Exoplanets + Neighboring Stars defeats the Nebular Dust Cloud theory; (use in 4th)
Archimedes Plutonium
illogic. Take for example the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and where the Solar System
is reckoned to be 4.5 billion years old. And look at the
neighboring stars nearest to Earth. And what you see is nearby stars
that are 10 billion years old. Then you make a survey of alot of stars
and their nearest neighbors. And you find in that survey that almost
every star studied that its nearest neighbors are seldom of the same
age. What does that imply?
It implies that Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake theory, because if
it were true, then neighboring stars
would almost always be of the same age as its neighbors.
And we often see that binary stars where one is 1/2
the age of the other.
Finally we look at exoplanets in exo-solar-systems.
If the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is true, then most of
these exoplanets should not be in a dynamics where they are huge
planets, far larger than Jupiter and in close orbit to its parent
star. This suggests that these
huge exoplanets have a dynamic of becoming a binary
star to the parent star.
So here I have outlined three cases of where the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory does not conform to the data:
(i) Neighboring stars are usually different ages
(ii) Binary stars are typically of different ages
(iii) Exoplanets dynamics of huge planets in tight
orbits with their parent star indicates a dynamic of
different ages of the exoplanet compared to parent
star.
So the data of ages does not look good for the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory. Instead the Growing Solar Systems
via Dirac new radioactivities explains these variable aging of astro
bodies.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
john
The solar wind blows outward.
The planets start close and hot and small and end
far and cold and large.
In the middle they are the right temperature for
life. Mars has passed through this
zone and is now dead. Venus is still too hot and active.
john
galaxy model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Sam Wormley
>
> The solar wind blows outward.
> The planets start close and hot and small and end
> far and cold and large.
>
And your evidence is?
Archimedes Plutonium
Ignore John who has only "opinion" and no science.
Here is evidence that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fakery:
Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
remain
in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
Barnard's Star 10 billion years old
Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old
Sirius A
Sirius B binary stars of different ages
Sam Wormley, how do you explain those facts that the nearest
neighboring stars of
any given star has disparate ages. If the Nebular Dust Cloud were true
then they
would be all be the same ages.
And how do you explain why most binary stars are disparate in age?
Does Sam do what others do-- ignore the data?
The better theory is Dirac new radioactivities where star evolution is
altogether a
different process. That of a steady accumulation of cosmic rays and
cosmic gamma
rays onto a selected seed. In that manner the Sun can be 10 billion
years old and
Jupiter 5 billion years old.
Archimedes Plutonium
Yousuf Khan
> Here is evidence that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fakery:
>
>
> Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
> Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
> Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
> remain
> in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
The three Alpha Centauris are all only 4.85 billion years old. Slightly
older than the Sun, but not by much. If AC-A were 6 billion years old,
it would be nearly time for it to become a red giant.
Alpha Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
Proxima Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
Anyways, so what if the stars in a neighbourhood are different in age?
Do you expect stars to stay close to their original birth place after so
many billions of years? We don't even know where the Sun's original dust
cloud is now, or who its siblings were.
> Barnard's Star 10 billion years old
Barnard's is probably 10 billion years old.
Barnard's Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star
> Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old
Lalande is between 5-10 billion years old.
Lalande 21185 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalande_21185
> Sirius A
> Sirius B binary stars of different ages
Are you saying Sirius A & B are different ages from each other? They are
both estimated to be 200-300 million years old.
Sirius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius
> Sam Wormley, how do you explain those facts that the nearest
> neighboring stars of
> any given star has disparate ages. If the Nebular Dust Cloud were true
> then they
> would be all be the same ages.
Maybe for the first 10 million years or so.
> And how do you explain why most binary stars are disparate in age?
Because they aren't?
Yousuf Khan
Archimedes Plutonium
Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Here is evidence that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fakery:
> >
> >
> > Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
> > Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
> > Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
> > remain
> > in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
>
> The three Alpha Centauris are all only 4.85 billion years old. Slightly
> older than the Sun, but not by much. If AC-A were 6 billion years old,
> it would be nearly time for it to become a red giant.
>
There is a squabble over the ages of A and B, but no squabble over the
very old age of C.
> Alpha Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
>
> Proxima Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
>
> Anyways, so what if the stars in a neighbourhood are different in age?
> Do you expect stars to stay close to their original birth place after so
> many billions of years? We don't even know where the Sun's original dust
> cloud is now, or who its siblings were.
>
That is just it, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory imposes the logic that
the
stars in an immediate neighborhood cannot have vastly different ages.
