Dear Thierry,

Thank you for replying to my question. Your knowledge is very specialized and it sounds plausible to me even though I have to look up some of the terminology. For example, I thought that sunspots were ephemeral, except that they can affect hi-tech communications. My knowledge of electromagnetism is also sparse, so whatever I can glean from your detailed explanation is a big step forward.

The article I mentioned appeared quite a long while ago, but I located remnants of it easily. I appreciate your skepticism about it. Now, at least you have some documentation, which I copied and paste, as follows:

"Published: 05 July 1974

Was Jupiter the protosun's core?

• E. M. DROBYSHEVSKI

Nature volume 250, pages 35–36 (1974) | Download Citation

Abstract

THE differences between Jupiter and conventional stars are apparently due solely to its small mass. Therefore in looking for possible means of formation of the Solar System it is natural to attempt to establish the origin of the Jupiter–Sun binary system. The other planets could be just a by-product of the evolution of this system.

References

Nancy Ann Watanabe , Nancy, It's consistent that the sun and planets (etc) are all formed from matter last re-ionized at about the same time, and far more recently that the supposed 'Big Bang', long shown inconsistent, as now confirmed by Planck.

The idea I had in mind was that Jupiter was the core of the proto-sun and that the current planet Jupiter is the body that remained after the proto-sun gave off its outer layers to formation of the Sun, which then subsequently became a new star that succeeded proto-sun or binary star Jupiter-and-Saturn, which conferred to the new young star, our Sun, gravitational governance over all of the planetary and lunar bodies that comprised the ensuing formation of the solar system as we have come to know it. This idea may be stated in procreative terms, as follows:

In evolutionary systemic terms, Jupiter held the patrarchal crown, along with a proto-body of Saturn, and their "marriage" or "merger" by a catalytic agent packing power to contribute electromagnetic and gravitational, strong force and weak force, new energy created new matter that created a newborn star, the Sun.

No, The Sun formed from a molecular cloud 4.6 billion years ago. The gas giant Jupiter formed after that using gravity to accumulate gas and dust particles,

Nancy Ann Watanabe , I'd never disparage an idea if backed by empirical findings, data or phonomenology. It is however important not to cloud those consistent effects with others lacking those attributes. Dibyendu Sur , gives the doctrinal view, which is very often badly wrong, but in this case scores far higher then the '2 sun' hypothesis in terms of the criteria above - unless that is you can present or identify a significant tranche of evidence I'm unaware of?

@Peter Jackson, Your article entitled "Sub-matter Higgs Condensate in Discrete Bounded Fields" certainly contributes impetus to my line of thinking because it suggests to me the sort of concrete scientifically verifiable factual terminology and data necessary for present-day corroboration and extension of scientists' hypotheses which the 1974 letter in Nature, updated in 1996, references.

The following linked paper contains some recent NASA data about the solar system that could be useful for this discussion and also provides a dialectical view of the solar system, in opposition to one-sided view of both Newton’s universal gravitational attraction and Einstein’s “Free Fall”. It presents the view that all comic structures (of various scales) are temporary (in cosmic scale) formation defined by two primary opposing tendencies, one of coming together due to gravitational attraction and the other of “flying away” due to “Absolute Free Motion” of any point particles; mediated at any time by blind chance and a dialectical necessity inherent in chance itself. Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

By whatever mechanism the solar system came into being, the NASA data indicate that this structure is fluid and is in some sort of dynamic equilibrium, with some planets in acute situation for change in the future, while there are evidence that others like Neptune changed it relative position from the sun in the relatively recent past and others might be in relatively stable orbits. The orbital eccentricity and escape velocity seem to be a measure of stability; so from this point of view, Mercury and Pluto seems to be more vulnerable to change in their position. Jupiter being the most massive and with the highest escape velocity; though in a low eccentricity orbit, might have (like “Jumping Neptune” ) changed its position relative to the sun.

@Peter Jackson,

The hypothesis that Jupiter was the agent during a big explosion catalyzed by excitation of photon-anti-photon activities on an astronomical scale, resulting in transport of H and He to the young Sun, with excess gaseous matter spun off into bodies forming into Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, along with a residue of solid smaller bodies forming Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, along with a belt of asteroids ("star fragments"), this concept of the 1960's and 1970's and renewed in the 1990's, now needs empirical proof, which is necessarily based on analogy in telescopic searches for phenomena that may appear to duplicate cosmic and solar creation. But my question elicits input based on sub-atomic physics of photons, which are primary and antithetical hermetic phenomena that do not synthesize, and therefore, are a paradigmatic model that helps to explain big bang theory and solar system formation. Is not Jupiter older than the Sun, which has a different DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid helix)?

Best regards,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Thierry De Mees, thank you kindly for the wonderful link, which enables me to better understand your theoretical approach to the creation of the eight planets, which is unique, being different from other phenomena. From what I gather, your evidence supports the idea of a static Sun as the site of an explosion. (1) It would be easier for me to think about your idea if you were using the word "stellar" instead of "solar." I'll tell you why: before the explosion, the Sun contained matter that subsequently formed all 8 planets, thus was still a solitary Star. (2) Another impediment to my thinking about this is my lack of knowledge about the relative amount of energy required for an explosion to create the solar system, on one hand, and on the other hand, the amount of energy required for a catalytic body to strike the Sun, or Star, causing it to spin with sufficient force to hurl 8 planets into different orbits around it. In other words, I now view your theory as concentrating on a key "moment" in a more prolonged process in Solar System development. Thanks for your patience. I'll read and reread your book to learn more. Sincerely, Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Nancy, Immanuel Kant’s brilliant “Nebular” hypothesis for the first time pointed (even though not in content but in essence) to the dialectical idea of the evolution of the cosmic bodies and the general dialectical idea that things not only exist in space but evolve in course of time. This revolutionary idea goes against the age-old perception still held by official natural science that everything in the world from the galaxies to man was created (or was destined to be) “perfect in itself” through a single act of creation. Thus, two exactly opposite views about the origin, the evolution and the formation of galaxies and other cosmic bodies are prevalent in modern cosmology.

