I'm willing to spend some time discussing this if we are actually going to have a scientific discussion. But before that begins, I'd like to point out a few problems that I see in the quoted material.
quote:
German physicist von Weiszacher (1912—2007) adjusted equations for the nebular hypothesis to make it produce a solar system arranged according to Bode’s law.
That strikes me as a rather silly thing to attempt. Bodes law is nothing more than a mnemonic device for remembering the distances of planets (and not their masses), and in fact application of the law requires munging around with almost as many parameters as there are planets. While we can forgive the fact that the rule,does not work for Pluto, the "law" doesn't even predict the existence of Neptune.
quote:
If the nebular hypothesis were true, astronomers should see stars forming from debris contracting inward, as the sun supposedly did. But no one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming.
I note that quoted section does not say that there is no evidence, only that there is no unambiguous evidence. The evidence we could obtain for such a thing would be very circumstantial. We cannot "see" hydrogen do much of anything. These statements reminds me of another poster's claim that despite the passage of 13.7 Billion years, no evidence of extra-solar life has ever been obtained.
quote:
Thus the theory presumes the pre-existence of a successfully-collapsing cloud or an already-formed star, which is what the theory seeks to explain in the first place
This statement to be facially dubious. I don't think the claim in the statement will survive even the most cursory of research. Yes it has been theorized that supernova can trigger the collapse of molecular clouds, but I think the idea that there is no viable theory for the formation of the first stars from clouds of gas is inane.
quote:
Why clouds don’t collapse on their own is still a ‘great mystery’.
This statement as presented is ridiculous. If clouds could collapse on their own, there would be no need for a mechanism to explain stars. I'm very suspicious of the ellipsis dots here.
I'm going to observe this thread for a bit. I understand that mike the wiz is convinced, but I don't trust his ability to do a critical reading of the material he finds on CMI's web page.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
