021: How in the WORLD do you know this if it's never been OBSERVED, pray tell ??
GOKU: Because there's no reason to think the formation of a star will create a supernova explosion.
"Dark energy" is just a placeholder label, but whatever we call it doesn't change the fact that all distant galaxies are moving away from us.
A Placeholder Label?? I got a Better more Explanatory and Precise Placeholder Label.....Pseudo-Science.
Sure, except for the one's that aren't.
Way too completely miss the point.
Way to STATE the Point Then....How I "Allegedly", Missed it.
1. So now we can dismiss what cosmologists have determined because it isn't "science"? 2. Should we dismiss historians because history is not science?
1. Yea, Duh. Science is about Establishing then VALIDATING/CONFIRMING "Cause and Effect" relationships via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
2. No, Why? Historical Science is concerned with Establishing Veracity of Past Events. It has Absolutely nothing to do with "Cause and Effect" or TESTING.
So what we got here is a TEXTBOOK....... False Analogy Fallacy.
There is nothing to Arp's 'theory'; every time someone decides to test his ideas they fall short.
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1 + z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.
1. Are you gonna actually CITE THIS appropriately/"LINK" @ Some Point ??
2. How does your UN-CITED Source REFUTE this (Specifically)....
"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."