This data defeats the Nebular Dust Cloud theory:
Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and
can
remain
in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
Barnard's Star 10 billion years old
Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old
Yousuf has bought into the Nebular Dust Cloud theory as also Sam. But
they never really "thought out" the consequences of their steadfast
belief.
Both Yousuf and Sam accept the Big Bang with Nebular Dust Clouds
forming
stars and planets.
But both Yousuf and Sam were never presented with two alternate and
opposing
theories of how stars, galaxies and the universe is created.
Sam talks an awful lot about "evidence" but then when the evidence
turns against
him on his beliefs of the Big Bang and Nebular Dust Cloud, he runs
away in silence.
At least Yousuf puts up a "little fight". Good show, Yousuf, for a
scientist does not
run into silence.
Your Big Bang shouldered with Nebular Dust Cloud theory would not give
a cosmic
pattern where neighboring stars are of vastly different ages,
especially immediate
neighboring stars. If the Big Bang with Nebular Dust Cloud is true,
then Barnard star,
and Lalande, and Sirius's and the Alpha Centauri's would all be around
4.5 billion years
old. And if we go to any star neighborhood, we should find one and the
same age.
Now, Yousuf and Sam, what is the picture of stellar evolution if the
Atom Totality with
its Dirac new-radioactivities is the true mechanism? In that picture,
we have stars 2X
older than some of its planets and we have stars that are 2X older
than its neighboring
stars. In this picture of the creation of stars and planets we must
have a variable of
about 1/2 the age of neighboring planets and stars. Because of Dirac
New Radioactivities,
a seed-dot of where a new planet or star is going to be borne and
which is funnelled a lot of
the cosmic rays and gamma rays onto this new seed-dot for which
springs a new planet or
new star. Ask yourselves, Yousuf and Sam, why is it that Jupiter is
growing in mass and size
twice as fast as any of the other planets in our solar system and why
is it growing faster than
even our Sun? Notice that the "electricity" of Jupiter is larger than
even the Sun's electricity.
The reason being in the Atom Totality with Dirac New Radioactivities
is because Jupiter is slated to become a twin star to the Sun.
Sam keeps talking about "evidence", where is the evidence. But when
questioned for the evidence of his stout beliefs of the Big Bang with
Nebular Dust Cloud, he runs away in
silence.
Yousuf and Sam, if you so believe in your Big Bang with Nebular Dust
Cloud, why is it that
the Exoplanets are so vastly uniform in that they are huge Jupiters in
close tight orbit with their alien star? The mechanics of Exoplanets
favors the Dirac New Radioactivities. In that
the evolution of those exoplanets was a dot-seed 1/2 the age of its
parent star and growing
in mass and size so that it orbits closer and closer to the star and
finally becomes a binary
star.
So here, Sam and Yousuf, you are presented with a rival theory of Atom
Totality with Dirac
New Radioactivities which together implies that any given neighborhood
of stars would have
a mixture of stars that are 2X older than other stars and where the
planetary systems have
planets about to become binary stars. And where you have many binary
stars where one
star is 2X older than the other.
Now, according to Sam and Yousuf who staunchly believe in the Big Bang
with Nebular
Dust Cloud, the evidence is against you.
So are all the astronomers going to do a Sam trick, and run away and
hide in silence?
Probably so, because they were more opinionated philosophers and never
true scientists.
Yousuf Khan
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Here is evidence that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fakery:
>>>
>>>
>>> Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
>>> Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
>>> Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
>>> remain
>>> in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
>> The three Alpha Centauris are all only 4.85 billion years old. Slightly
>> older than the Sun, but not by much. If AC-A were 6 billion years old,
>> it would be nearly time for it to become a red giant.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
>>
>> Proxima Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
>
> There is a squabble over the ages of A and B, but no squabble over the
> very old age of C.
Not from where I'm sitting. All three Alpha Centauri stars are 4.85
billion years old, even Alpha Centauri C (Proxima Centauri). Exactly as
old as each other. I already gave you the links above, which show their
ages. So exactly who is squabbling over their ages?
>> Anyways, so what if the stars in a neighbourhood are different in age?
>> Do you expect stars to stay close to their original birth place after so
>> many billions of years? We don't even know where the Sun's original dust
>> cloud is now, or who its siblings were.
>>
>
> That is just it, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory imposes the logic that
> the
> stars in an immediate neighborhood cannot have vastly different ages.
The nebular dust cloud theory only holds for a few million years after
birth. After that, the new stars start to scatter independently across
the galaxy. The theory never said that they should always remain
together, unless they are part of a cluster. The Sun is 4.5 billion
years old, it's long since left its nest.