The first one, which is mainly based on mathematical idealism and is generally accepted; views galaxy and other cosmic body formation as deterministic and an essentially unidirectional condensation of diffuse matter created through a single primordial explosion (The Big Bang) about fifteen billion years ago. The second view, based on (limited) observational and empirical evidence asserts a rather intrinsic origin of galaxies, where new galaxies are formed from material ejected and/or dissipated from the core of existing galaxies and views the universe as infinite, eternal and ever-changing:

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Empirical evidence (even the most recent ones), about the stellar systems points to their dialectical evolution from galactic clouds (nebulae) to proto-stellar disks to the final planetary forms:

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-disk-young-protostars.html

For dialectics the formation of cosmic structures involves two opposing tendencies in a contradiction as long as the structures exist. These structures are always transitional of various time scales. One tendency is for the bodies to come together through gravitational attraction (that Newton and Einstein recognize), the other tendency is for the bodies to “fly” away (which Newton and Einstein do not recognize, hence there is no contradiction for them) because such bodies have (according to dialectical view) “absolute free motion” active at all time. Any temporal structure formation of any duration, size, shape, characteristic etc. are in a contradiction of these two opposing tendencies and is mediated by blind chance, but with an iron necessity inherent in chance itself and is mandated by the laws of dialectics. The contradictions in dialectics undergo various stages of development and are resolved only when the structures cease to exist.

Nancy Ann Watanabe , Thanks for your kind words. As Thierry & Abduls comments suggest there are many hypotheses of solar system formation. I'd little studied the one you refer, which is interesting, so thanks for flagging it up. I don't dismiss any such hypothesis out of hand.

However my main astronomical work is more on galaxy formation and cosmology, so far more fundamental, and indeed rewarding, i.e. a new cyclic galaxy evolutionary sequence has emerged, implying a cyclic cosmology, published in this overarching joint paper you may also like; Research A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS (Published HJ 2014)

Dear Abdul Malek, As a scholar who has spent many challenging and enjoyable hours reading Kant in the University of Oklahoma Libraries, including the special History of Science Collection, I share your admiration for Immanuel Kant's treatise on the formation and evolution of the Solar System in his Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, which has amazing staying power because of its reliance on pure reason. Edgar Poe spoofs Kant in his treatise on Eureka: On the Material and Spiritual Universe. Poe, who is known for his ratiocination in crime detection fiction, worships Newton, and, as I assert in several of my scholarly articles and my book on W. B. Yeats, anticipates Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Many thanks for the links to more contemporary scientific research. Cordial regards, Nancy Ann Watanabe.

Thierry De Mees

But more importantly, you say the Sun; " cannot get this spin without having another star having an opposite-spinning direction." So lets re-think that. i.e. Which 'way' do we 'see' it spinning? Left? Right (L/R)? Clockwise? Anti-clockwise?(C/A). OK, it happens to be R-A, from HERE!

BUT a star with an 'opposite spin' would NOT mean it spinning in the other directions! - shockingly;; ALL stars have that opposite spin, plus the same spin of the sun! Simply observe it from some other point in space - north can become south and depending on 'which way up' you happen to be, left will become right. Or; simply take the sphere and rotate it 180 degrees with NO change in spin direction!

So it's quite wrong and misleading to suggest two suns with OPPOSITE SPINS are needed. That's a very homocentric view. All spheres have the SAME spin action, and it's just a case of orientation with respect to the observer, and the orbital plane, with polarity and linear momentum orthogonal in magnetude.

That may seem possibly trivial but it's far from it.

PS; I entirely agree with the emission 'swirl', touched on in this video, also on more important matters and implications, but observe that like spheres and Maxwells linear and 'curl' momenta, gravity and magnetism have a more tenuous orthogonal realtionship; http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs

Thierry De Mees

All rotating spheres are identical. What we 'find' depends entirely on how we look at them. That is a massively important understanding we habitually miss, which leads to the classical derivation of QM predictions.

It also means that there is no problem whatsoever with there being an 'opposite spin' version of the sun, ALL stars are such. Our local Sagittarius arm contains thousands!

However the 'nebula' (your term) helicity of our arm (yes, it rotates) is balanced by the opposite helicity of the opposite arm (there are 2 pairs, which are Chiral) so no 'nearby' opposite star is needed anyway. Do you now see my point?

Also; why do you assume the sun's spin axis dictates the orbital plane of the solar system as opposed to the whole body (heliosphere) dictating the axis of the sun?

@Abdul Malek, Congratulations on your extraordinarily learned 2016 article in the History of Astro-Physics!

Venus and Neptune spin in a somewhat clockwise direction, Venus is upright but Neptune spins on his side with the equator at a virtual 180 degree angle relative to the flat plane of the Solar System, consistent with the Milky Way galaxy. All of the other six planets, including three solid rock planets dependent on Solar heat and gravitational pull and three gaseous wanderers orbiting independently along the perimeter spin counterclockwise.

Thank you Dr De Mees for the simple yet clarifying answer

Thierry De Mees

@Thierry De Mees-I like the way you explain in detail and with step-by-step clarity, especially on page 36 of your 2011 book, the success of Einstein, and why some RG scientists speak as though he had become outmoded. Could you please confirm my impression that Newton's gravitation and laws of motion are valid today as ever with respect to the great bodies in the solar system; Einstein's relativity is valid and built on Newton, thus enabling Russia, U.S., and China to use probes, robotics, and space crafts with unprecedented mathematical accuracy and precision to Venus, Saturn, Mars, even beyond Neptune into interstellar deep space; currently, the new frontier is engaged in solving the mysteries of light and motion, problems with which Newton and Einstein also grappled, emerging triumphantly with ground-breaking benchmark discoveries applicable on an extraordinarily grand scale? In contrast, myriad contemporary scientists are collectively contributing to relentless pursuit of countless sub-microscopic and super-telescopic revelations accessible thanks to Newton, Einstein, et al.? Most respectfully yours, Nancy Ann Watanabe

NAW> " …please confirm my impression that Newton's gravitation and laws of motion are valid today as ever with respect to the great bodies in the solar system; Einstein's relativity is valid and built on Newton, thus enabling Russia, U.S., and China to use probes, robotics, and space crafts with unprecedented mathematical accuracy and precision to Venus, Saturn, Mars, even beyond Neptune into interstellar deep space; currently, the new frontier..”

It is true that this is the prevailing popular impression; but in my view a gross exaggeration! Newton’s theory is mostly valid but still a gross approximation, Einstein’s theories are of no use or superfluous for space crafts or even for GPS, touted by apologists of official science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories

All spacecrafts need real-time remote manipulation to reach the expected target or to perform correctly. How much remote manipulation and fine-tuning is necessary is exemplified by the recent crash of the Indian and Israeli ventures for the moon!

