Exoplanets + Neighboring Stars defeats the Nebular Dust Cloud theory;(use in 4th)

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.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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.

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