Collapsing the Gravitational Collapse

[Native]

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

Beware of what words you´re typing here. ***MOD EDIT***

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.

Well, if you don´t understand what Robitaille are talking about, then just go ahead and comment on the Wiki part of the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Excuse me: Aren´t you the one who have religion as your speciality?

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.

But you and I are in the world and a part of it, right? Wait, I get it now. You are not in world and you are not real as you are not in the common world, you are an individual. So you are so unreal that you are not even human because you are subjective and only the objective is real and logical.

No, I am a skeptic. I doubt all of these attempts to find the right/true/correct/logical and what not claims of "Everything is reducible to X as a category" if I can do non-X. That is what makes me a skeptic. I don't hunt for truth and all that. I find false.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

As pointed out: gravity.

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?

The gravitational collapse causes an increase in pressure and temperature. If things get hot and dense enough, nuclear reactions start.

So yes.

3) How can a "thermal pressure" balance gravity?

Pressure is a force per unit area. Gravity is a force. They are pointed in opposite directions, and so balance.

4) How can a star have "dynamic equilibrium" as it collapses in it´s end?

The collapse is fairly slow. That's why it is a dynamical equilibrium.

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?

Molecules bounce against other molecules.

6) If a "pocket of gas" needs pressure to resist gravity, then PRESSURE is the main dynamical key and not "gravity".

Actually, it is the balance between the two.

7) How can the silly weak "gravitational force" overcome the much stronger atomic E&M fundamental force in a gaseous cloud?

We've been over this many times. E&M tends to cancle out because it has two polarities that occur in equal amounts. Gravity only has one aspect: attraction, so it adds up.

7) How can mass depend on temperature?

Until the temperature involves relativistic velocities, it doesn't.

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?

Too bad it is supported by the evidence. And the EU is not.

 

[Native]

But you and I are in the world and a part of it, right? Wait, I get it now. You are not in world and you are not real as you are not in the common world, you are an individual. So you are so unreal that you are not even human because you are subjective and only the objective is real and logical.

Nice tried indeed
As I said earlier:

But this is the very long and speculative part of it which can go on forever.

No, I am a skeptic. I doubt all of these attempts to find the right/true/correct/logical and what not claims of "Everything is reducible to X as a category" if I can do non-X. That is what makes me a skeptic. I don't hunt for truth and all that. I find false.

And how can you succeed in all this without using the noble art of natural philosophical logics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nice tried indeed
As I said earlier:


And how can you succeed in all this without using the noble art of natural philosophical logics?

I don't use natural natural philosophical logics as if they are universal for all cases in a positive sense. I treat logic as a human behavior, that has limits like any other human behavior.
If you suspend judgement on whether logic is universal and not, and then test it, you will find that logic is limited.
If you don't accept that logic is limited, then you end up with the joke that the illogical is real unreal, yet it is real that humans are illogical in some cases.

That is all!

 

[gnostic]

***MOD EDIT***

Robitaille is a crank and conspiracy theorist.

Charlatan or nutcase...that too.

My points are that no one here think he is reliable a reliable source, except you.

35 years I probably would believe in such nonsense that Robitaille sprout today, only because I was ready to believe in all sorts of craps masquerading as science, but years and experiences have demonstrated that pseudoscience are just trash.

I have already watched one Sky Scholar’s video that I have seen twice that you posted up, and it was full of errors and dishonest rubbish, so I am not going to waste more time watching any more of Robitaille’s videos.

Like I said, you need better source, preferably not more cranks.

Why are sprouting so insistent with trying to force us to watch more of Robitaille’s rubbish videos?

As you keep posting Robitaille, no one is going to take your threads and your claims seriously.

 

[Native]

As pointed out: gravity.

And when and how does your "gravity" descide to pull a free floating cosmic cloud of gas together?

The gravitational collapse causes an increase in pressure and temperature. If things get hot and dense enough, nuclear reactions start.
So yes.

OK, so you have the weakest of fundamental forces to overcome the much stronger E&M forces?

Pressure is a force per unit area. Gravity is a force. They are pointed in opposite directions, and so balance.

Sounds reasonable to me that the concept of pressure (more than) balance the assumed "gravity".

The collapse is fairly slow. That's why it is a dynamical equilibrium.

So a star collapses slowly in an (unbalanced) dynamic equilibrium?

Molecules bounce against other molecules.

Not unless acted upon by external forces. Newton said this too, yoiu know.

I said:
7) How can the silly weak "gravitational force" overcome the much stronger atomic E&M fundamental force in a gaseous cloud?

We've been over this many times. E&M tends to cancle out because it has two polarities that occur in equal amounts. Gravity only has one aspect: attraction, so it adds up.