@Abdul Malek - The main point of my statements is that Newton and Einstein both discovered ways to express mathematically and formulaically how the solar system is geared to work. My secondary point is that Newton and Einstein both solve questions and thereby remove barriers to mechanistic understanding thus enabling scientists to make scheduled predictions about where planetary bodies will be located in space and time with perfect accuracy. The tertiary point addresses limitations, including Newton and Einstein are mechanistic and therefore utilitarian, like Renaissance voyagers from the Old World to the New World. Currently, in my opinion, mathematically expressible science is reconnecting with the Third World, where it all began, so to speak, when ancient philosophers practiced pure mathematics and pure science, coordinating their direct empirical observations of the celestial firmament with their architecturally designed conceptions of, for example, plane and solid geometry, trigonometric functions, calculus, etc., without concerning themselves with material gains, utilitarian profits, political opinions. // My condolences to people who suffer, yourself included, from, as you say "the Indian and Israeli ventures" to the moon, which I did not know about until I read your reply. At present, I am unable to respond to your question and I ask your forgiveness. I can tell you that the scientists who discover the laws of motion in the solar system and the electromagnetic and mathematical solutions can only do their jobs and are not at all answerable for the results that occur, positive or negative, when those who lay claims to their legacies, including "venture" capitalists, attempt to use them. Sincerely, Nancy Ann Watanabe

Nancy Ann Watanabe

I am sorry if I have perturbed you. What you are saying is the normal thing; this is what is taught in colleges, universities, in books, lectures, video talks, like the one I linked to above of the British physicist Brian Cox etc. In other words, you are representing the mainstream, official view including the position of most formally trained physicists.

The problem lies with me, because I am a heretic and reject the position of mainstream scientists! It is because unlike most people who are based on the world view of causality; my world view is based on materialist dialectics or in short Marxism. I make conscious efforts to extend and to employ dialectical mode of thought and epistemology in physics (published books, journal articles, comments in public forums like RG etc.), specially in the realm cosmology and quantum electrodynamics. I am the infamous (and much despised) antagonist of Einstein’s theories of relativity in RG and elsewhere; because for me these are not scientific theories, but are metaphysics and mysticism promoted by official science, monopoly capitalism and theology, as their ruling ideas of this epoch! I hope this statement is not the greatest shock of your life! You would probably get more of it if you only read some of my works and my last set of comments; if not all the comments in following long running RG forum by my friend Wolfgang Engelhardt and preferably also the first quarter of the second-linked forum below, initiated by me:

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

I made the comment (quoting your statement) only because unlike many people with whom I have discussion in RG; I could detect (in your previous comments directed to me) a keen but raw and probably a spontaneous but powerful philosophical sense in you; but not necessarily a dialectical one.

Regards, Abdul

Nancy Ann Watanabe , That's a good approximation, more precisely 'obliquity' (polar /orbital axis angle) averages over 30% ('increasing ' slightly in the 10yrs to 2010). But you must take the point I made to Thierry (or tried to!); There is no 'UP' in space. That means we can't arbitrarily assign 'clockwise/anticlockwise' rotation as ALL planets have 'both ' rotations, equally!! Astronomers in our southern hemisphere (rotating clockwise) may be insulted by that limited 'homocentric' view ignoring their validity!

We need to specify from which angle we're observing. We CAN assign 'north' to the suns anti-clockwise spin (as ours) then specify that viewpoint. We make hidden assumptions which may SEEM trivial, but they're not. I've shown how that particular one, and rotational speed change rate 'Cos latitude', leads to a consistent classical derivation of QM! https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

Back to the solar system & gravity, much of Thierry basis is consistent with data, and the analysis in my own papers, however I've pointed out some of his analysis gets highly inconsistent with data; i.e. morphology and stellar ages etc. in galaxy evolution, which is a shame.

The problem is the same throughout science, once most of us publish something we tend not to try to falsify it but argue it to the hilt, taking us 'out of the game' of objective open minded advancement. It's difficult not to. I'm very open to your hypotheses re Jupiter, yet need a lot more consistent data to be convinced!

@Thierry De Mees, With regard to your 2011 book, which seems like a textbook you may have used or offered as a required course text intended primarily for students in classrooms and / or classrooms without walls, I call attention to it because it seems more like a formal traditional standard treatment of the more complex intricacies in science, supported by detailed explanations of mathematically expressed statements. But your 2016 book appears much more speculative in its marshalling of evidence for a creation theory that I am still trying to comprehend relative to my understanding of Jupiter's relationship with the Sun based on my readings of your 2016 text in the light of pre-1990s articles. At this time, I do not see a clash; rather, your analogical explanation(s) focus on "sunspot" and "explosion" as a first cause explanation for the birth of the Solar System. My question topic emanates from my different perspective on the "pre-natal" origin, ascribed to a catalytic event involving proto-Jupiter, which, as Peter Jackson observes, still remains to be supported by data. His concern is, then, primarily with evidence, proof, data, which I appreciate because I have a modicum of faith that any discussion / argument presented here I may one day in the not-too-distant future be able to benefit from so as to resolve my Jovian patrarchy view. Of course, it may well be that the niceties of the questions in the issues being raised by Peter Jackson are too highly specialized for Researchgaters! With my very best wishes to all, Nancy Ann Watanabe

Following the answers

Ancient Jupiter: Gas Giant Is Solar System's Oldest Planet. View of Jupiter's south pole created using data from NASA's Juno spacecraft. The gas giant's core had already grown to be 20 times more massive than Earth just 1 million years after the sun formed, a new study suggests.12‏/06‏/2017

Abdul Malek - Thanks for disclosing your Marxist advocacy, which helps a good deal! Although it is not obvious, dialectical thinking may be seen to emerge as a factorial in my question, which seems to differentiate my perspective from Thierry De Mees's sunspot theory. In my view, Jupiter is the "thesis" as a star forced by an external catalytic agent (antithesis) to give most of its H and He outer shells to the new star (synthesis). Translated into Marx's social class theory, Jupiter as a capitalist star underwent a revolutionary overthrow by a body with larger mass, possibly, analogous to the working class, and in the exchange of elements, including subatomic matter, the Sun emerged as a uniformly "classless" body," analogous, let us say, to Cuba after the Cuban Revolution. Is this plausible? Sincerely, Nancy Ann Watanabe

I think birth is convergent as it is one zero moment. Maybe morphology is different. The earth is changing every day. No day looks like the other

