The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[The Barbarian]

Ok, raise your hand if you know what forms after a supernova explosion. Anyone?

Astrophysicists know. They have found that the shock wave from supernovas can compress clouds of matter to form stars:
Supernovas and Star Formation
William Herbst and George E. Assousa
Scientific American
Vol. 241, No. 2 (August 1979), pp. 138-145 (8 pages)
Published By: Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc.

another...
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 940, Number 2
The Effect of Shock-wave Duration on Star Formation and the Initial Condition of Massive Cluster Formation
Abstract

Stars are born in dense molecular filaments irrespective of their mass. Compression of the interstellar medium by shocks causes filament formation in molecular clouds. Observations show that a massive star cluster formation occurs where the peak of gas column density in a cloud exceeds 1023 cm−2. In this study, we investigate the effect of the shock-compressed layer duration on filament/star formation and how the initial conditions of massive star formation are realized by performing three-dimensional isothermal magnetohydrodynamics simulations with gas inflow duration from the boundaries (i.e., shock-wave duration) as a controlling parameter. Filaments formed behind the shock expand after the duration time for short-shock-duration models, whereas long-duration models lead to star formation by forming massive supercritical filaments. Moreover, when the shock duration is longer than two postshock freefall times, the peak column density of the compressed layer exceeds 1023 cm−2, and the gravitational collapse of the layer causes the number of OB stars expected to be formed in the shock-compressed layer to reach the order of 10 (i.e., massive cluster formation).

Yes, that is right a supernova can produce new stars by affecting nearby masses of gas and dust.

Our sun will nova at the end of its life

No, it will not. It will never nova. Too little mass. Main sequence stars like our sun will burn up all of its fuel to carbon, after which it will swell to a red giant, burning up the Earth in the process, and then will contract to become a white dwarf.

Ok, next question. How many black holes and neutron stars should we see if your theory is correct.

You missed the papers by NASA (and Clark and Caswell who predicted the NASA findings in the 1970s)? Shall I put them up here again for you?

2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?[/quote\
That would require some amount of anisotropy following the expansion. Turns out there was:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyst ... probe.html

So let me guess. Inflation theory is going to have to change again.

Scientific theories are like that. As more informaton comes in, they change to fit the facts. Probably seems like cheating to creationists who are locked into their interpretation of Scripture with no changes allowed.

Because inflation theory predicts an isotropic universe.

Hmm... when I learned about it in the early 70s, it didn't. At least the professor teaching it didn't mention that. As you know, by then, astronomers were already discussing the issue about how "lumpy" it might have been.

So your anisotropy theory might be true if inflation can be worked out.

As you just learned, the evidence shows the early universe to be anisotropic. Facts beat anyone's reason.

No "maybe" about it.

So how can we know anything about anisotropy in the early universe?

Mostly because the cooling background radiation from that time is still in evidence:
In 1992 the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite finally detected the anisotropy of the radiation—fingerprints left by tiny temperature fluctuations in the initial bang. Careful design of the COBE satellite, and a bit of luck, allowed the 30 μK fluctuations in the CMBR temperature (2.73 K) to be pulled out of instrument noise and spurious foreground emissions. Further advances in detector technology and experiment design are allowing current CMBR experiments to search for predicted features in the anisotropy power spectrum at angular scales of 1° and smaller. If they exist, these features were formed at an important epoch in the evolution of the universe—the decoupling of matter and radiation at a temperature of about 4,000 K and a time about 300,000 years after the bang. CMBR anisotropy measurements probe directly some detailed physics of the early universe. Also, parameters of the cosmological model can be measured because the anisotropy power spectrum depends on constituent densities and the horizon scale at a known cosmological epoch. As sophisticated experiments on the ground and on balloons pursue these measurements, two CMBR anisotropy satellite missions are being prepared for launch early in the next century.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.1.29

Inflation theory has many problems.

A science with no problems left to solve is dead.

Or which inflation model are you talking about?

The current one that includes the fact of anistotropy.

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology should not be confused with the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Electric Universe, which, for example, states that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

It was not rejected because they did not think it could not form stars but because of the implications of creationism.

In fact, the Big Bang was proposed by a Christian cleric. The observations are inconsistent with YE creationism but not inconsistent with creation.

About as likely as phlogiston theory coming back. There are so many problems with the idea that there's no conceivable way that this time, that it could be rescued.

The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region

It is impossible to see this.

