Stars science say kicked out of galaxy actually coming in!

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The important point is that the model works - it correctly predicts what we would expect to see if those things were very far away and behaved according to the same physical laws that apply here.
Circular. You first assume they are that far away to get how big they are, what gravity is expected.. etc etc.

Our observations verify that these apparently very distant things behave in every way as we would expect if they really were very distant things.
Give an example.

Here is one star for example..
"

Kepler observed the star KIC 8462852 for four years starting in 2009. Typically, orbiting planets only dim the light of their host star for a period of a few hours to a few days depending on their orbit. A group of citizen scientists noticed that this star appeared to have two small dips in 2009, followed by a large dip lasting almost a week in 2011, and finally a series of multiple dips significantly dimming the star’s light in 2013.

Tabetha Boyajian, a postdoc at Yale, told The Atlantic: “We’d never seen anything like this star. It was really weird. We thought it might be bad data or movement on the spacecraft, but everything checked out.”

The pattern of dips indicates that the star is orbited by a large, irregular-shaped mass. If it were orbiting a young star, this mass might be a protoplanetary disc, but KIC 8462852 is not a young star. We would also expect to see the presence of dust emitting infrared light, which hasn’t been observed. So what is this orbiting mass? Scientists predict that whatever it is, it had to have formed recently as it would have been pulled in by the star’s gravity and consumed.

Boyajian recently published a paper offering several possible explanations for the bizarre transits. The leading theory is that a family of exocomets passed too close to the star, and were shredded into pieces by the star’s massive gravity. The remaining dust and debris could be left to orbit the star."

Astronomers Have Spotted Something Very, Very Strange Surrounding A Distant Star


Possible explanations all picked from the fishbowl.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That doesn’t make your case either ,dad
That doesn’t make your case either ,dad
I do not need an article to make my case. My case is that all your assumptions are belief based as far as the creation issues go. Your cosmological models of course are are totally faith based also. If I offer an article it is just to show the ridiculousness of your religion.

'Gee, the dimming must be due to some long gone explosion/event..that golly gee just must have happened, because based on our homo chronology derived distances and subsequent sizes and etc etc...combined with our godless demon dreams we like to pretend are science...blah blah..' Sorry, I suggest it is a sin to believe your truly insane stories. (let alone peddle them)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Here is one star for example.
It is irreverent that we are not sure what causes the light curve of Tabby's star .
KIC 8462852[1] (also Tabby's Star or Boyajian's Star) is an F-type main-sequence star located in the constellation Cygnus approximately 1,470 light-years (450 pc) from Earth.[2] Unusual light fluctuations of the star, including up to a 22% dimming in brightness, were discovered by citizen scientists as part of the Planet Hunters project. In September 2015, astronomers and citizen scientists associated with the project posted a preprint of an article describing the data and possible interpretations.[1] The discovery was made from data collected by the Kepler space telescope,[1][6] which observed changes in the brightness of distant stars to detect exoplanets.[7]
This is not a detection of exoplanets around KIC 8462852 :doh:!

We have detected many actual exoplanets by this and other methods.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
From your list.

"Stars exist thus time does not stop.
  1. It takes time for light to escape from a star and travel from the star to us."
No one said time stopped. If time does exist out there nothing about stars existing says time is the same as here...obviously.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is irreverent that we are not sure what causes the light curve of Tabby's star .

This is not a detection of exoplanets around KIC 8462852 :doh:!

We have detected many actual exoplanets by this and other methods.
Your so called planets are of unknown size and distance.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,184
9,196
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,157,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your headline is misleading and mischaracterises both the study and what the researchers are saying about their results.

From the abstract of the study:

To search for unbound stars, we then focus on stars with a probability greater than 50% of being unbound from the Milky Way. This cut results in a clean sample of 125 sources with reliable astrometric parameters and radial velocities. Of these, 20 stars have probabilities greater than 80 % of being unbound from the Galaxy. On this latter sub-sample, we perform orbit integration to characterize the stars’ orbital parameter distributions. As expected given the relatively small sample size of bright stars, we find no hypervelocity star candidates, stars that are moving on orbits consistent with coming from the Galactic Centre. Instead, we find 7 hyper-runaway star candidates, coming from the Galactic disk. Surprisingly, the remaining 13 unbound stars cannot be traced back to the Galaxy, including two of the fastest stars (around 700 km s−1 ). If conformed, these may constitute the tip of the iceberg of a large extragalactic population or the extreme velocity tail of stellar streams.
The study looked at 20 stars - seven of them (35%) were heading out of the galaxy, the remaining 13 (65%) were heading inwards.