Peter Jackson - Thank you for your open attitude toward my question, which suggests that Jupiter is the oldest heavenly body in the solar system. This notion was precipitated by the overarching question given by Thierry De Mees, whose creation of the planets seemed "scalar," in contrast to "vector" presentations in about a dozen articles by astrophysicists I was reading while I was researching and writing about William Butler Yeats's theory of human history and personalities (see A VISION, by W. B. Yeats, 1925; 1937), based on the 28 phases of the moon. // With regard to your comments, your denial of an existential "up" seems false, because all 8 planets spin virtually upright, except Neptune. Also, all 8 planets spin in the same direction, regardless of observational standpoint, with the exception of Venus and Neptune, which spin counter to the other planets, and, in this respect, spin in the same direction as does the sun. // Observations of distant galaxies appear motivated by a quest for a secular, maybe even theocentric, quest for a scientific holy grail that will redeem us all, i.e. models of suns just like ours. With my very best wishes, Nancy Ann Watanabe

@ Maged Gumaan Bin-Saad - I thank you very much for contributing new information based on the exploration of Jupiter's south pole by the Juno expedition. // I am astonished by your statement that l million years after the sun was formed, Jupiter's core "had already grown" twenty times more massive than Earth. It is common knowledge that Jupiter is the most massive celestial body in the solar system. I am interested by your statement that Jupiter's core got bigger. // I will greatly appreciate it if you reply again to the question with an internet link or any titles of an article, chapter, or book, in other words, your source because I am planning to incorporate my statements about Jupiter in a comparative literary analysis in a paper I am revising and updating, which I wrote a while ago. I would like to document my paper; it'd be helpful to have your link, so I can read it. // Thanking you advance, Nancy Ann Watanabe

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Your representation of both dialectics and Marxism if taken seriously would be a gross vulgarization of both! Materialist dialectics is intensely rational and is really a science; mush better than that based on causality which has always been the main pabulum of natural science and continues to be so, even after the quantum phenomena has undermined it severely. In fact, beyond everyday life experience and classical mechanics in terrestrial Nature, causality can give us only very limited positive knowledge at best but mainly mystery and fantasy, because beyond certain limit causality leads to a mystery of “first cause”, like the “Big Bang” origin of the universe; which is a mystery. This is the reason why the extension and development of physics to the macrocosm of the galaxies and the microcosm of the quantum world has brought the crisis in physics that we see today. The epistemology based on causality is ill equipped to deal with these developments.

The dependence on mathematical idealism since Albert Einstein has made the situation much worse and has given a despicable sense of certainty and arrogance by the physicists unmatched in the history of natural science. They talk with so much confidence as if they are giving an eye-witness account of the cosmic objects and processes. If “thought” is an abstraction of reality, then idealized mathematics is the abstraction of the abstractions. Idealized mathematics contains no contradiction and can be extended without limit to absurdities. This approach is prone to deception. GR started as pure thought and phantasm, in time in turned to fakery and with claims of "experimental proofs”, it is now pure fraud!

For dialectics we can only know the past, things and processes that went through historical evolution that has brought them to the present. Without empirical facts and knowledge of the development that has brought the thing to the present; we can say nothing about it. Our knowledge of the solar system is still very poor. The chemical and isotopic constituents and other factors of the various planets and the sun, for example is essential to see whether they have a common origin. It is meaningless to make definitive assertions and wild speculations without basic facts, the reason why I do not wish to say much on these things beyond generalities.

As far as the solar system is concerned, there are indications that stars and their planets, including star clusters evolve within gaseous nebula and hence may have common inheritance. From that point of view, it is natural to assume (following the dialectical nebular speculation of Kant) that Jupiter is a part of the proto-planetary disc (within a nebula) from which the solar system came to being. It is of course possible that a wandering and fully formed Jupiter was captured within the solar system after it was formed. But without concrete empirical evidence, mere speculation based on limited knowledge is counterproductive.

To emphasize the importance of history for dialectics, I quote below from “The German Ideology” by Marx and Engels: “We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist”.

@Abdul Malek - (1) I agree with your post-Kant statement that "Jupiter is a part of the proto-planetary disc (within a nebula) from which the solar system came to being;" (2) I thank you for the quotation from "The German ideology" by Marx and Engels that "We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist," which forestalls some of my objection to your view of GR as "pure thought and phantasm"; is SR not part and parcel of GR?

Dear Thierry De Mees:

I thank you very kindly for your extended explanations, which you recently have narrowed to "galaxy evolution," a topic of hot contention between Peter Jackson and you, under a different rubric. You will perhaps understand my bewilderment in asking about how you define the words "fainting" and "curl" in the paragraph in your most recent reply to my question: " Regarding the galaxy evolution, I agree that for galaxies in which the energy is fainting, we can have an inverse evolution than what I propose. . . ." Since my interest in these matters is as a textual analyst of integrated themes of creation theory drawn from science and imaginative literature traceable to Moses's Genesis, I tend to stumble over familiar words to which scientific writers and editors attribute specialized meanings.

I look forward to clarification (definitions) at your convenience!

Yours sincerely,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

P.S. Researchgate (RG) closed my personal RG account, alas, and so I am left with my persona as an author, which is tied to my identity of (professional) student. My personal identity is tied to my research aimed toward my classroom teaching. Aside from editors of prestigious academic journals, however, most editors address emails to my Christian (first) name), and vice versa. I appreciate your patience, and understanding!

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry / Dr. De Mees:

Please accept my belated "thank you" for the opportunity to post a question which is something of a sub sub-topic. Suddenly, I realize that your original question pertains to galaxy creation. I remember seeing the word "editor" in your profile, so that was my incentive for clicking "question" with the result that this one question of mine has gotten far more replies than the sum total replies to all of my other questions and answers, combined!

I guess that my specialty of pattern recognition and analogical parallelism made me think that submitting a planetary question subsumed under your galactic question is like placing an article in a collective publication.

With gratitude and humility,

Nancy / Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Nancy!

Reality is determined by matter as the only objective existing and not by ideas and wishful thinking. Natural science is the recognition of all the different parts of the reality. Therefore we have to stay in every natural resp. exact science on a materialistic position.

All the observations of the galaxies and also of the particle world lead to the conclusion that the universe exist in eternal cycles of matter. Matter has two manifestations: As energy (or energetical matter) and as material matter (the only acknowledged form of matter). Both forms can transform into each other by annihilation and pair production.