It is possible to detect this, and as you see, it has been detected. And yes, I'm aware that your proof that it can't be seen also "proves" that giant redwood trees can't grow from seedlings. We see images of stars in all stages of formation. No point in denying the facts. We see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

It takes hundreds or thousands of years for giant redwoods to grow from a seed. We cannot see that. But yet we know it happens because we see redwood trees in all stages of growth. The notion that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is so transparently false that I'm astonished anyone would even try to sell it.

Your theory is based on theories that are mechanisms that are not possible.

Data from orbiting telescopes refute your assumption. This is why astrophysicists disagree with your beliefs.

As I said the mechanism is not possible.

Now on top of all of that, when did this explosion of star formation occur?

As you learned, it's still happening. We can see stars in the process of forming.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1020]

You can't discard this basic mechanism with ideal gas law arguments that don't apply to the situation. There is a lot more detail known about the process through many decades of observations and theoretical work, although much is not known especially for stars larger than about 6x the sun's mass. Star research has a long future.

Electrostatic forces are much stronger than gravitational forces. That is the problem with the current star formation theory and why there needs to be some compression event to form a star.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1022]

Electrostatic forces are much stronger than gravitational forces. That is the problem with the current star formation theory and why there needs to be some compression event to form a star.

There is much more to it than that. Yes ... electroscatic forces dominate at a very small scale such as between an electron and a proton. If you compare the Coulomb force to the gravitational force for a proton and an electron (distance cancels out as both are inverse square laws), the Coulomb force is about 1e39 stronger. That is obviously huge, but electrons and protons are incredibly small. As mass increases, gravity eventually will dominate because gravity is always attractive, while electrostatic charges can be attractive or repulsive and in systems of large masses they tend to cancel out (eg. lightning is an equalization of charge buildup). For a cloud of gas and dust 10,000 AU wide, gravity dominates for the system.

The cosmos is full of compression events, hypersonic jets, collisions of all types, black holes "eating" stars, neutron stars with density and magnetic fields that are nearly unimaginable, supernovas and all kinds of disturbances. Star formation is obviously a very common event, showing that the necessary conditions exist throughout the observable universe. It is evidently a very easy process for nature, whether or not we understand every detail of the physics. But at the mass scales involved, gravity is certainly going to play a big role in the process.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1021]

Yes, that is right a supernova can produce new stars by affecting nearby masses of gas and dust

If that is true then where are all of the black holes and neutron stars? Keep looking or how about making up a new theory to explain why you do not.

This is an indication of how off-current cosmology is. Making predictions and then having observations prove that these predictions are not true. that is not the case with creationist theories like Humphreys's theory on the birth of the universe.

No, it will not. It will never nova. Too little mass. Main sequence stars like our sun will burn up all of its fuel to carbon, after which it will swell to a red giant, burning up the Earth in the process, and then will contract to become a white dwarf.

What? A star will be either a nova or a supernova. A large star undergoes a supernova and then produces a neutron star or black hole or a star will nova and then produce a white dwarf. So if it is not going to nova they you are saying that our sun will supernova. Really?

You missed the papers by NASA (and Clark and Caswell who predicted the NASA findings in the 1970s)? Shall I put them up here again for you?

You mean the one that said there should be a lot more supernovas then what they have found. Even though they found a few more.

Scientific theories are like that. As more information comes in, they change to fit the facts. Probably seems like cheating to creationists who are locked into their interpretation of Scripture with no changes allowed.

This is not what inflation theory predicts and many doubt the validity of inflation.

• The latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe's oldest light, raise concerns about the inflationary theory of the cosmos—the idea that space expanded exponentially in the first moments of time.
  
  Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.
  
  The data suggest cosmologists should reassess this favored paradigm and consider new ideas about how the universe began.https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... hallenges/

Hmm... when I learned about it in the early 70s, it didn't. At least the professor teaching it didn't mention that. As you know, by then, astronomers were already discussing the issue about how "lumpy" it might have been.

Then you were not listening very well.

• Inflation is one of the most popular methods known for generating an isotropic and homogeneous universe. The basic idea is that the universe, which is expanding now with some time dependent scale factor a(t), starts expanding faster and faster.
  https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/inf ... d%20faster.

As you just learned, the evidence shows the early universe to be anisotropic. Facts beat anyone's reason.

As you have just learned that is not what inflation predicts so that is why no one should believe inflation to be true.

A science with no problems left to solve is dead.

A theory with no more problems to solve is called correct.
A theory with many problems to solve is called incorrect.