> This data defeats the Nebular Dust Cloud theory:
> Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
> Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
> Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and
> can
> remain
> in its current stated to 4 trillion years old
>
>
> Barnard's Star 10 billion years old
>
>
> Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old
>
>
> Sirius A
> Sirius B binary stars of different ages
Just repeating your wrong information about star ages isn't going to
make it any more true.
>>> Sam Wormley, how do you explain those facts that the nearest
>>> neighboring stars of
>>> any given star has disparate ages. If the Nebular Dust Cloud were true
>>> then they
>>> would be all be the same ages.
>> Maybe for the first 10 million years or so.
>>
>>> And how do you explain why most binary stars are disparate in age?
>> Because they aren't?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Yousuf has bought into the Nebular Dust Cloud theory as also Sam. But
> they never really "thought out" the consequences of their steadfast
> belief.
Probably because nothing in the theory that you're so dead-set against
says anything about stars migrating away from their original
neighbourhoods. You're basically attacking something about a theory,
that that theory never said.
And your proof against that theory (even though that theory never said
it), is equally quixotic. You keep saying that stars within binary and
trinary systems are of different ages, but it is not borne by the facts.
I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that
you quoted, including the Alpha Centauri trinary and Sirius binary
system. The stars in the trinary & binary system are all exactly as old
as their siblings.
Yousuf Khan
spudnik
it behooves one to say it "in so many words,"
to evoke some pattern of comprehension
on one's own part, instead of just "linking
to Wookeypoopeya," or Encycl.Brit., or
the compedium of the found tribe of the Wolframites. (but,
i don't mean that
one should "go on & on & on & on,"
like the New Archimedean Valuation of Every thing !-)
> I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that
> you quoted, including the Alpha Centauri trinary and Sirius binary
> system. The stars in the trinary & binary system are all exactly as old
> as their siblings.
thus:
he was referring to the matter of climate-gate,
so called, and most of the assumptions are terribly
conversant with only the last hundred years, but
with significant fudge-factors of ignoring
*every* God-am thing that is invconvenient.
there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data,
some by some sort of proxt or other,
like ice-cores, going to the 19th century
I think it is a valid question,
What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or
if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91);
today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point
of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would
have the desired eefect!
> Models are modified to improve their projections.
> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
--l'Oeuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
Archimedes Plutonium
Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped to save some space)
> >
> > There is a squabble over the ages of A and B, but no squabble over the
> > very old age of C.
>
> Not from where I'm sitting. All three Alpha Centauri stars are 4.85
> billion years old, even Alpha Centauri C (Proxima Centauri). Exactly as
> old as each other. I already gave you the links above, which show their
> ages. So exactly who is squabbling over their ages?
Looks like I made a mistake in my haste to post. Here is a reliable
enough source:
--- quoting ---
http://everything2.com/title/Alpha+Centauri
| Sun | A | B | C |
+--------+--------+--------+---------+
Color | Yellow | Yellow | Orange | Red |
Spectral Type | G2 | G2 | K1 | M5 |
Surface Temp | 5800 K | 5800 K | 5300 K | 2700 K |
Mass (solar) | 1.00 | 1.09 | 0.90 | 0.1 |
Radius (solar) | 1.00 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.2 |
Brightness (solar) | 1.00 | 1.54 | 0.44 | 0.00006 |
Distance (ly) | 0.00 | 4.35 | 4.35 | 4.22 |
Age (b years) | 4.6 | 5 - 6 | 5 - 6 | ~1? |
--- end quoting ---
My mistake was thinking that Alpha Centauri C was older than 6 billion
years
when in fact it is the opposite direction in age and only about 1
billion years old.
But then again Yousuf is wrong in thinking that the Alpha system is
the same
age as the Sun when it is 25% older than the Sun.
Yousuf, you must realize, don't you, that adding on or tacking on a
migration
of stars to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory only makes that theory even
that
much worse, and by no means saves it from a dumpheap.
There is something special about the reckoning of AGE of a star or
planet in the
Dirac New Radioactivities for which the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is
handicapped.
In the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, once a protostar becomes formed from
the Dust
Cloud is the starting-clock for the age of that star. So our Sun and
Jupiter according
to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory were borne the same age of 4.5
billion years ago.
However, the Sun and Jupiter in the Dirac New Radioactivities of
cosmic rays and gamma
ray burst being funnelled and focused on a special seed-dot can have
the Sun as 10 billion
years old and the Main Sequence determination giving the Sun an age of
4.5 billion years
but where the seed-dot of the Sun started 10 billion years ago.
