Talk:3222: Star Formation

This entire process is unconfirmed and needs citations. ^{[citation needed]} 66.154.219.128 20:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if you're serious... but I rewrote some of the things that might have prompted this comment. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The something that ionized the gas clouds is presumably the star that formed. No second deity needed. 74.76.189.192 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I dispense with that bit. What you obviously have here is a non-omniscient creator (or shaper-of-the-universe, at the very least) who is surprised by how things turn out when they had a much simpler (or at least different) idea of how things should have proceeded. I'm reminded of The Science of Discworld (once the Dean twiddles his fingers in the proto-Roundworld, and then the wizards discovering that things just like becoming spheres more than they expected) or perhaps something where a desired result went awry due to unforeseen external factors. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Is Randall a believer in Stupid Design? Barmar (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I was actually factually thinking about stellar constitutionality at formative stages last night. Like couple days ago i explained big bubbles theory to a person on Blue Sky. Gives me headswirls to envision ( attempt ) alternate density temporal flow size constants. Cool! AskShea (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2026‎ (UTC)

The explanation states that this is a simplified model blown to an absurd extreme, but I thought that this was a mostly-accurate model of how astronomers have theorized the universe’s structure came to be. Am I wrong? I am confused. Logalex8369 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)