It is possible to detect this, and as you see, it has been detected. And yes, I'm aware that your proof that it can't be seen also "proves" that giant redwood trees can't grow from seedlings. We see images of stars in all stages of formation. No point in denying the facts. We see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

It takes hundreds or thousands of years for giant redwoods to grow from a seed. We cannot see that. But yet we know it happens because we see redwood trees in all stages of growth. The notion that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is so transparently false that I'm astonished anyone would even try to sell it.

You can keep saying this and I will keep saying that the process is much too long to know what is happening. It is not the same as you redwood analogy because we are speaking here of a specific process the compression that must to occur to produce a star. We can take a redwood to see and watch grow into a tree.

The theory of how a star compresses past the Jeans limit is still not really known. Because of the need for the cooling of the star and the need for magnetic fields to break the angular momentum. Both heat and magnetic fields expand the cloud not compress the cloud.

But your problem is the massive star formation that had to exist at some point at the beginning of the universe. But that is not what we observe as we look at the very early universe. The very early universe should contain mostly irregular galaxies if your big bang theory is correct because of all of the star formation and galaxy formation that should be occurring. But that is not what we see. Irregular galaxies are only 5% of the galaxies that are observed. The same percentage that we see everywhere else in the universe. This is a very serious problem for your star formation theory and big bang theory. How did so many stars form without a lot of gas and dust?

[The Barbarian]

No, it will not. It will never nova. Too little mass. Main sequence stars like our sun will burn up all of its fuel to carbon, after which it will swell to a red giant, burning up the Earth in the process, and then will contract to become a white dwarf.

What?

This is well-known. Only very massive stars explode into novas or supernovas. Learn about it here:
https://www.space.com/22437-main-sequence-star.html

A star will be either a nova or a supernova. A large star undergoes a supernova and then produces a neutron star or black hole or a star will nova and then produce a white dwarf. So if it is not going to nova they you are saying that our sun will supernova.

No. Main-sequence stars do not explode.

Really?

Yep.

You missed the papers by NASA (and Clark and Caswell who predicted the NASA findings in the 1970s)? Shall I put them up here again for you?

You mean the one that said there should be a lot more supernovas then what they have found. Even though they found a few more.

And now, observations have verified their predictions to be correct. I showed you that, too. Remember?

Scientific theories are like that. As more information comes in, they change to fit the facts. Probably seems like cheating to creationists who are locked into their interpretation of Scripture with no changes allowed.

This is not what inflation theory predicts

But it is.

and many doubt the validity of inflation.

There's a good reason most of those aren't astrophysicists.

The latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe's oldest light, raise concerns about the inflationary theory of the cosmos—the idea that space expanded exponentially in the first moments of time.

Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.

The ripples created by massive cosmic collisions have reached Earth after traveling across the universe for billions of years. Scientists have detected the largest number of these gravitational waves since the cosmic events were first discovered in 2015, according to new research.

Astronomers made 35 new detections of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time, between November 2019 and March 2020. The cosmic waves were largely created by pairs of merging black holes, but several were born of rare collisions between dense neutron stars and black holes.

It’s a giant leap from when just three gravitational waves were detected between 2015 and 2016. This brings the known number of detected gravitational waves to 90 from 2015 to 2020.

They were detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, in the US, and the Virgo gravitational-wave observatory in Italy. The results of the latest observation campaign were published Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/world/gr ... index.html

Re predicted anisotropy:
Hmm... when I learned about it in the early 70s, it didn't. At least the professor teaching it didn't mention that. As you know, by then, astronomers were already discussing the issue about how "lumpy" it might have been.[/quote]

Then you were not listening very well.

Maybe one of us wasn't...
Anisotropy damping through quantum effects in the early universe
B. L. Hu and Leonard Parker
Phys. Rev. D 17, 933 – Published 15 February 1978;

• Inflation is one of the most popular methods known for generating an isotropic and homogeneous universe. The basic idea is that the universe, which is expanding now with some time dependent scale factor a(t), starts expanding faster and faster.
  https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/inf ... d%20faster.

As you just learned, the evidence shows the early universe to be anisotropic. Facts beat anyone's reason.

As you have just learned that is not what inflation predicts

A quick review of the literature turned up a paper on it in 1978. Later, the theoretical predictions of inflation theory were confirmed by observation.

so that is why no one should believe inflation to be true.

In science, confirmed predictions are considered indication that the theory is correct. Sorry.

A science with no problems left to solve is dead.

A theory with no more problems to solve is called correct.

No, when the predictions of a hypothesis have been repreatedly confirmed, it is considered a theory.