The galaxies are centres of the material-energetical transformations. We observe a constant energy production but periodically happens in the centre of every galaxy a gigantic explosion (see the extinctions of life on earth!). The energy condensed to material matter out to the periphery an formed new stars and cluster of stars with their planetary systems. It is most likely that within a solar system only one central star arised. The great gaseous planets arise by collecting of the lighter elements which are blown away by solar wind if the sun ignites. All planetary systems must have a similar sequence of planets. Jupiter arise simultaneously with the solar system.

My Regards! Hans

As you know I have collected some reasons of cosmological processes in this paper.

Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...

Nancy Ann Watanabe , You need to take one more large 'step backwards' outside the box to see and understand my point on there being no 'UP' in space. You still assume North as 'up', as most do. But that's a homocentric view. i.e. If you lived in Syndey you'd find many maps where SOUTH = 'UP'!

Maybe the best way to understand this is to imagine yourself looking 'down' on the solar system from what you presently think of as 'underneath', so looking down at Earth you're seeing Australia and the south pole, rotating clockwise (+ charge). There is NO REASON in astronomy or otherwise why we should use one or the other, or indeed which way up WE are in space! so 'UP' and 'DOWN' are entirely invalid as absolute concepts, only ever 'relative' so arbitrary.

That non-subjective way of thinking is far more important than most would immediately understand. That 'straight jackets' our thinking. Now looking at the solar system from the 'south' side we can see that, despite WIDE obliquity (axial angle) MOST planets do indeed have the SAME hemispherical orientation, i.e. we SEE mainly clockwise rotation, which we can as well, and just as wrongly call in the 'shorthand' that blinds us; 'UP'! I've found teaching students that difference, and objective NOT subjective or homocentric thinking, as early as possible to be very valuable in their intellectual development.

For your immediate purposes we should then say most have the 'SAME' or COMMON axial polarity not OPPOSITE or 'antiparallel', THEN obliquity (how 'upright') as a seperate measure. Otherwise we'd need to properly specify 'LOOKING FROM' one side or other, which is more tricky; i.e. "viewed from the side of suns anticlockwise pole".

That issue gets ever more important both up and down in scale, i.e. for galaxies and clusters etc, and for particles.

Thierry De Mees

Peter Jackson - I appreciate your clarification because, before, you said "UP" does not exist, and it turns out that your exercise in perspective is good. "Down Under" is unique, of course, and I am also reminded of Lewis Carroll's Wonderland, in which a mirror complicates perception of distance and nearness.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt - Your mosaic of observations is kaleidoscopic! Extinctions of species on Earth were not caused by explosions because an asteroid collision impacted dinosaurs similarly to volcanic eruptions Krakatoa and Mt. St. Helens, similarly to what is rapidly encroaching on Earth in the form of catastrophic meteorological events (9.0 earthquakes, 180 mph hurricanes, 1.5 Fahrenheit rise in global temperature, disappearance of South Pacific islands and sea coasts, flattening of the Sahara Desert by monsoon winds/rains spawning typhoons in the Bermuda Triangle and upward on the Atlantic seaboard of America, etc.). Sincerely, Nancy Ann Watanabe

@ Nancy Ann Watanabe

NAW> "is SR not part and parcel of GR?"

Yes, very much so, because both are essentially based on thought - one on uniform motion (SR) and the other (GR) on accelerated motion (EEP, acceleration ~ gravitation or "Free Fall"). Einstein claimed that he was unaware of Morley- Michelson (M-M) experiment proving constant velocity of light (the axiomatic premise of SR). Please see my very recent comments in the following RG forums:

Article Characteristics of Light: Velocity, Massless Energy, and Spe...

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

Nancy Ann Watanabe, Thierry De Mees

Thierrie's 'faint' is also a non scientific term and doesn't exist as he suggests. Relative 'Luminoscity' has particular sources and is most ALL about distance, but also size etc. As galaxies evolve they get 'redder' as the stars age, NOT 'fainter!'. His 'bulge', and stars 'collapsing' are also alien to the massive archive of very precise data on galaxy types and morphologies.

But the MASSIVE importance of that orthogonal momenta pair is revealed in this classical derivation of QM predictions. It was entirely missed in Bohr's analysis of 'conjugate pair' morphology, which he carefully avoided! The pair also emerge in the Poincare sphere. The 'no up in space' thinking is also impotant here. Think of Bob and Alice, Which 'way up' might they happen to be? The same?

If you're familiar with QM you may understand this fqXi finalist essay explaining the physical process (also see my papers on it archived on RG if you wish). https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

Quantum physicists of course run & hide before studying it, but the independant computer code and plot verifying it is here; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3014

Dear Nancy Ann!

I don't follow the mainstreamscience.

The earth was 5-7°C colder only 12000 years ago without catastrophic effect on life on earth. The stupid(?) Neanderthals have survived earlier and colder glacial periods. The earth was in history temporarily much warmer than today. Volcanic eruptions are restricted locally and also catastrophic meteorological events. Have You heard about the prompt return of life at St. Helens? Have you ever observed a garden after a heavy storm how the plants are rise from the dead? An asteroid collision is dramatically but not all around the world.

But if day and night over years intense radiation hits the earth than life is ill-equipped. In the history were explosions in the centre of our galaxy which have extinguished more than 90% of animal and plant species.

Just now was an explosion observed in the centre of our galaxy. Let's hope it's a small ones.

Sincerely, Hans!

Abdul Malek - Regarding " . . . Dialectical Contradictions": Are you suggesting that the existence of God may be partially perceptible in an infinite point, like a photon, that is a dialectical opposite to the "black hole," where gravitational pull makes black matter bend, spin, and gather momentum to spiral into a massive core while liberating light photons, i.e., The highest concentration of Light is as much without mass as the highest concentration of Matter is lacking in light? Regards, NAW

Thierry De Mees

So NO! 'fainter' doesn't work as you assume. You need to understand luminoscity functions, older star spectral evolution and 'reddening' as well as redshift and blushift, and where and when each is found to derive precisely why.

Same story with 'new' stars, and yes, all stars have an 'age', or finite 'life' in any state. (Our suns is estimated at another ~6bn years before a postulated red giant phase, and/or possibly brown dwarf. Only a few Nova.) New stars are very rare in older galaxies (blended discs becoming 'SO' Lenticulars, THEN with the growing axial bulges) with just one specific area of exception, which is NOT as you describe and assume, but solely at the 'head' of the polar outflows prior to building to full blown quasar jets. (and YES the polar outflows have opposing helicity!!)

