[K.Margiani (OP)]

Answer is in the think:- http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original:- http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/IsotopesTellSunsOriginOperation.pdf
This is Revolution and sensation in the Astronomy of XXl century

Please Rewrite and send for your friends

[ukmicky]

.

Answer is in the think:- http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original:- http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/IsotopesTellSunsOriginOperation.pdf
This is Revolution and sensation in the Astronomy of XXl century

Please Rewrite and send for your friends

I dont like posts that contain nothing but links with no reference to the webpage they take our members to.  A quote or two from the article showing the relevance to the topic should always if possible accompany any link. Failing that a few lines detailing why the poster has felt the need to share would be good especially when the article we will be viewing contains many pages.
 
However on this occasion as i dont know enough about star formation and ame unsure what to make of the links and rather than make a judgement call and delete them i will consult my fellow mods and wait for some replies from those with better understanding before any decision is taken.

[Soul Surfer]

The information presented in these pages also presents a highly non standard view of the universe and is not to be trusted as accurate

[K.Margiani (OP)]

There are many wrong data and researches about formation of stars dear opponent.
Stars are not forming into nebulas! There are not “embryonic stars”. They are activated stars. Stars are gravitated remnants of exploded stars (light, heavy, super heavy elements and admixtures). This is source of additional huge spot masses (light, heavy, super heavy elements and admixtures) and additional rapid glowing variation. Because it is alike of an “Embryonic star”…

http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2003-06a2.jpg

Look attentively at the picture. You can find enormous hole in the nebula (remnant of a star).
Ok. I’ve believed the old scientific fairy-tale about formation of a stars.
Ok. Star is formed in the hole.
Why other parts of nebula exist still?
Why still are not formed stars there?
This is observational evidence for open minds only?Where is truth?
COSMOGEOLOGYCAL (or modern cosmological) EXPLANATION!
Rapid expanding Shell of an exploded star has different velocity Relatively of nearest  surrounded stars.
The shell could cross nearest star and formed enormous hole.
Of coarse star has gravitated surrounded nuclear cloud and created the hole.
 For open minds I’ve proved that – The stars are not formed into nebula!

Where the stars are forming in the galaxy? Where is the parent star?

There is only one main space coordinate in the spiral galaxy. CENTRE!!!

[Soul Surfer]

This is a load of total rubbish for several reasons.

firstly it does not agree with the conventional theory of star formation which is well modelled and fits with  physical laws as currently understood

Secondly the explanation contains no clearly stated physical evidence why this idea should be a more likely process than the currently favoured physical model.

Finally It tries to trash other serious scientific work calling it a fairy tale for no good reason.

K margiani's last post just reads like a crank who is looking at pictures and deliberately finding alternative explanations for them just to make himself look more important (or a fool) or to annoy the people who really understand these things and try to fool those who are just learning into the wrong ideas and processes in science.  This is not a genuinely scientific hypothesis.

[syhprum]

Although I sometimes enjoy the free and easy attitude to ideas on this board I sometimes wish there was some kind of peer review.

[K.Margiani (OP)]

I've written; This is observational evidence for open minds only.

I'm fighting for young generation of scientists. You are feeding the young generation by the old scientific fairy-tale for decades!

 

GOOD BYE!