It is possible to detect this, and as you see, it has been detected. And yes, I'm aware that your proof that it can't be seen also "proves" that giant redwood trees can't grow from seedlings. We see images of stars in all stages of formation. No point in denying the facts. We see stars forming, it's a moot point.

It takes hundred of thousands of years to form a star according to your theory. we cannot see that.

It takes hundreds or thousands of years for giant redwoods to grow from a seed. We cannot see that. But yet we know it happens because we see redwood trees in all stages of growth. The notion that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is so transparently false that I'm astonished anyone would even try to sell it.

You can keep saying this and I will keep saying that the process is much too long to know what is happening.

So some will believe you and say that stars cannot form and giant redwood trees can't grow from seedlings. Others will rely on the evidence.

It is not the same as you redwood analogy because we are speaking here of a specific process the compression that must to occur to produce a star.

You don't want to believe that it's the same, because giant redwoods don't invalidate your new religious doctrines.

We can take a redwood to see and watch grow into a tree.

We can observe a star change over time. The fact that we can't observe a giant redwood grow to maturity from a seedling does not mean it doesn't happen, nor does the fact that we can't see a star grow from a protostar to a white dwarf mean that it can't happen. The argument that it can't happen if we don't live long enough to see it happen just won't work.

The theory of how a star compresses past the Jeans limit is still not really known.

I linked you to astrophysics papers showing how it happens.

But your problem is the massive star formation that had to exist at some point at the beginning of the universe.

And that would have required some anisotropy in the beginning, which is why inflation theory included such a phenomenon, predicting it to have existed. Only later did scientists find that predicted anisotropy.

But that is not what we observe as we look at the very early universe.

It is:
According to the data we now have from WMAP, the universe is 13.77 billion years old. The universe is also flat. The data also helped to remove many doubts about the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is an unknown force that counteracts gravity, pushing galaxies away from each other rather than causing them to attract one another as we would expect if gravity were the only force at work. Dark matter is a yet-to-be-discovered type of particle. By measuring the differences in the cosmic microwave background across both small and large scales, WMAP also helped to prove that there was a period of rapid expansion after the universe solidified into atoms and eventually galaxies.

After nine years of data accumulation, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was deactivated on October 28, 2010. “The last word from WMAP marks the end of the beginning in our quest to understand the universe,” said Adam Riess, the 2011 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work showing that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, in his comments about the WMAP project. “WMAP has brought precision to cosmology and the universe will never be the same.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/making-sen ... ropy-probe

The very early universe should contain mostly irregular galaxies if your big bang theory is correct because of all of the star formation and galaxy formation that should be occurring. But that is not what we see. Irregular galaxies are only 5% of the galaxies that are observed.

Irregular galaxies have unusual shapes, like toothpicks, rings, or even little groupings of stars. They range from dwarf irregular galaxies with 100 million times the Sun’s mass to large ones weighing 10 billion solar masses.

Astronomers think these galaxies’ odd shapes are sometimes the result of interactions with others. For example, one spiral galaxy passing another with a stronger gravitational pull could lose some of its material, become distorted, and morph into a new shape. Some, like gas-rich dwarf galaxies, may be new, formed by material pulled from such encounters. Or perhaps when galaxies collide, they create a larger, oddly shaped mashup. Some scientists theorize that some large irregular galaxies could represent an intermediate step between spiral and elliptical galaxies.

Irregular galaxies born from galaxy interactions or collisions typically host a mix of older and younger stars, depending on the characteristics and composition of the original galaxies. Irregular galaxies may also hold significant amounts of gas and dust – essential ingredients for making new stars.
https://universe.nasa.gov/galaxies/types/

I notice that the earliest known galaxy, GN-z11, is an irregular galaxy. But you should probably know this...
Many astronomers think that irregular galaxies are the ‘in-between’ for spiral and elliptical galaxies. Based on the ages, it’s likely that galaxies start as young spiral galaxies. Once they’ve been around for a while, they turn into irregular galaxies by colliding into other galaxies. At this point they are in their ‘teenage years’. Even later, after using up all their dust and gas to make new stars, they become old elliptical galaxies.

https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.ed ... r-galaxies

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

No, it will not. It will never nova. Too little mass. Main sequence stars like our sun will burn up all of its fuel to carbon, after which it will swell to a red giant, burning up the Earth in the process, and then will contract to become a white dwarf.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 9:24 am
What?
This is well-known. Only very massive stars explode into novas or supernovas. Learn about it here:
https://www.space.com/22437-main-sequence-star.html

Oh, My goodness.

