Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Nebular hypothesis: no supporting data

Nebular hypothesis: no supporting data

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Nebular hypothesis: no supporting data Empty Nebular hypothesis: no supporting data Sun May 03, 2015 8:52 am


Nebular hypothesis: no supporting data

Von Weiszacher’s efforts were generally accepted as making the nebular hypothesis scientifically acceptable. But was this really the case? The answer is No, because as we will see, observational evidence for it is lacking. And as with accretion theory, the nebular hypothesis has become more complex with time because the simpler failed. The nebular hypothesis now includes (1) an accretion stage; (2) a planetesimal formation stage; (3) a planetary core (planetary embryos) stage; and (4) a planetary migration stage.36 The planetary migration stage is necessary because, according to theory, once planetary cores have formed, they are in the wrong places to resemble a planetary system, so must be made to ‘migrate’ to their proper location. We have seen that observational evidence for the accretion stage is absent, but so are data confirming the other stages.

No evidence of nebula collapse

If the nebular hypothesis were true, astronomers should observe clouds of debris elsewhere in the galaxy collapsing, as the solar nebula did. Each of these giant molecular clouds is supposed to be like the solar nebula was billions of years ago, before it collapsed. A giant molecular cloud is a nebula (plural nebulae), or is considered part of a larger nebula. “No astronomer has ever observed the process of cloud collapse,”44 and “no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing.”45 For clumps in clouds that have been observed, Blitz says, “None of the clumps in the clouds … observed are gravitationally bound [collapsing]. … Because the clumps are so far from being gravitationally bound … the clumps must be expanding.”46 For Blitz, “This conclusion is difficult to accept.”46 So GMCs exist, but their non-collapse says that the solar system could not have formed from nebular collapse.

No evidence of stars forming

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.”45 Accordingly, theorists have concluded that, “Giant molecular clouds are not collapsing dynamically and have, in fact, generally a very low efficiency for stellar genesis.”47 Thus, GMCs cannot be expected to collapse into stars, despite the widespread belief that they are. Gravitational collapse cannot happen in a diffuse, rarified gas cloud to form a star; it is not dense enough. “The only way for a … cool interstellar cloud to contract from nebular to stellar dimensions is to be dense enough so that the gravitational attraction of its particles for each other is strong enough to start it contracting”.48 Thus theorists recognize that a GMC cannot begin collapsing on its own. There must be an external force to bring the GMC to a density high enough to trigger collapse.

Nebular theory must suppose that another physical body provides this force, such as other clouds already in collapse or unstable stars sending shock waves (density waves) into the surrounding space. 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. As theorists have said, “Star formation can also be induced [or] triggered by a mechanism external to the clump. … Shocks, which can be due to supernovae [unstable stars] or to cloud-cloud collisions, have been invoked frequently as a mechanism for inducing star formation.”49 In other words, “The general model requires some mechanism to trigger a cloud’s collapse: a supernova explosion, a shock wave from the galaxy’s spiral arms, cloud collisions, or stellar winds. Why clouds don’t collapse on their own … is still a ‘great mystery’.”50 Another theorist wrote, “Since the 1960s, in numerical models of protostellar collapse, thermonuclear ignition temperatures are not attained solely by the in fall of matter; an additional shock wave-induced sudden flare-up is assumed.”51 In the nebular hypothesis, it takes a star to make a star. The nebular hypothesis has not explained how stars first formed.

Since the nebular hypothesis has been fashionable off and on for over two centuries, but has not explained the origins of stars or planetary systems, why don’t its advocates abandon it? One reason is that the only viable alternative is biblical creation, or at least unknown mechanisms. Another reason is that the nebular hypothesis is a model, a way of visualizing the cosmic past. As a model, science alone cannot disprove it, because any necessary ad hoc assumptions can be generated as needed. Supposing the pre-existence of collapsing clouds and functioning stars to trigger the collapse of new clouds is an ad hoc assumption. Indeed, “If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect”, Geoffrey R. Burbidge once quipped.52 Burbidge apparently understood that a model can incorporate any observations and can never be disproved by any of them. The impossibility of model disproof is also why advocates of the nebular hypothesis can continue to say, “There is strong evidence that star formation is going on at the present time.”53 It is easy to confuse theoretical or popular assertions of the truth of the nebular hypothesis with observational evidence, which is absent.



On page 947 of the two-volume Principles of Stellar Structure: Applications to Stars (1968), J.P. Cox and R.T. Giuli make their first direct comment on star formation:
The very earliest stages in the star formation process must consist of the condensation of a 'protostar' from the interstellar medium. These stages constitute one of the most poorly understood areas in the whole field of stellar evolution, and we shall simply assume that a protostar has somehow formed.

Rather than explain how a star could form, Cox and Giuli frankly admitted they didn't know. They also said that from the time they began writing their chapter on stellar formation (1966), until the time of publication in 1968, over 1000 papers on star formation had been published, yet not one of them showed any signs of overcoming the major difficulties. On page 958, they explain one of the biggest problems:
One of the major difficulties in the condensation problem is that a cloud of gas and dust of stellar mass with density rho and temperature T typical of gas clouds found in the Galaxy (say rho ~ 10-22 gm/cm3 and T ~ 100 °K in HI (neutral hydrogen) regions) would have too weak a gravitational field to contract under its own gravity

This is what Jeans' Length is all about. How can a gas cloud contract in space when the physics disallows it? About ten years after Cox and Giuli wrote their masterpiece, Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, in a neatly written, highly mathematical book, wrote the following:
There is a general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the 'generally accepted' theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics. (Evolution of the Solar System, by Alfven, Hannes, and Gustaf Arrhenius, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., 1976, p. 480)


the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum: Angular momentum = mass x velocity x distance from the center of mass, and always stays constant in an isolated system (Like The Universe we Live In). Like a skater spinning faster when their arms are pulled in close to the body. In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the center to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. But our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99.86% of the mass of the solar system, it has less than 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum