A Dust Disk Makes A Stellar Disappearance

The widely accept planetesimal hypothesis among secular scientists where it is believed that the solar system was built from.  According to this hypothesis, planets require material from orbiting dust disks surrounding stars.

A new observation by astronomers revealed a dusty circumstellar disk, supposedly 10 million years old all of a sudden evaporated within 3  short years. This was indeed a falsification, none in the circle of consensus concerning the planetesimal hypothesis expected to witness such a rapid change: reduction of infrared emission by a factor of 30 in 3 years, caused by, the astronomers believe, “a correspondingly drastic depletion of the dust disk” in such a short period of time!

Why would something deemed to be 10 million years old, all of a sudden disappear in 3 years in a time frame when humans are able to observe it?  Rescue explanations arise, but as Nature News points out, “…these hypotheses (along with the possibility of occulting material lying somewhere along our line of sight to the star) can be excluded on the basis of the stability…

The reason why some were discounted was because of the catastrophic nature of what went on in which gravity is supposed to produce step by step gains in building planets rather than a complete pulverization that galvanized it out of existence.   This observation is not conducive to supposed planet formation according to the planetesimal hypothesis.

“Such a phase of rapid ejecta evolution has not been previously predicted or observed, and no currently available physical model satisfactorily explains the observations.”

So how was this explain in the media, phys.org said this was a break through in obtaining new insights on planet evolution.

“The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions,” said study co-author Inseok Song, assistant professor of physics and astronomy in the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.”

“…planets might form much faster than previously thought or, alternatively, that stars harboring planets could be far more numerous.”

Adding complexity to the hypothesis always creates more problems than it solves which also happens with Darwinian evolution, thus challenging the value on explaining reality.

“The researchers explored several different explanations for how such a large quantity of dust could disappear so rapidly, and each of their explanations challenges conventional thinking about planet formation… Like many important discoveries, the scientists’ finding raises more questions than it answers.”

How does a dusk disk disappear so quickly? When you break free of the framework created by consensus it sounds more logical. Stars and planets were created but that is not why they are breaking up so quickly rather it is because of the laws of thermodynamics, that is the cause of the breaking up, not building up.

We entrust our scientists with the job of explaining what is going on in the natural world.  Keep in mind there is a huge difference between scientific discovery and scientific explanation; it is great to make these observations, but not so great to maintain a false theory in the face of contradictory evidence by invoking ad hoc rescue explanations that refuse to consider non-paradigmatic solutions, such as creation!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A Dust Disk Makes A Stellar Disappearance

  1. Here’s the actual paper: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1207.1162
    I’m sure Michael did not bother to read that.

    In the reactions on the phys.org space you’ll find some explainations for what is seen:
    “For instance, taking the TYC 8241 2652 1 disc Poynting-Robertson drag into account and assuming that the underlying physical mechanisms are similar between it and metal-rich white dwarfs (R. R. Rafikov, “Runaway accretion of metals from compact discs of debris on to white dwarfs”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (416): 55-59, 2011), runaway accretion rates are sufficient to explain the disappearance of grains with size from 100m-1mm on a timescale of a few years. (In the event that the disc is hot and gaseous and assuming a constant accretion rate over the duration of the disc dissolution, a gas:dust ratio of 10, and 10^23g of 1mm-sized dust grains corresponding to a conventional distribution (S. J. Kenyon, et al., “Prospects for detection of catastrophic collisions in debris disks”, Astron. J. (130): 269-279, 2005), the accretion rate is ~10^-8 to 10^-9 M solar yr^-1.)”

    Runaway accretion is nothing new.

    Also:
    “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.”
    It’s well known already, try to read for example this ten years old article: http://www.psc.edu/publicinfo/news/2002/planets_2002-12-11.html
    It’s example of so called sensationalism, which is pretending, that the results of research are more significant/fundamental/original, then they really are. Which I could understand, if it wouldn’t often connected with the ignorance of the original findings and their authors. The scientific priority of the original idea or finding should be always respected.

    (again, this is a comment from phys.com, not mine)

  2. Eelco, thanks for the reference to the paper. I’ll read it. Sounds like a chaotic system operating near a tipping point.

  3. Keep in mind there is a huge difference between scientific discovery and scientific explanation; it is great to make these observations, but not so great to maintain a false theory in the face of contradictory evidence by invoking ad hoc rescue explanations that refuse to consider non-paradigmatic solutions, such as creation!

    So Michael’s explanation is that right now, before our very eyes, we are witnessing the direct intervention of God in the universe. That’s what he’s claiming, since he maintains that no natural law can possibly account for it.

    This is, of course, the God of the Gaps who only performs miracles that cannot (yet) be explained by known natural laws. Thus, as soon as someone comes up with a natural explanation, God will get booted out of planet formation, just as happened with managing planetary orbits (Newton), sculpting geological formations (Lyell), and creating new biologic species (Darwin). The problem with this theory is that gaps can never get larger, which implies that God can only shrink.[1]

    Michael quotes Phys.org sneeringly—

    “Like many important discoveries, the scientists’ finding raises more questions than it answers.”

    The alternative is that there is only one answer to every question “God did it.” Christian theologians gave up on this concept of occasionalism several centuries ago. (Only a few extremist Muslims still embrace it.) Mostly because it explains nothing. But also because it leads to some deep logical paradoxes. It is an answer that never changes, but it is a worthless answer, an answer that leads nowhere.

    The only advantage of the God-did-it answer is that it provides a measure of security to those who cannot live with any uncertainty/ It s simple to understand, clear,, unchanging—and wrong..

    Once a friend asked Richard Feynmann whether he missed the certainty of a religion. He replied that he preferred to live in uncertainty—that certainty about life was actually a form of death.[2]

    Yes, thank you; the concert went ell this evening. Cool, lots of shade, not many mosquitoes. Very good acoustics for an amphitheater.[3]

    ===============

    [1] Here is a way out of this, but Michael would not be able to accept it.

    [2] James GleicK,, Genius (Pantheon 1992).

    [3] Of course, nothing can come close to the Greek amphitheater at Ephesus. You actually can hear a whisper on stage from any of the 14,000 seats. I tried it. It is truly one of the wonders of the ancient world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s