• When a Red Giant dies, the heat and pressure from its core ejects the outer layers of the star into space. These outer layers become known as a planetary nebula. Because of the intense fusion reactions that take place inside stars, planetary nebulae tend to be made up of more than just hydrogen. Helium, carbon and small amounts of other elements can also be found in them. These elements are blown back into the interstellar medium, enriching it with more heavy elements. More heavy elements in the interstellar medium means more heavy elements being pulled into future protostars. The more of these elements a star pulls in as it is forming, the more likely that the star will also form planets.

This is a nova. Or at least that is what we have always called it.

A supernova would be an extreme form of this because of the larger mass. That is why it is called super.

No. Main-sequence stars do not explode.

Are you saying they do not eject their outer layers? Ejecting their outer layers would be a nova.

And now, observations have verified their predictions to be correct. I showed you that, too. Remember?

No, that is not what it said. It said if found like 20 more on a very small area of space. And it hopped to find the rest not that it did. I showed you that remember?

The latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe's oldest light, raise concerns about the inflationary theory of the cosmos—the idea that space expanded exponentially in the first moments of time.

Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.
The ripples created by massive cosmic collisions have reached Earth after traveling across the universe for billions of years. Scientists have detected the largest number of these gravitational waves since the cosmic events were first discovered in 2015, according to new research.

Astronomers made 35 new detections of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time, between November 2019 and March 2020. The cosmic waves were largely created by pairs of merging black holes, but several were born of rare collisions between dense neutron stars and black holes.

It’s a giant leap from when just three gravitational waves were detected between 2015 and 2016. This brings the known number of detected gravitational waves to 90 from 2015 to 2020.

They were detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, in the US, and the Virgo gravitational-wave observatory in Italy. The results of the latest observation campaign were published Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/world/gr ... index.html

I would have to agree with you that this is very interesting. But these are caused by black holes and neutron stars not from the origin of the universe which is when cosmic inflation acted.

Re predicted anisotropy:
Hmm... when I learned about it in the early 70s, it didn't. At least the professor teaching it didn't mention that. As you know, by then, astronomers were already discussing the issue about how "lumpy" it might have been.

How lumpy does this paper say the universe is? What temperature difference does this paper predict? The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.

Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe. So if you are saying that is a preferred direction in the universe you are saying that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

• The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation. “The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf

If the above statement is true then it is game set match for cosmic inflation.

• Astronomers discover largest known spinning structures in the universe https://www.space.com/largest-spinning- ... discovered

[The Barbarian]

No, it will not. It will never nova. Too little mass. Main sequence stars like our sun will burn up all of its fuel to carbon, after which it will swell to a red giant, burning up the Earth in the process, and then will contract to become a white dwarf.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 9:24 am
What?
This is well-known. Only very massive stars explode into novas or supernovas. Learn about it here:
https://www.space.com/22437-main-sequence-star.html

Oh, My goodness.

Yep. Here:
A nova (PL: novae or novas) is a transient astronomical event that causes the sudden appearance of a bright, apparently "new" star (hence the name "nova", which is Latin for "new") that slowly fades over weeks or months. Causes of the dramatic appearance of a nova vary, depending on the circumstances of the two progenitor stars. All observed novae involve white dwarfs in close binary systems. The main sub-classes of novae are classical novae, recurrent novae (RNe), and dwarf novae. They are all considered to be cataclysmic variable stars.

Classical nova eruptions are the most common type. They are likely created in a close binary star system consisting of a white dwarf and either a main sequence, subgiant, or red giant star. When the orbital period falls in the range of several days to one day, the white dwarf is close enough to its companion star to start drawing accreted matter onto the surface of the white dwarf, which creates a dense but shallow atmosphere. This atmosphere, mostly consisting of hydrogen, is thermally heated by the hot white dwarf and eventually reaches a critical temperature causing ignition of rapid runaway fusion.

The sudden increase in energy expels the atmosphere into interstellar space creating the envelope seen as visible light during the nova event. Such were taken in past centuries to be a new star. A few novae produce short-lived nova remnants, lasting for perhaps several centuries. Recurrent nova processes are the same as the classical nova, except that the fusion ignition may be repetitive because the companion star can again feed the dense atmosphere of the white dwarf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova

When a Red Giant dies, the heat and pressure from its core ejects the outer layers of the star into space. [/b]These outer layers become known as a planetary nebula. Because of the intense fusion reactions that take place inside stars, planetary nebulae tend to be made up of more than just hydrogen. Helium, carbon and small amounts of other elements can also be found in them. These elements are blown back into the interstellar medium, enriching it with more heavy elements. More heavy elements in the interstellar medium means more heavy elements being pulled into future protostars. The more of these elements a star pulls in as it is forming, the more likely that the star will also form planets.

