RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation

This is the show from Friday July 17th, 2015


Summary:


pluto-depiction-intl-astr-union-201503.png


* March 2015 IAU Image Typical of Pluto Expectations: (Below, see our list of solar system formation problems.) Just a few months ago, the International Astronomical Union used an image of Pluto (right) that represents the expectations of secular astronomers depicting a heavily cratered body grimy from sweeping up billions of years of space dust. Again though, the predictions of old-earth astronomy failed. Likewise, from its physics to its major predictions, the entire theory of solar system formation, the nebular hypothesis, has failed. Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams back up to get the big picture by quoting NASA's exoplanet database manager Caltech astronomer Mike Brown who said: “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong." Exoplanets, with their masses, sizes, composition and orbital characteristics differ from what had been predicted for decades by the standard model of solar system formation, including with their retrograde orbits, highly inclined orbits and hot jupiters, effectively falsifying that model.

Pluto_by_LORRI_and_Ralph%2C_13_July_2015.jpg


* July 2015 What Pluto Actually Looks Like: The actual photos of Pluto from NASA's New Horizons mission will help make it obvious to thousands more people that the nebular hypothesis theory of origins is not helpful in understanding our solar system (or any other solar system for that matter). On today's program, Bob and Fred air an audio clip from a a leading planetary scientist on the Passport to Pluto Science Channel update on NASA's mission acknowledging that even close to home, the predictions of mainstream (secular) astronomy mostly fail, and that's for planets nearest to home, in our very own solar system system. Taken together, the impressive scientific discoveries that completely falsify the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation include these:

- exoplanets contradicting the predictions of the theory
- that our Sun is missing nearly 100% of its predicted spin
- that our Sun's rotation is seven degrees off the ecliptic
- the missing predicted uniform distribution pattern of solar system isotopes
- the missing expected uniform distribution of Earth's radioactivity
- the contrary-to-expectations fine tuning of the solar system
- the many contrary-to-expectations transient events in the solar system
- that proponents try to prop up the theory by claiming ubiquitous planetary catastrophism
- planetary and star formation problems have seemingly intractable physics problems (consider the Philae landing)
- contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain earth-like minerals and rounded boulders
- short-period comets still exist even though they have lifespans of only thousands of years
- the 1,346 trans-Neptunian objects with known orbits reach perihelion at the ecliptic
- that Mercury has greater density than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
- that Uranus rotates perpendicularly and Venus rotates backwards.
So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the BBC, Nova, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, etc., wrongly built public confidence in the secular origins nebular hypothesis story. The longstanding claims of solar system formation were invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system. Now that thousands of exoplanets are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with epicycles and levels of Darwinian selection, shall we say, more complex.

* Socks Blown Off: From RSR's List of Shocked Evolutionists, close-up photos show the youthful appearance of Pluto as do the images of its largest moon: "We originally thought Charon would be an ancient terrain covered in craters," said New Horizons team member Cathy Olkin. "So when we saw the pictures this morning, it just blew our socks off." :)

* Help Us Reach a Small YouTube Milestone: RSR's newly attended to Bob Enyart YouTube channel is about to hit 75,000 views. Please click to check out a video, and we should hit that goal by Saturday, July 18th!

* Get a Real Astronomy Resource: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxies! These are hands down the best astronomy videos ever made! You'll agree, or your money back! Also, purchasing them from us here at RSR will help us keep our radio show on the air reaching more and more people! And have you browsed through our Science Department in our KGOV Store? (That's what we call it.) Check out also Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate against a well-known geophysicist and a University of Colorado mathematician who are members of the Denver chapter of Reasons to Believe. And we ask you to consider getting a Bob Enyart Live monthly subscription, in audio or video, of one of our really fun and educational resources!

Finally, please consider helping us reach our vitally important July 2015 Telethon goal of $30,000! We're currently at $11,600, and you can help by clicking on the Store tab above, and then making a one-time or monthly donation, or signing up for a subscription or browsing our Science Department for some great science resources!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gcthomas

New member
* March 2015 IAU Image Typical of Pluto Expectations: (Below, see our list of solar system formation problems.) Just a few months ago, the International Astronomical Union used an image of Pluto (right) that represents the expectations of secular astronomers depicting a heavily cratered body grimy from sweeping up billions of years of space dust.

