• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Collapsing the Gravitational Collapse

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Subject: Jeans' Mass and the Great Swindle of Astrophysics.

"Gravitational collapse is the contraction of an astronomical object due to the influence of its own gravity, which tends to draw matter inward toward the centre of gravity. Gravitational collapse is a fundamental mechanism for structure formation in the universe. Over time an initial, relatively smooth distribution of matter will collapse to form pockets of higher density, typically creating a hierarchy of condensed structures such as clusters of galaxies, stellar groups, stars and planets".

1) How can a ramdom cosmic free floating cloud of gas compress itself?

Furthermore:
"A star is born through the gradual gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter. The compression caused by the collapse raises the temperature until thermonuclear fusion occurs at the center of the star, at which point the collapse gradually comes to a halt as the outward thermal pressure balances the gravitational forces. The star then exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Once all its energy sources are exhausted, a star will again collapse until it reaches a new equilibrium state".

2) Can the weakest force cause nuclear formation?
3) How can a "thermal pressure" balance gravity?
4) How can a star have "dynamic equilibrium" as it collapses in it´s end?


Lastly:
"An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy. If a pocket of gas is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. This mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.

5) Can a free floating interstellar cloud of gas have a pressure at all?
6) If a "pocket of gas" needs pressure to resist gravity, then PRESSURE is the main dynamical key and not "gravity".
7) How can the silly weak "gravitational force" overcome the much stronger atomic E&M fundamental force in a gaseous cloud?
7) How can mass depend on temperature?


In Wikipedia, the swindle terminology is just called "instability" - Jeans instability

Of course, according to the old scientific tradition of adding ad hoc assumptions and epicycles, the gravitational consensus thinkers are having no troubles finding a new assumption in order to defend the Jean Swindle - Why does the Jeans Swindle work?
 
Last edited:

Altfish

Veteran Member
According to Rationalwiki...
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille
a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans

Full entry here...
Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
According to Rationalwiki...
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille
a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans

Full entry here...
Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki
So, you too, (as Exchemist) have no factual arguments to the OP content and to Pierre-Marie Robitaille´s arguments?

Nobel disease-type crank´s comes in two types:
1) Those who critically analyzes the logics of standing points of views in order to find new solutions to long time standing cosmological problems.
2) Those who don´t think for themselves but uncritically swallows all scientific dogmas raw - and brag of it too.

3) Addition: And the cosmological cranked type who succeed to get a Nobel Prize because no one understand it enough to reject it´s nonsense. (Higgs Boson as an excellent example)
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
So, you too, (as Exchemist) have no factual arguments to the OP content and to Pierre-Marie Robitaille´s arguments?

Nobel disease-type crank´s comes in two types:
1) Those who critically analyzes the logics of standing points of views in order to find new solutions to long time standing cosmological problems.
2) Those who don´t think for themselves but uncritically swallows all scientific dogmas raw - and brag of it too.

3) Addition: And the cosmological cranked type who succeed to get a Nobel Prize because no one understand it enough to reject it´s nonsense.
I am not an Astrophysicist. I wouldn't dare to argue on a topic that I am unsure of.
However, I do always check sources. If he was a renown astrophysicist I would take him seriously, see what his colleagues are saying.
But he isn't, he is a charlatan.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Cut this out in cardboard, please.

Logic is a process in brains and some computers. It is local processes in parts of the universe. But you don't know all of the universe as only in your brain. What is outside your brain requires another process.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I am not an Astrophysicist. I wouldn't dare to argue on a topic that I am unsure of.
However, I do always check sources. If he was a renown astrophysicist I would take him seriously, see what his colleagues are saying.
But he isn't, he is a charlatan.
"Charlatans" are those who don´t consider the OP posted contents and context before naming it cranked.
Maybe you should double check your biased sources before replying? Or even better: Try to deal with the Op content here and provide som factual arguments.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"Charlatans" are those who don´t consider the OP posted contents and context before naming it cranked.
Maybe you should double check your biased sources before replying? Or even better: Try to deal with the Op content here and provide som factual arguments.

I don't have to, as long as you apparently assume that you only need logic.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Logic is a process in brains and some computers. It is local processes in parts of the universe. But you don't know all of the universe as only in your brain. What is outside your brain requires another process.
Personally I would cut out the PC as it only processes human speculations.

Logics are the norms in both the Universe as in our brains. It´s just a question of percieving the electromagnetic information in the Universe and processing it in our elctromagneticlly working brains.

"What´s ouside my brain" only request silence in order to see, hear, and feel my surroundings - even from far out in space. This is called "Intuition" - not to be confused for "instinct".
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I don't have to, as long as you apparently assume that you only need logic.

Indeed, there seems to be a profound lack of empirical evidences in the speculations of the OP. You can't make proper science without good observations.

All the questions in the OP seems fairly easy to answer too. I don't see what's so puzzling. Astronomers have also observed those phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
According to Rationalwiki...
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille
a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans

Full entry here...
Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki
Yes. The guy is barking.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Personally I would cut out the PC as it only processes human speculations.

Logics are the norms in both the Universe as in our brains. It´s just a question of percieving the electromagnetic information in the Universe and processing it in our elctromagneticlly working brains.

"What´s ouside my brain" only request silence in order to see, hear, and feel my surroundings - even from far out in space. This is called "Intuition" - not to be confused for "instinct".

No, there has never in the strong sense been a strong logically coherent model of the world so far in record human history. So far all attempts at that has failed. It has to do with the limit of the law of non-contradiction. It is only about something in a limited sense and not all of the world.
What you claim, has already been tried and it failed. Read up on logical positivism.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What? You can¨t explain anything at all without using logics. At least not to me :)

But logic has a limit. In practice that is simple:
You - Everything is logical.
Me - No!
Now if you claim that me "No!"" is not logical, then everything is not logical and and if you accept my "No!" then everything is not logical.

That is the short version of it.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
@Native:

As long as you continued to post Robitaille’s videos as your sources to back up your claims, no one will take your posts and your views seriously.

Using Robitaille as your source, a known conspiracy theorist and crank, only demonstrated the ridiculousness of your claims.

My advice...which I already know you will ignore...find a better source, preferably someone who have experiences in the fields and worked at one of the observatories or related organizations.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No, there has never in the strong sense been a strong logically coherent model of the world so far in record human history.
Excuse me: Aren´t you the one who have religion as your speciality?
But logic has a limit. In practice that is simple:
You - Everything is logical.
Me - No!
Now if you claim that me "No!"" is not logical, then everything is not logical and and if you accept my "No!" then everything is not logical.

That is the short version of it.
But this is the very long and speculative part of it which can go on forever.:)

You can´t compare objective logics with subjective examples as you and me.

I bet if I see the Sun, you see the Sun too - of course if you have your 100 % eye sight powers :)

Logics have to describe factual collective conditions - hence we of course have to use such logics in order to explain our common world.
 
Top