This is a nova. Or at least that is what we have always called it.
A supernova would be an extreme form of this because of the larger mass. That is why it is called super.

No. Main-sequence stars do not explode.

Are you saying they do not eject their outer layers? Ejecting their outer layers would be a nova.

See above...
A nova (PL: novae or novas) is a transient astronomical event that causes the sudden appearance of a bright, apparently "new" star (hence the name "nova", which is Latin for "new") that slowly fades over weeks or months.

A red giant does not form suddenly from a yellow dwarf like our sun. It's gradual. Nuestro sol no se convertirá en nova. Es un no va.

The latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe's oldest light, raise concerns about the inflationary theory of the cosmos—the idea that space expanded exponentially in the first moments of time.

Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.

(Gravitational waves found)

I would have to agree with you that this is very interesting. But these are caused by black holes and neutron stars not from the origin of the universe which is when cosmic inflation acted.

When Clark and Caswell predicted that many more supernova remnants would be found, decades later, they were. So what we don't know is significant of nothing than what we don't know.

Re predicted anisotropy:
Hmm... when I learned about it in the early 70s, it didn't. At least the professor teaching it didn't mention that. As you know, by then, astronomers were already discussing the issue about how "lumpy" it might have been.

How lumpy does this paper say the universe is?

Apparently enough to explain the formation of stars, according to astrophysicists.

Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe.

As I said, that wasn't what was being taught in the 1970s.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

Again,

• How lumpy does this paper say the universe is? What temperature difference does this paper predict? The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.
  
  Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe. So if you are saying that is a preferred direction in the universe you are saying that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
  
  The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation. “The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf
  If the above statement is true then it is game set match for cosmic inflation.
  
  Astronomers discover largest known spinning structures in the universe https://www.space.com/largest-spinning- ... discovered

• The big bang theory is based on two assumptions: the first is centered around Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which accurately describes gravity and the interactions of matter; and the second, also known as the cosmological principle, asserts that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large enough scale, meaning that the same observational evidence is available to observers looking in any direction at different locations in the universe.

The anisotropic early universe that you are suggesting ie a lumpy universe with a preferred direction falsifies the second assumption of the big bang theory. Therefore it falsifies the big bang theory.

So you can have your stars being made but no big bang. Or you can have your big bang but no stars being made.

You don't want to believe that it's the same, because giant redwoods don't invalidate your new religious doctrines.

Not at all. It is not a proper analogy. A star takes 10 million years to reach maturity. A redwood reaches maturity in 65 years well within the observable time frame. Again the problem is the process. Just because there are stars does not make your preferred process correct. At every turn, the process is falsified. Angular momentum, heat, other stars, and the preferred direction in the universe. All of these falsify each other.

The very early universe should contain mostly irregular galaxies if your big bang theory is correct because of all of the star formation and galaxy formation that should be occurring. But that is not what we see. Irregular galaxies are only 5% of the galaxies that are observed.
Irregular galaxies have unusual shapes, like toothpicks, rings, or even little groupings of stars. They range from dwarf irregular galaxies with 100 million times the Sun’s mass to large ones weighing 10 billion solar masses.

Astronomers think these galaxies’ odd shapes are sometimes the result of interactions with others. For example, one spiral galaxy passing another with a stronger gravitational pull could lose some of its material, become distorted, and morph into a new shape. Some, like gas-rich dwarf galaxies, may be new, formed by material pulled from such encounters. Or perhaps when galaxies collide, they create a larger, oddly shaped mashup. Some scientists theorize that some large irregular galaxies could represent an intermediate step between spiral and elliptical galaxies.

Irregular galaxies born from galaxy interactions or collisions typically host a mix of older and younger stars, depending on the characteristics and composition of the original galaxies. Irregular galaxies may also hold significant amounts of gas and dust – essential ingredients for making new stars.
https://universe.nasa.gov/galaxies/types/

I notice that the earliest known galaxy, GN-z11, is an irregular galaxy. But you should probably know this...
Many astronomers think that irregular galaxies are the ‘in-between’ for spiral and elliptical galaxies. Based on the ages, it’s likely that galaxies start as young spiral galaxies. Once they’ve been around for a while, they turn into irregular galaxies by colliding into other galaxies. At this point they are in their ‘teenage years’. Even later, after using up all their dust and gas to make new stars, they become old elliptical galaxies.

https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.ed ... r-galaxies

Oh, Wow this is classic. The rewriting of scientific thought.