Nasa was saying last year that they "Have No Idea What Pluto Looks Like"
At best, we can describe it as a reddish, relatively small rocky smudgy thing (with points!). And while we know the basics of the planet's size and shape, we really don't know what the thing looks like ... yet. As a NASA "ScienceCast" video on YouTube explains (embedded below), "No one knows what to expect when the alien landscape comes into focus. There could be icy geysers, towering mountains, deep valleys, and even planetary rings."​

The image you present is not a scientific prediction - it even has the alt-text "Artist’s impression of Pluto and Charon". You seem to be attacking the predictions of an artist, not those heavily caveated musings of real scientists, so it's situation normal, huh?
 

6days

New member
gcthomas said:
The image you present is not a scientific prediction - it even has the alt-text "Artist’s impression of Pluto and Charon".*You seem to be attacking the predictions of an artist, not those heavily caveated musings of real scientists, so it's situation normal, huh?
It's an image used by the*International Astronomical Union. Secular astronomers did expect a heavily cratered planet, which is why they express surprise at some features they say appear less than 100 million years. (Inconsistent with the billions of years belief) However the findings, including the carbon monoxide 'lake' are consistent with the creation / flood model proposed by Walt Brown in the Hydroplate Theory.
 

gcthomas

New member
It's an image used by the*International Astronomical Union. Secular astronomers did expect a heavily cratered planet, which is why they express surprise at some features they say appear less than 100 million years. (Inconsistent with the billions of years belief)

I showed you the NASA quote which shows the lie of your claim. And NASA used a piece of artwork, labelled an artistic impression, for a web page. Great. Now show me where heavy cratering is required by theory.

However the findings, including the carbon monoxide 'lake' are consistent with the creation / flood model proposed by Walt Brown in the Hydroplate Theory.

EVERYTHING is consistent with Walt's Magical Theory of Everything. Even the young galaxies that weren't the same as older ones were, actually, the same as far as Walt is concerned. Even the data which proves him wrong somehow prove him right in his eyes.
 

OCTOBER23

New member
PLANETS ARE JUST COLD DEAD STARS THAT HAVE COOLED DOWN

AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

THEY ARE ALL ROUND SPHERES AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM

BY ACCUMULATION OF BITS OF ASTEROIDS.

That is the Plain Truth.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nasa was saying last year that they "Have No Idea What Pluto Looks Like"
At best, we can describe it as a reddish, relatively small rocky smudgy thing (with points!). And while we know the basics of the planet's size and shape, we really don't know what the thing looks like ... yet. As a NASA "ScienceCast" video on YouTube explains (embedded below), "No one knows what to expect when the alien landscape comes into focus. There could be icy geysers, towering mountains, deep valleys, and even planetary rings."​

The image you present is not a scientific prediction - it even has the alt-text "Artist’s impression of Pluto and Charon". You seem to be attacking the predictions of an artist, not those heavily caveated musings of real scientists, so it's situation normal, huh?

Evolutionists have learned that the safest practice is to not expose their ideas to predictions. So they draw an "artists conception." That way if it has some merit, they can claim it as a prediction, but if it is nonsense, they can feign disassociation with any hint of scientific rebuff.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
The image you present is not a scientific prediction - it even has the alt-text "Artist’s impression of Pluto and Charon". You seem to be attacking the predictions of an artist, not those heavily caveated musings of real scientists, so it's situation normal, huh?

situation normal like Rodhocetus turns out to be fiction
that was presented as fact

opening line of the show:
virtually everyplace we sent a space craft to on a 1st reconnaissance mission like this that we find out that
our earth based notions were flat wrong
 

gcthomas

New member
Evolutionists have learned that the safest practice is to not expose their ideas to predictions. So they draw an "artists conception." That way if it has some merit, they can claim it as a prediction, but if it is nonsense, they can feign disassociation with any hint of scientific rebuff.

