Electro wrote:When you look at the alternative for star and planet formation, I'm flabbergasted as to why your theory hasn't gained more acceptance, especially within the EU community. I just don't get it! Too often, the reason they'll give you is "where's the math?". I don't give a damn about math! They were wrong with Einstein! You don't try proving the math with observation. It's supposed to be the other way around, for crying out loud!!!
Its because in EU stars do not evolve. What happened is that they railed against establishment's belief that stars evolve, thus do strange things like explode and collapse into black holes... which clearly is bogus.
So instead of saying, hey, they actually do evolve, just not the way establishment says, EU did an about-face and said stars do not evolve at all.
They threw the baby out with the bath water. Stars DO evolve. My whole thing is that they are wrongly separated into two different constructs or even three really, stars, brown dwarfs and planets. Yet they are all transitional varieties of conceptually the same object.
As well, EU accepts uniformitarianism (yet do not realize it) with their acceptance of Earth having always been near its current size even when it "formed". Yet all planets are evolutionary constructs, they evolve to their current structure from previous states which looked very, very different and were chemically and physically alien.
it is just a huge cultural and language roadblock really. Astronomers and EU assume that Earth has always been like this, yet when we look out in the telescopes we see objects that are very different. We say, oh well, look how different they are, thus, they have to be different objects... Nope. What early astronomers should have done is say, look how different they are... those are probably what Earth was like in its early history. That's it. It really is that simple.