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!