Unlike you, scientists don't pretend certainty when the evidence is not yet it.
 

gcthomas

New member
situation normal like Rodhocetus turns out to be fiction
that was presented as fact

opening line of the show:
virtually everyplace we sent a space craft to on a 1st reconnaissance mission like this that we find out that
our earth based notions were flat wrong

That is what exploration is about. But no, the Earth based notions were not wrong on scientific principles, but of course were short on the historical record of development of the planets. Think about how every person turns out different despite the Science of biology. Same principles, different outcome for each person.
 

User Name

New member
I showed you the NASA quote which shows the lie of your claim. And NASA used a piece of artwork, labelled an artistic impression, for a web page. Great. Now show me where heavy cratering is required by theory.

Pluto and Charon must lack craters because they have been (and perhaps still are) geologically active, with some kind of process smoothing out the surface.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unlike you, scientists don't pretend certainty when the evidence is not yet it.
We're not talking certainty; we're talking about predictions based on a model. You have a model, but seem to have to perform cartwheels to keep its predictions away from reality.

Creationists, on the other hand, love making predictions: There is bacterial life on Pluto.

Pluto and Charon must lack craters because they have been (and perhaps still are) geologically active, with some kind of process smoothing out the surface.
Exactly. Which rules out the notion that the body has been floating around billions of kilometers beyond Uranus for billions of years.
 

User Name

New member
Pluto and Charon must lack craters because they have been (and perhaps still are) geologically active, with some kind of process smoothing out the surface.

Exactly. Which rules out the notion that the body has been floating around billions of kilometers beyond Uranus for billions of years.

How do geological processes that smooth out planetary surfaces rule out billions of kilometers or years?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How do geological processes that smooth out planetary surfaces rule out billions of kilometers or years?
They don't rule out billions of kilometers, but they might indicate that its distance from the sun was once much less. ;)

Their existence indicates instability, non-equilibrium. The driving forces behind geological reworking require proximity to a large neighboring body or deformation from the spherical for the body that is active.

Pluto is a long way from anything that could generate geological processes on it.

However, if it formed recently — as the evidence indicates — the "surprises" facing the evolutionists all but disappear.
 

6days

New member
gcthomas said:
Great. Now show me where heavy cratering is required by theory.
What I said was....."Secular astronomers did expect a heavily cratered planet, which is why they express surprise at some features they say appear less than 100 million years. (Inconsistent with the billions of years belief)"

New imaging of Pluto's major moon Charon also surprised scientists with its unexpectedly youthful and varied terrain.
...*the mountains were probably*formed no more than 100 million years ago – much younger than expected
*
http://blog.cosmosmagazine.com/blog...rise-in-first-high-resolution-images-of-pluto

One of the most surprising discoveries so far is that the surface of Pluto is far younger than previously supposed.Despite being located in the Kuiper Belt – the remote region of our solar system teeming with asteroids and space debris – no impact craters have yet been spotted on the surface
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64361/new-horizons-nasa-probe-set-for-ground-breaking-pluto-flyby

One new image shows a curiously young terrain
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150717-pluto-flyby-photos-pictures-new-horizons-space/

Secular Astronomers are guilty of begging the question fallacy. They start with the answer (billions of years) and reject one obvious conclusion.... God's Word may be true...perhaps Pluto and our solar system look young, because they are.*
 

User Name

New member
One of the most surprising discoveries so far is that the surface of Pluto is far younger than previously supposed.

The surface is younger than previously supposed. The surface, not the whole planet. Much like the way most of the earth's ocean floor has been dated to within 125 million years even though the earth is estimated to be 5.4 billion years old. This is because the ocean floors have been subducted, carried down into the mantle and recycled. Likewise, the surface of Pluto has been covered over by fresher layers due to geological processes.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The surface is younger than previously supposed. The surface, not the whole planet. Much like the way most of the earth's ocean floor has been dated to within 125 million years even though the earth is estimated to be 5.4 billion years old. This is because the ocean floors have been subducted, carried down into the mantle and recycled. Likewise, the surface of Pluto has been covered over by fresher layers due to geological processes.

Feel free to just ignore what I say. :rolleyes:
 

Daniel1611

New member
Lol at people who pretend they know anything about pluto. You just allegedly saw it for the first time a few days ago and now you know all about it. Bunch of Trekkies. Pretentious Trekkies
 
Top