Then you ask; "Isn't a bar galaxy actively displacing stars from the old disc to new positions at the edge of the bar?" NO it is not!! You must take care what you read!

The outer ends of the bar (which shortens over time) are the fastest moving through the ISM and THAT is where most new stars propagate in an open and closing spiral, with SOME, but quickly reducing propagation at the leading edges towards the centre. There's no 'displacement', which WOULD be found if it existed. The logical analysis being the bar doesn't just 'trail' the arms but 'creates' them, all nice new (very BLUE) ones! (That's problematic for certain inconsistent theories, so helps falsify them).

The more 'windings' the galaxy has the older (redder) the stellar population but that does NOT correlate with 'fainter' as there are so many other factors which affect luminoscity more!

The gravity polar 'curl' variation is fine and fits well, as I identify in various papers including it's source.

I cant give you a whole fresher course in a blog Thierry, indeed much of it is masters or PhD level. If you refuse to 'data mine' yourself (I don't blame you!) then please don't just dismiss those who have for long careers and try to help the better aspects of your work not to be just dismissed!

Hans-G. Hildebrandt - Global warming of 1.5 C. this year is wreaking havoc in many parts of the world though not everywhere, you are right and yes I viewed a documentary displaying springtime on Mt. St. Helens. But the asteroid that brought about the extinction of dinosaurs probably by starvation enshrouded Earth and was not delimited to the collision site. However, I am puzzled by your stating that explosions at the center of the galaxy destroyed 90% of life--are you referring to the irradiation of Little Boy and Fat Man? I infer the meaning of your reply and I agree: God is good. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Ann Watanabe

Thierry De Mees

Including such nonsense is entirely unnecessary and only serves to devalue the valuable parts of your work. I've given you my specialist advice based on decades of research, which you can ignore & insist you know better if you wish, but if so I suggest your papers will be entirely ignored.

On gravity curl, if you recall my own work I suggest ALL energy is fundamental rotations, so describing Eulers helices on any displacement, certainly including gravity. But EM and Gravity remain orthogonal to each other, subtly but importantly different, which is what, shockingly, also produces the classical solution to QM (the orthogonal momenta pair of the Poincare spherical rotation).

I think it's a great a shame you headed off into areas where your research is totally inadequate rather than focus more precisely on the key aspects. But in the final analysis beliefs rule for most, so I know we must do what we believe is correct and suffer the consequences when in error.

I don't know what you mean about "loosing energy". You clearly haven't read carefully and understood what I wrote. All energy is CONSERVED, it just transfers between scales by the condensation process of larger rotations, gravitational gradient being the result. Consider a 'dark energy continuum' with NO matter. Just spin up ONE vortex pair, and the energy density around it is reduced until the pair annihilates. It's a perfect balance.

Nancy Ann Watanabe: "But the asteroid that brought about the extinction of dinosaurs ..."

This is an assertion caused by ignorance about the variety of cosmological processes which are influence the earth and in particular the most sensitive form of existence on earth, the life. The irradiation of Little Boy and Fat Man is in the sum negligible compared to the radiation achieved the earth from sun annual or especially from a galactical bang if happens.

"Global warming of 1.5 C. this year ..."

You can be sure that nobody would notice if the next year would be 1,5°C too cold. In an article could be read that the 'global warming' take a break since about 20 years.

We have to save our environment and the resources of eaerth and not to make hypes à la Greta T. What do you mean about the bomber fleets which are constantly in the air? About the increasing low-cost flights around the world? About the population explosion in certain countries? All peoples have a right on the same living conditions. But the base of living conditions is limited.

I can assure you that I am also concerned about the future of the mankind.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt - - I would like to support "But the asteroid that brought about the extinction of dinosaurs" with citation in today's Republic World online:

The asteroid crash impacted the planet in a manner equivalent to the strength of 10 billion nuclear bombs. Widespread wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis are believed to have broken out, releasing chemicals into the atmosphere that led to severe cooling. Most scientists estimate that this was the reason for the extinction of more than 70% of the plant and animal life, including dinosaurs.

My statement about "Global warming of 1.5 C" as a significant event is a known fact to our suffering fellow human beings who are homeless in the South Pacific because ice cap meltdown flooded not just their homes but their entire islands. Would you care to retract your refutations of my two assertions?

Sincerely,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Nancy Ann Watanabe: I would call the citation in today's Republic World online as Mainstreamscience. The clerics warned in the Middle Age in a similar manner against the end of the world.

I share your fears only partially. The earth was not createt by any invented God for a save life for mankind. It arised within the eternal cycle of matter besides sun, Jupiter and all the countless chelestical bodys. We know about dramatically changes in the earth history. We must fear that there will be a disastrous turn par example a new glacial. Climate research showed us that every new glacial was starting with a short period of global warming ...

An asteroid impact of the size of "10 billion nuclear bombs" would have left his marks very clearly. It would have penetrate the lithosphere and local melting process would be observable.

I remaind also the fact that no sunspots are visible. Possibly a cause of a change of the solar constant.

Thierry De Mees

But it's your prerogative Thierry. We must all conduct science in our own way.

(PS, Just so you know; stars have NEVER been observed to 'merge'. A few are getting excited over a pair that it seems just might in the next 100yrs!)

Thierry De Mees

On the matter of stars merging or collapsing, I looked to the Internet for colliding and I chose several statements that tend to indicate why I asked the Research Gate sub-question reflecting my researched belief that Jupiter is our sun's original proto-sun, as follows:

“A series of stellar collisions in a dense cluster over a short period of time can lead to an intermediate-mass black hole via "runaway stellar collisions". Any stars in the universe can collide, whether they are 'alive', meaning fusion is still active in the star, or 'dead', with fusion no longer taking place.” Mar 2019

“Two stars can collide and become one star. The outcome, that one star, depends on the two colliding stars and the way they collide. Two stars can also collide and become two different stars.”

“A lot of different things can happen if 2 stars collide, depending on the size and type of the stars, and the angle an velocity of their collision. If the stars are relatively small, they may merge to form a single star (usually ejecting a lot of material forcefully in the process).