Likewise, Jupiter could have
been totally nonexistent from 10 to 5.5 billion years ago and only
started to exist 4.5 billion
years ago while the Sun was in existence for 5.5 billion years.
This is what most astronomers have never considered for their star and
exoplanet considerations. They seem to only have the Nebular Dust
Cloud and Main Sequence
determination of ages of stars and planets.
In the Dirac New Radioactivities, the age of stars and planets takes
on a whole new
complexity of factors.
So that in the case of Alpha Centauri A and B. That one could have
been borne 10 billion
years ago and the other borne 9 billion years ago, and where Alpha
Centauri C was
borne 6 billion years ago and just made it into star status as a
"flare star" and that the
flare star of its lifespan is only 1 billion years old.
You see, with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, Alpha Centauri C is
considered as 1 billion
years old as its total lifespan and that before 1 billion years there
was nothing there. But
to Dirac New Radioactivities, that there was a planet borne 6 billion
years ago which would
slowly grow into becoming the red dwarf star of Alpha Centauri C and
only flare in its
1 billion time span as a star.
So Alpha Centauri C is much like what Jupiter will likely evolve into,
in that Jupiter is
probably already 4.5 billion years old and that in another 2 billion
years Jupiter will have
accumulated alot more of gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays and
swallowed up Neptune
and other planets so that by 2 more billion years, our Jupiter will
begin to shine as a flare
star similar to Alpha Centauri C.
So where the Dust Cloud theorists seem to have a one track mind of
birth and age of
stars and planets, the Dirac New Radioactivities theory is so wide
open in possibilities
and where the data and facts and evidence of stars and planets favor
the Dirac New
Radioactivities.
Now I wonder if I can extend Dirac New Radioactivities to galaxies as
a whole? That given
a galaxy, whether its neighbors, usually vary by 2X the age of that
given galaxy? So that the
Big Bang with Nebular Dust Clouds would predict that given any galaxy,
its neighbors should
all be uniform age. So that if the Milky Way was 10 billion years old,
that its closest neighbors
should all be about 10 billion years old if the Big Bang with Nebular
Dust Cloud is true. But if the Atom Totality with Dirac New
Radioactivities is true than picking any galaxy, its neighbors should
invariably have galaxies that are 1/2 the age of the former. And so if
Yousuf wants to
claim that "migration" is a key part of the Nebular Dust Cloud theory
would have an extremely
difficult time of inputing "migration" when the Milky Way is found to
have neighboring galaxies
that are only 5 billion years old.
spudnik
the ages of the seperate bodies in one system,
such as the stars & planets of Alpha Centauri,
should all be "of the same age" -- even if
they all formed within it?... I mean,
"born" is a rather big-bangish conception,
for such a complex, twirling phenomenon
as the n-body problem of the fomration
of system Sol.
(consider that no-one has dated samples
from the gas giants, or rocks from most inner planets,
other than possible meteorites from them!)
> | Sun | A | B | C |
> Age (b years) | 4.6 | 5 - 6 | 5 - 6 | ~1? |
> Cloud is the starting-clock for the age of that star. So our Sun and
> Jupiter according
> to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory were borne the same age of 4.5
> billion years ago.
> So Alpha Centauri C is much like what Jupiter will likely evolve into,
> in that Jupiter is
> probably already 4.5 billion years old and that in another 2 billion
> years Jupiter will have
> accumulated alot more of gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays and
> swallowed up Neptune
> and other planets so that by 2 more billion years, our Jupiter will
> begin to shine as a flare
> star similar to Alpha Centauri C.
thus:
and there's an other such person:
these generical detectors can, no doubt, be considered
to be antennae; think about it.
> This from the same person who chooses to believe a C-60 molecule
> enters a single slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being
> placed at the exits to the slits in the future (while the C-60
> molecule is in the slits).
thus:
the worshipful reliance upon all things stated
by Albert Einstein, at least until the 'twenties,
is that promoted by the British Military-educational Complex,
a.k.a. the Harry Potter PSes (Oxbridge).
however, insofar as you've gone beyond that,
it's a kind-of-interesting!
> Einstein never says the aether does not consist of particles.
thus:
it behooves one to say it "in so many words,"
to evoke some pattern of comprehension
on one's own part, instead of just "linking
to Wookeypoopeya," or Encycl.Brit., or
the compedium of the found tribe of the Wolframites. (but,
> I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that
thus:
he was referring to the matter of climate-gate,
so called, and most of the assumptions are terribly
conversant with only the last hundred years, but
with significant fudge-factors of ignoring
*every* God-am thing that is invconvenient.
there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data,
some by some sort of proxt or other,
like ice-cores, going to the 19th century
I think it is a valid question,
What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or
if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91);
today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point
of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would
have the desired eefect!
