On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 2:58:36 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

To suggest that our Sun is a leftover nucleus of a former supernova is quite an ignorant claim, for anyone can simply pick up a book about stellar evolution and learn the basics in a short time and not have to resort to such wild speculation.

You're suggesting somebody whose grasp of the most basic ideas about
how a planet rotates and orbits is several hundred years out of date
is going to pick up a book about stellar evolution?

Yeah... don't see that happening!

I look for what is good about physics but astrophysics is a junk science based on assigning dynamical relevance to RA/Dec. To the wider population that means nothing however it actually doesn't take much to show how the day and rotation is anchored to noon and everything else is built upon that including the orbital period of the Earth around the Sun.

Due to rotation, you location exits the circle of illumination (sunrise) and re-enters it a number of hours later (sunset) with noon representing that a location is midway to those events. There is nothing from sunset to sunrise equivalent to noon hence the importance of this event in determining rotation.

I can see researchers try to put together a picture of the Sun's evolution and those of supernova stars but how much respect to these people deserve when they are busy bluffing and chanting voodoo around a silly mistake made in the late 17th century by equating rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion.

The astrophysics guys live off junkets and they are welcome to them but have no sense much less feel or spirit for astronomical things.