Reference: www.quora.com/What-happens-when-two-huge-stars-collide

Also I saw part of a television program by Jacques Pepin who explained basic elementary facts about uranium. Strangely enough, what I learned reminded me of Peter Jackson's ideas about momentum toward balance giving rise to a transmutation-like sequel and also of Thierry De Mees's ideas about sunspot explosion: since uranium, even thorium (strontium?) is so full and unstable.

Cordial regards,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Ali A. Al-Homaidan , The first task learning physics is escaping all old 'belief'. i.e. Would that be all the trillions of billions of planets or just our local few? And 'a day' on which planet? indeed how could we know how long "a day" was on each until AFTER a planet was created with some rotation rate?

But if the cyclic galaxy model is correct based on quasar jet re-ionisation then it is indeed quite possible that the MATTER to be reconstituted as our own solar system was ejected by the AGN within a few days. But it doesn't take much study of other jet matter columns and open spiral galaxies to see the rest of the star & planetary formation process takes around a billion years or more.

Nancy Ann Watanabe , quaora.com isn't a reliable source. I'm asked a dozen questions a day and often choke on the nonsense opinion in answers I see!

It's the same on the web generally, more in astronomy than ANY other branch of science! We can search for ANYTHING and find someones uncorroborated ideas, false reports or misinterpretation of scant findings. That includes about ALL the words you quote above!

I rely almost solely on actual data from probes and instruments I ensure I understand. Even most 'interpretation' in the best quality papers of top journals, MNRAS, AJ etc, need largely to be ignored as they're mostly based on flawed mainstream assumptions and old beliefs, logically and empirically inconsistent. Einsteins estimate of what we 'know' or understand may be optimistic; "1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed".

Fact is we almost never FIND stars 'colliding'! So called 'neutron stars' are stellar scale toroid AGN (i.e. study the Crab nebula core pics and data). That toroidal dynamic DOES accrete matter, but only very rarely close with other stars, and even then mostly binary systems result (population studies unequivocally show).

But having said that, I confirm I agree the theory you subscribe to is interesting, and its far from 'ruled out', but I've failed to identify anything close to it nearby. The excellent flood of Gaia data will help in that.

Peter Jackson and Thierry De Mees

Thanks for your guidelines, even though I am much less critical of mainstream science than you are. The notion of stars colliding does seem bizarre, but I have done some reading about binary star systems.

Recently, I looked at an article written by Mark S. Rogers, who appears to be working on his doctoral thesis. The article's title is " An Inflationary Cosmological Model and Derivations of Eigenstates for Potential Quanta Transport out of an

Expanding 2-D Singularity Folded Surface ".. I still have a long way to go before I can even begin to understand the math. Can you tell from the title if this is in your field(s) of knowledge and / or expertise?

Nancy Ann Watanabe , Indeed it is, but it's typical of the abject nonsense some non-eminent professors encourage students to waste time doing a PhD on. The very mention of 2D, 'singularity' OR 'inflation' reveal the flawed starting assumptions, and of course it'll be ALL reliant on maths, which my top peer scored 2015 fqXi essay identified is also clearly and logically wrong!

They tend to just ignore all the data conflicting with that worn out old theory! Look up what ESA Planck mission head Jan Tauber said about that old cosmological model; "clearly..fundamentally wrong.."

My own mentor was Freeman Dyson, a brilliant mind by comparison to that mass of low level academics.

Peter Jackson

Thank you; your answers are helpful to my understanding why I am interested in the work done by Rogers (not a Ph.D. student but an independent researcher). As a mainstream science sympathizer, I am glad to know it is a "worn out old theory." Even though my math is really rusty, I see merit in the expository prose and I feel comfortable reading highly specialized articles from my experience teaching courses for science, engineering, business, social sciences, and education majors. From what you say about "that old cosmological model," it makes sense that I gravitate toward a contemporary manifestation of it because of factors extrinsic to, possibly even at odds with, science. When I joined Research Gate in July 2018, I soon realized that I have a philosophical belief in Ptolemy! Reason tells me Copernicus put us on the pathway to "scientifically verifiable truth."

I am appreciative of your ability to educate, i.e., lead me out of ignorance. It seems my notion that Jupiter is the proto-sun core is about as "worn out" as the concepts of 2D 'singularity' and/or 'inflation'! Knowing this is a big leap ahead. With gratitude,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Since fossil fuels and global warming have been a topic in this thread, I share with you all a link to an article in today's Physics World, as follows:

According to an article in today's Physics World, climate scientists predict that we will be experiencing worldwide drought due to the 1 degree C. rise in global warming each year. Specifically, this means that, already nobody has been paying attention to climate scientists and others who are sounding the alarm that human society is going to pay a price for maintaining lifestyles like frequently flying on commercial jetliners and aiming for three-car per family car ownership and other fossil fuel burning activities. Thus, there will be a worldwide drought that will result in a 50% decline in wheat production worldwide. We will not be able to continue eating 4 to 6 slices of bread as recommended by USA nutritionists, but, at best, be reduced to eating only 2 to 3 slices of bread per day. Since I eat the prescribed amount of bread (I am allergic to rice), and I have always managed to live and work within walking distance, only infrequently using public transportation, and I take scientists' discoveries very seriously, I post the following link for the Physics World article:

https://physicsworld.com/a/drought-may-hit-half-worlds-wheat-at-once/

Thierry De Mees

Thierry De Mees

Article Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models

By the way, according ancient vedic astrology, Jupiter is considered as the Guru/teacher of the solar system and Guru is normally considered the oldest in the solar system.

Thierry De Mees

Both direct air measurement and ice core trapped atmosphere show CO2 concentrations were lower at all time for thousands of years.

With regard to Jupiter, it seems that scientists are fascinated by the discovery via a fly-by of Juno that Jupiter's magnetic field is undergoing "secular variation."

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/jupiter-magnetic-field-secular-variation/

As I understand it, this Jovian phenomenon is happening independent of "sunspot" activity. Since I am interested in finding evidence that Jupiter is the primeval core of our Sun, would a comparative study of "secular variation" on Jupiter relative to "secular variation" on the Sun qualify as pointing to at least valid evidence that Jupiter was once a star that allowed the Sun to grow as a result of transference of massive amounts of matter and energy to the Sun which took over through the process of accretion the role of "fathering" the solar system?