So, the study found both what it expected to find (stars moving at high velocity away from our galaxy) and not what it expected to find (stars moving at high velocity towards our galaxy).

Nature throws up surprising results. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that the scientists were surprised, as this information about inbound high velocity stars was well published about 19 months ago, at the University of Cambridge.

Nice info! Welcome to CF.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,889
11,884
54
USA
✟298,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Parallax involves time and space.

I does not NEED to involve time at all. Your brain use parallax to simultaneously observe using two eyes to view the same object and estimate a distance to the object. This is why humans have depth perception. (I am assuming that you have two functioning eyes and functioning binocular vision.)

Astronomical parallax need not involve time shifts either. Two satellites could be placed in opposite positions in a solar orbit (for example one a quarter orbit ahead of the Earth and the other a quarter orbit behind) and simultaneously observe the same star field and once the images were combined determine the distance using parallax.

Because the stars return to the same relative positions after a full, annual orbit, observing from the Earth at opposite points on the orbit is equivalent (and cheaper).
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I does not NEED to involve time at all. Your brain use parallax to simultaneously observe using two eyes to view the same object and estimate a distance to the object. This is why humans have depth perception. (I am assuming that you have two functioning eyes and functioning binocular vision.)

Astronomical parallax need not involve time shifts either. Two satellites could be placed in opposite positions in a solar orbit (for example one a quarter orbit ahead of the Earth and the other a quarter orbit behind) and simultaneously observe the same star field and once the images were combined determine the distance using parallax.

Because the stars return to the same relative positions after a full, annual orbit, observing from the Earth at opposite points on the orbit is equivalent (and cheaper).
Wherever satellites or the earth is...time is right there also, of course. Name anyplace in the solar system where space exists independently of time!!? ALL parallax measure involves some point here where time exists, and the line is drawn out to stars as if time also existed there the same! Proof?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Wherever satellites or the earth is...time is right there also, of course. Name anyplace in the solar system where space exists independently of time!!? ALL parallax measure involves some point here where time exists, and the line is drawn out to stars as if time also existed there the same! Proof?
Add geometry to the list of things that dad does not understand.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
No one said time stopped..
You still do understand that your unsupported time fantasy allows anything to happen including time stopping. The first item of 2 is a lower bound on your unsupported time fantasy - time does not stop in the real world. The second item of 2 is an upper bound on your unsupported time fantasy - time does not go at extreme rates in the real world.

2 items of empirical evidence showing time (and physics) is not extremely different outside of the Solar System and 18 (out of maybe millions) items of empirical evidence that time (and physics) is the same outside of the Solar System as it is inside
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Parallax involves time and space.
Still ignorant about parallax and his unsupported time fantasy.
As he has been told many times: Parallax involves time inside the Solar System, e.g. the 6 months between terrestrial measurements. His unsupported time fantasy is about time outside the Solar System :doh:.

Parallax is about geometry (space) outside of the Solar System. His unsupported time fantasy is about time outside of the Solar System :doh:.

Parallax does involve Euclidean space (flat spacetime). He is free to add the obvious delusion of magically curved space time to his unsupported time fantasy to may it into an obvious delusion. He wants the paths to the 1.3 billion stars we have parallax data for bent by whatever magic that is only in his head so far.

The geometry of the real universe is scientifically known - that of GR where it is masses that curve spacetime. This is physics that has been tested throughput the universe from Earth to merging black holes and bending light billons of light years away. For example, it would be totally ignorant to state that the observations of hundreds of Einstein rings as predicted by GR are inside the Solar System or even the Milky Way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Your so called planets are of unknown size and distance.
Exoplanets are real, and have measured distances to their stars and sizes making that statement abysmally ignorant. It would be a delusion to state that exoplanets do not exist. Methods of detecting exoplanets - there has to be something blocking light from stars, making stars wobble or in telescope images :doh:!
List of directly imaged exoplanets

It is abysmally ignorant to state that we do not measure the distances to stars. Years old?, unsupported time fantasies from one person do not change the real world. Those time fantasies are irrelevant to the fact that exoplanets exist no matter how far away their stars are :doh:.

It is abysmally ignorant to say that exoplanets sizes are not measured: Calculating Exoplanet Properties.
 
Upvote 0