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Now I wonder if I can extend Dirac New Radioactivities to galaxies as
> a whole? That given
> a galaxy, whether its neighbors, usually vary by 2X the age of that
> given galaxy? So that the
> Big Bang with Nebular Dust Clouds would predict that given any galaxy,
> its neighbors should
> all be uniform age. So that if the Milky Way was 10 billion years old,
> that its closest neighbors
> should all be about 10 billion years old if the Big Bang with Nebular
> Dust Cloud is true. But if the Atom Totality with Dirac New
> Radioactivities is true than picking any galaxy, its neighbors should
> invariably have galaxies that are 1/2 the age of the former. And so if
> Yousuf wants to
> claim that "migration" is a key part of the Nebular Dust Cloud theory
> would have an extremely
> difficult time of inputing "migration" when the Milky Way is found to
> have neighboring galaxies
> that are only 5 billion years old.
>
--- quoting from Wikipedia on the Local Group of galaxies of the Milky
Way ---
The two most massive members of the group are the Milky Way and the
Andromeda Galaxy. These two Spiral Galaxies each have a system of
satellite galaxies.
The Milky Way's satellite system consists of Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy,
Large Magellanic Cloud, Small Magellanic Cloud, Canis Major Dwarf,
Ursa Minor Dwarf, Draco Dwarf, Carina Dwarf, Sextans Dwarf, Sculptor
Dwarf, Fornax Dwarf, Leo I, Leo II, and Ursa Major Dwarf.
Andromeda's satellite system comprises M32, M110, NGC 147, NGC 185,
And I, And II, And III, And IV, And V, Pegasus dSph, Cassiopeia Dwarf,
And VIII, And IX, and And X.
The Triangulum Galaxy, the third largest and only other ordinary
spiral galaxy in the Local Group, may or may not be a companion to the
Andromeda galaxy but probably has Pisces Dwarf as a satellite.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Now I have not begun a search on an age reckoning of those Local Group
of galaxies.
What I expect is that the age determination is based solely on the
shape of the galaxy
with a bit of the stars within the galaxy as part of a determination.
So I need to start a search for anyone who was been observing and
collecting the data
and information.
If the Local Group of galaxies were caused by a Big Bang coupled with
Nebular Dust
Cloud theory, then one would expect an overall uniformity of ages of
galaxies, stars
within those galaxies. If the Local Group of galaxies were caused by a
Atom Totality
coupled with Dirac New Radioactivities then the outcome is far
different in that one
can expect a mathematical variation of ages where one galaxy is 2X
older than
another galaxy and where stars within those galaxies also vary by 2X
in age.
And I suspect we can extend this age determination to neighbors of
Groups of Galaxies.
So that if the Big Bang were correct then those Groups would have one
solid uniform
age. But if the Atom Totality is correct, then group neighbors would
vary by as much as
2X the age of another group.
Yousuf Khan
Actually your mistake was in relying on old data. The link you posted
is dated Dec 5, 2001! In the nearly ten years since then, the accuracies
have gotten greater. As I said, all three Alpha Centauris are pretty
definitively 4.85 billion years old.
Another thing, if you look at the article you linked to, they are
talking about whether any of the Alpha Centauris are of the right
spectral type to host planets. We know by now that spectral types are
irrelevant, everything from brown dwarfs to stars are few times larger
than the Sun can host planets. So I'd say that even in 2001, this
posting was somewhat outdated, as planets were already being discovered
by 1995.
>>> Yousuf has bought into the Nebular Dust Cloud theory as also Sam. But
>>> they never really "thought out" the consequences of their steadfast
>>> belief.
>> Probably because nothing in the theory that you're so dead-set against
>> says anything about stars migrating away from their original
>> neighbourhoods. You're basically attacking something about a theory,
>> that that theory never said.
>>
>> And your proof against that theory (even though that theory never said
>> it), is equally quixotic. You keep saying that stars within binary and
>> trinary systems are of different ages, but it is not borne by the facts.
>> I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that
>> you quoted, including the Alpha Centauri trinary and Sirius binary
>> system. The stars in the trinary & binary system are all exactly as old
>> as their siblings.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Yousuf, you must realize, don't you, that adding on or tacking on a
> migration
> of stars to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory only makes that theory even
> that
> much worse, and by no means saves it from a dumpheap.
What's there to tack on? Nothing in the theory precludes it, simple as
that.
Yousuf Khan