Yes, and it STILL seem that you define E&M only by it´s principle equations to run only in cables and in weaker magnets and ignore the dynamic cosmic influence everywhere. (The old history of approving the EM and rejecting it to do notning - as consensus gravitationalists do)

Too bad it is supported by the evidence.

So you didn´t understand what Robitalille spoke about?

And the EU is not.

There you go again with your E&M cables and magnet definitions. No wonder that consensus scientists have filled the observable Universe with 99 % of darkness.

With no electromagnetic light, it´s all darkness.

 

[Native]

I don't use natural natural philosophical logics as if they are universal for all cases in a positive sense. I treat logic as a human behavior, that has limits like any other human behavior.
If you suspend judgement on whether logic is universal and not, and then test it, you will find that logic is limited.
If you don't accept that logic is limited, then you end up with the joke that the illogical is real unreal, yet it is real that humans are illogical in some cases.
That is all!

Now I better understand why you are a skeptic

 

[Polymath257]

And when and how does your "gravity" descide to pull a free floating cosmic cloud of gas together?

No decision is being made. Gravity is attractive. ALL mass attracts ALL other mass. The amount of attraction depends on the amount of mass.

Easy.

OK, so you have the weakest of fundamental forces to overcome the much stronger E&M forces?

Already addressed.

Sounds reasonable to me that the concept of pressure (more than) balance the assumed "gravity".

Both are required. It is the balance or imbalance between the two that determines whether collapse occurs.

So a star collapses slowly in an (unbalanced) dynamic equilibrium?

Yes.

Not unless acted upon by external forces. Newton said this too, yoiu know.

Wrong on both counts. Molecules in a gas collide with each other. That is what pressure *is*.

I said:
7) How can the silly weak "gravitational force" overcome the much stronger atomic E&M fundamental force in a gaseous cloud?

Yes, and it STILL seem that you define E&M only by it´s principle equations to run only in cables and in weaker magnets and ignore the dynamic cosmic influence everywhere. (The old history of approving the EM and rejecting it to do notning - as consensus gravitationalists do)

No, I do not. But E&M is ultimately based on charged particles. The effects are opposite for positive and negative charges, and so tend to cancel when there are equal numbers. Thi sis the case in all electrically neutral materials.

So you didn´t understand what Robitalille spoke about?

Actually, yes, I do. And he was badly wrong. He didn't even understand the basics.

There you go again with your E&M cables and magnet definitions. No wonder that consensus scientists have filled the observable Universe with 99 % of darkness.

With no electromagnetic light, it´s all darkness.

And how much force does light produce? I assume you have to withstand the huge force from your light bulb?

 

[Altfish]

"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.

Yes Sir!

What do you not understand about "I am not an astrophysicist"?

 

[Native]

Easy.

Explain "gravity" logically and dynamically before you assume it to work everywhere in all kinds of superstitious ways.

 

[Native]

Yes Sir!

What do you not understand about "I am not an astrophysicist"?

So WHY on Earth are you participating in this OP?

Is it just in order to be insulting or what?

 

[Polymath257]

Explain "gravity" logically and dynamically before you assume it to work everywhere in all kinds of superstitious ways.

Why?

It is an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the masses and to the inverse of the square of the distance. That, together with F=ma, is enough to deal with the classical description of gravity, which is quite enough for gas clouds.

Now, if you get to *really* large masses, you have to move to the relativistic description. But that isn't necessary here.

 

[epronovost]

Gnostic, you don´t fool me at all, as you don´t have a single independent and critical thought in your cosmological life.



.

That's a fallacious appeal to novelty. Can you provide an rationnal argument as to why @gnostic is wrong?

 

[Altfish]

So WHY on Earth are you participating in this OP?

Is it just in order to be insulting or what?

I spotted it in the "Science v Religion" section, it looked interesting and as usual I checked the source. That's why I posted in case others didn't know this man's reputation.

 

[Native]

It is an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the masses and to the inverse of the square of the distance. That, together with F=ma, is enough to deal with the classical description of gravity, which is quite enough for gas clouds.

This isn´t an explanation but just a dogmatic description of assumptions. You just as well could "explained" "gravity" as "God".

 

[Native]

That's why I posted in case others didn't know this man's reputation.

Dear oh dear! This isn´t a gossiping thread so just get out of it!

 

[Altfish]

Dear oh dear! This isn´t a gossiping thread so just get out of it!

Calm down. It is a forum

 

[Native]

Calm down. It is a forum

Let me get this clear:
1) You don´t know what Pierre-Marie Robitaille are talking about.
2) Still you´re parotting what dogmatic consensus thinkers mean about him?

This is pure gossiping and nothing else so just get out!

 

[Polymath257]

This isn´t an explanation but just a dogmatic description of assumptions. You just as well could "explained" "gravity" as "God".

It is a description of how gravity works. What more do you want?