• Ellipticals, which account for about one-third of galaxies observed, vary from nearly circular to very elongated. They possess comparatively little gas and dust, contain older stars and are not actively forming stars anymore. The largest and rarest of these, called giant ellipticals, are about 300,000 light-years across. Astronomers theorize that these are formed by the mergers of smaller galaxies. Much more common are dwarf ellipticals, which are only a few thousand light-years wide.
  
  Spiral galaxies appear as flat, blue-white disks of stars, gas and dust with yellowish bulges in their centers. These galaxies are divided into two groups: normal spirals and barred spirals. In barred spirals, the bar of stars runs through the central bulge. The arms of barred spirals usually start at the end of the bar instead of from the bulge. Spirals are actively forming stars and comprise a large fraction of all the galaxies in the local universe.
  
  Irregular galaxies, which have very little dust, are neither disk-like nor elliptical. Astronomers often see irregular galaxies as they peer deeply into the universe, which is equivalent to looking back in time. These galaxies are abundant in the early universe before spirals and ellipticals developed. https://hubblesite.org/science/galaxies ... 0developed.

According to your theory, stars need gas and dust to form. Irregular galaxies have the most gas and dust. The early universe had to have a huge amount of gas and dust to make trillions of stars quickly. Where is that gas and dust and how could elliptical galaxies form in a few hundred million years?

How did large galaxies form a few billion years after the big bang? Where did all of the stars come from why do we not see them forming? How did such large black holes from so early? To form these galaxies.

• Galaxy formation models may now need a revision, as current ones hold that gas clouds should be far slower to coalesce into stars and galaxies than is suggested by Webb’s galaxy-rich images of the early universe, less than 500 million years after the big bang. “This is way outside the box of what models were predicting,” says Garth Illingworth of the University of California (UC), Santa Cruz.

• But if the profusion of early galaxies is real, astronomers may have to fundamentally rethink galaxy formation or the reigning cosmology.

• Somerville says it may be possible to tweak lambda-CDM to create something closer to what Webb is seeing. Or, she says, cosmologists may be forced to reassess the first moments of the big bang itself: the era of inflation, a period of rapid growth when quantum fluctuations grew into areas of higher or lower matter density—the seeds of later halos. “If inflation is wrong that could be very fundamental,” she says. “But I wouldn’t bet on it being that.”

I would.

• Having revealed the early galaxies problem, Webb may provide the data needed to answer it. So far Webb is only seeing young, hot, bright stars in the newfound early galaxies. Follow-up observations of these galaxies at longer wavelengths with Webb’s midinfrared instrument or ground-based radio telescopes sensitive to submillimeter waves could reveal the gas clouds actively building stars. Those observations might help astronomers confirm that early galaxies were unusually prodigious star factories—and hold clues to how they did so. https://www.science.org/content/article ... y-universe

• “You shouldn’t have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast,” says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. “It’s just crazy that these things seem to exist.”
  
  Researchers expected to find only very small, young galaxies this early in the universe’s existence. How these “monsters” were able to “fast-track to maturity” is unknown, says Ivo Labbé, an astrophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia and the study’s lead researcher, in an email to Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180981689/

• According to most theories of cosmology, galaxies formed from small clouds of stars and dust that gradually increased in size. In the early universe, the story goes, matter came together slowly. But that doesn’t account for the massive size of the newly identified objects.
  
  “The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science,” says Joel Leja, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Penn State and a co-author of the study, in a statement. “We’ve been informally calling these objects ‘universe breakers’—and they have been living up to their name so far.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180981689/

• While Leja agrees that more observations are needed to confirm the findings, he notes in the statement, “Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought. Even if we cut the sample in half, this is still an astounding change.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180981689/

Again where is all the star formation happening at? Notice these are not creationists saying this. Although young earth creationists have been saying this and have predicted these findings for decades. Remember the strength of a theory depends on its ability to make accurate predictions. Current cosmology and star formation theory not so much.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1023]

The cosmos is full of compression events, hypersonic jets, collisions of all types, black holes "eating" stars, neutron stars with density and magnetic fields that are nearly unimaginable, supernovas and all kinds of disturbances. Star formation is obviously a very common event, showing that the necessary conditions exist throughout the observable universe. It is evidently a very easy process for nature, whether or not we understand every detail of the physics. But at the mass scales involved, gravity is certainly going to play a big role in the process.

The problem is that there is not enough of these.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

Again,

• How lumpy does this paper say the universe is? What temperature difference does this paper predict? The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.