With regard to CO-2 and Earth's oceans, according to a NOVA documentary that aired yesterday, scientists who are concerned to study the effect of increasing CO-2 on plant life, including coral reefs, and biodiversity, including plankton on which all other oceanic life forms, including whales, feed, are observing the impact of CO-2 from industrial waste produced in fossil fuel burning. The key factor is that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide during the past four years causes lower pH levels, which means increased acidic levels in ocean waters, which has greatest visible impact on shell fish, including oysters, which require higher pH levels to develop properly, i.e., to grow their shells, which have normally been rich in calcium carbonate. Studies by scientists conducting experiments also reveal that higher carbon dioxide levels affect the brains of fish, which can no longer perceive dangerous predators because their brains are malfunctioning, which is experimentally evidenced in tests of two different sets of fishes: (1) fish inhabiting normal pH level waters; and (2) fish inhabiting low pH and highly acidic waters infested by high carbon dioxide levels. These fish detect dangerous predators through their sense of smell. Group (1) fish choose a path into a corridor (made by the scientists) infused with normal pH water, while Group (2) fish choose a path into corridor (made by the scientists) infused with low pH, high acid water. The conclusion is that neurologically damage caused by too much carbon dioxide results in Group (2) fishes seeking their own destruction, i.e., not only do they choose the toxic acidic path, they exhibit risky behavior as they engage in a frenzied search to meet head-on with the predator whose scent both Group (1) and Group (2) detect; however, Group (2) takes the safe path, while Group (1) takes the unsafe path. A second experiment similarly demonstrated this finding, i.e., that too much carbon dioxide triggers unsafe behavior, such that the lethal levels of carbon dioxide acts like a drug that leads to a fatal cycle that is, ultimately, self-destructive. By implication, this scenario is obliquely linked, possibly, to a related analogy, i.e., humanity may well be traveling a path that runs parallel to that of those giant earthlings of yore: dinosaurs. Did not dinosaurs grow extinct directly as a result of starvation, indirectly as a result of a gigantic cloud that enshrouded Earth in the aftermath of a collision with a rather large asteroid? It looks like Earth, now dominated by humanity, is moving toward a metamorphic linkage with Venus, caused by combined forces of the Sun and Humanity. Perhaps the redemption of the human race lies in the direction of Mars and Jupiter.

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

There seems to me to be a correlation in the chart plotting amounts of carbon dioxide on Earth, during the past 600 million years, between the amount of ice on Earth and higher (or lower) carbon dioxide levels. In other words, it may be a well known fact, or not, that carbon dioxide is more prevalent in colder regions, such as Earth's polar ice caps, than anywhere else. This might be the reason why scientists (please see my reference to a scientific experiment conducted by oceanographic biologists above) are finding increasing levels of carbon dioxide, which is impacting the oceanic food chain, from plankton to whales, i.e., the ice caps are melting. Perhaps your intention is to be witty and / or ironically humorous when you observe to Henrik Rasmus Andersen that "CO2 levels in the past . . . were MANY times higher (factor 10 and more), without harming any life"!! Unless I am missing some vital information, perhaps from samples of microscopic life forms found during the process of carbon dating in the Arctic, the reason that high carbon dioxide levels did not harm any life because there was no life to speak of during the Ice Ages! Similarly, putting 2 and 2 together (= 4), are you trying to suggest that the oceans are not directly impacted by fossil fuel burning because increased levels of carbon dioxide in the oceans may be traced to the carbon dioxide rich Ice Caps melting? And so, in order to prove that fossil fuel burning is causing increased levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's oceans, it will be necessary to provide scientific evidence that fossil fuel burning is the primary and direct cause for the Ice Caps melting? However, one of your specialties is solar activities (explosive events, sunspots, etc.) and I wonder if you would attribute global warming, whether now or in the historic past, to the Sun? // Sincerely, Nancy

Henrik, Sun is older

Thierry De Mees

Thierry De Mees

Thierry De Mees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

@Thierry De Mees

Is it plausible to compare the current possibly pre-extinction epoch to the epoch that immediately precedes the Late Cambrian Extinction on your graph? This question of mine arises from my description of scientific experiments conducted by oceanographic biologists who are discovering that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are lowering pH levels and raising acidic levels thereby causing shellfish, e.g., oysters, specifically oyster baby embryos to perish during the shell formation phase of their normal development because they are unable to obtain adequate calcium carbonate in the highly acidic ocean waters. When I was a geological sciences student, I learned that the living organisms that became extinct during the Cambrian epoch included creatures that had shells as their natural protection against the elements. The pattern I see on your chart is that pre-Cambrian shellfish thrived during a decline in carbon dioxide, which roughly approximates the gradual decline in carbon dioxide during the past millions of years that precede what your chart indicates the present era, which is the start of a rise in carbon dioxide presumably from both natural solar system coronal cooling and electromagnetic heating, on one hand and on the other hand, man-made plundering and burning of Earth's otherwise pristinely preserved fossil record of historic events and catastrophic occurrences such as those graphically presented in your chart.

Best,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

@Thierry De Mees --- Thanks for correcting my misperception regarding the extinction graph. I agree with you that volcanic eruptions cause way more destruction (from the perspective of inhabitants who are in the path of lava flows) than carbon dioxide. However, it seems that, in spite of benefits rendered to life forms by carbon dioxide, e.g., in combination with the sun's beneficial rays, like Vitamin D, allowing photosynthesis to take place (even in the ocean depths, such that the probable extinction of oysters will likely be a trade-off for millions of miles of green grass growing as a carpet covering the sea floor), unless environmental management saves the day, if carbon dioxide runs rampant, it has an insidious, invisibly working potential to cause unhappiness. In my opinion, even though humans do not have much power to make sweeping changes, I subscribe to the notion that the world of nature is not the problem, i.e., after Mt. St. Helens erupted, the flowers and forests revived even more lush and abundantly than ever. Viewed in this perspective, I remain of the opinion that radical changes in our ecological environment like climate change and global warming should be better managed, and if carbon dioxide proliferation is a tiny part of a larger trend toward destructive exploitation of nature and humankind then it deserves the attention which is already being devoted to it internationally.

Best wishes,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Thierry De Mees

As for whether I'd be willing to pay more taxes so as to save oysters from extinction, I won't "beg the question" by stating the truth as a reply, i.e., I am allergic to seafood. My answer is that if it were a proven fact that the current irreparable damage baby oysters are suffering is a clue to the extinction of the human race, yes, I would pay taxes to try to help reduce man-made destruction of the ocean populations. But if I choose between my own life and weigh it against savin the life of any member of the animal kingdom whatsoever, I will most certainly not choose an animal. Thank you for asking, Nancy Ann Watanabe