Lumpy enough to produce stars. That was the prediction, which is now verified.

Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe.

In the 1970s, when I learned about it, it did not. Can you show us some evidence for your assumption?

So if you are saying that is a preferred direction in the universe you are saying that the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

It seems your understanding of it is incorrect.

The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation. “The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf

They were pointing out potential ways that one could falsify inflation theory:
Despite its central role in modern cosmology, doubts are often expressed as to whether cos-
mological inflation is really a falsifiable theory. We distinguish two facets of inflation, one as
a theory of initial conditions for the hot big bang and the other as a model for the origin of
structure in the Universe. We argue that the latter can readily be excluded by observations,
and that there are also a number of ways in which the former can find itself in conflict with
observational data. Both aspects of the theory are indeed falsifiable.

If the above statement is true then it is game set match for cosmic inflation.

In the sense that it demonstrates that inflation is a proper scientific theory. (since it is conceivably possible to find evidence to rule it out) But of course, they found no such evidence. You seem to have not read it carefully.

Astronomers discover largest known spinning structures in the universe

The big question is, "Why do they spin?" Libeskind said. The Big Bang would not have endowed the universe with any primordial spin. As such, whatever caused these filaments to spin must have originated later in history as the structures formed, he said.

One possible explanation for this rotation is that as the powerful gravitational fields of these filaments pulled gas, dust and other material within them to collapse together, the resulting shearing forces might have spun up this material.
ibid
Not what you seem to have thought it was.

The big bang theory is based on two assumptions:

Hmm... let's take a look...
The red shift indicating velocity of objects moving away from us, generally becomes greater, the farther away an object is. With relativity, this indicates that the universe is expanding.

and the second, also known as the cosmological principle, asserts that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large enough scale

No.
The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

The anisotropic early universe that you are suggesting ie a lumpy universe with a preferred direction falsifies the second assumption of the big bang theory.

No. See above.

Therefore it falsifies the big bang theory.

Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.

You don't want to believe that it's the same, because giant redwoods don't invalidate your new religious doctrines.

Not at all. It is not a proper analogy. A star takes 10 million years to reach maturity.

Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see stars in various stages of development.

A redwood reaches full height in thousands of years.

Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see redwoods in various stages of development.

Just because there are stars does not make your preferred process correct.

"Just because there are redwoods does not make your preferred process correct."

At every turn, the process is falsified.

I know you want to believe so. But cosmologists know otherwise.

The very early universe should contain mostly irregular galaxies if your big bang theory is correct because of all of the star formation and galaxy formation that should be occurring.

As you learned, that's wrong. Most irregular galaxies are transitional stages between spiral and elliptical galaxies. Would you like to learn how we know this?

I notice that the earliest known galaxy, GN-z11, is an irregular galaxy. But you should probably know this...
Many astronomers think that irregular galaxies are the ‘in-between’ for spiral and elliptical galaxies. Based on the ages, it’s likely that galaxies start as young spiral galaxies. Once they’ve been around for a while, they turn into irregular galaxies by colliding into other galaxies. At this point they are in their ‘teenage years’. Even later, after using up all their dust and gas to make new stars, they become old elliptical galaxies.

https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.ed ... r-galaxies[/quote]

According to your theory, stars need gas and dust to form.

Actually, no. They need matter. Gas will do.

Irregular galaxies have the most gas and dust.

So you suppose unless a galaxy has "the most" gas and dust, no stars can form? Evidence for that assumption is...?

How did large galaxies form a few billion years after the big bang? Where did all of the stars come from why do we not see them forming?

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has transformed our view of the iconic Pillars of Creation, which are 6500 light years away in the much larger Eagle Nebula. While these towering clouds of dust and gas look like solid cosmic stalagmites in the classic images from the Hubble Space Telescope, JWST images reveal the stars forming within them.

JWST is able to see through the dust because it observes in infrared wavelengths of light, as opposed to visible light that Hubble mostly uses. Infrared light pierces through the clouds of dust and gas to show the young stars that have just formed or are still forming in this stellar nursery
https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 ... -creation/
y-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/

Again where is all the star formation happening at?

See above for one notable example.

Remember the strength of a theory depends on its ability to make accurate predictions.

Yep. Remember the Big Bang predicted a cooling remnant of radiation from that initial expansion. Much later, two Bell Labs engineers found the predicted microwave background. Remember, that the predicted anisotropy of the early universe has now been confirmed. This and other conforiming evidence is why cosmologists accept the theory.

I gather you now realize that our sun will not go nova?