Collapsing the Gravitational Collapse

[TagliatelliMonster]

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


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

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

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

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?

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)

So you didn´t understand what Robitalille spoke about?

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.

"gravitationalists". Excellent.

You know you are dealing with nonsense when people feel the need to turn support for a scientific model into an "ism".

We see the same behavior in creationists who talk about "evolutionists".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

There's nothing dogmatic about independently verifiable and testable models.

 

[Native]

"gravitationalists". Excellent.
You know you are dealing with nonsense when people feel the need to turn support for a scientific model into an "ism".
We see the same behavior in creationists who talk about "evolutionists".

If you would take this OP and my references seriously, we could have a real debate instead of your - and others - personal muddy name calling posts and lack of respect, which frequently derails the threads.

 

[Native]

There's nothing dogmatic about independently verifiable and testable models.

Then explain Newton´s "gravity" as a real force - which even Einstein failed to conclude.

After your attempt to explain "gravity", we can have a discussion of the gravitational assumptions et all and what is evidences or biased interpretations and further ad hoc assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

If you would take this OP and my references seriously, we could have a real debate instead of your - and others - personal muddy name calling posts and lack of respect, which frequently derails the threads.

Why should your sources be taken seriously? What qualifications do they have? Given that they spout clear non-sense, isn't the best tact to simply admit they are fools and find a better resource?

The conclusion that they are cranks and charlatans is *because* of what they say. Their statements are directly contradicted by the facts, and yet they still insist that they are correct. *That* is what makes them cranks.

Why give them respect when they do not deserve it?

 

[Polymath257]

Then explain Newton´s "gravity" as a real force - which even Einstein failed to conclude.

After your attempt to explain "gravity", we can have a discussion of the gravitational assumptions et all and what is evidences or biased interpretations and further ad hoc assumptions.

Gravity is a force that is proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is a 'real force' with those properties.

And those properties are ALL that is required: they allow predictions of new observations that are then verified. In those cases where there are discrepancies, it is because something has been left out (say, Neptune).

You keep asking us to 'explain' gravity and then reject it when the explanation is given.

What more do you want?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you would take this OP and my references seriously

Your "references" are the equivalent of citing Ken Ham or Kent Hovind to argue against an established science like evolutionary biology.

It can not be taken seriously by any minimally educated person.

, we could have a real debate instead of your - and others - personal mud castings which derail the thread.

It's not mud slinging. It's rather pointing out quackery. Which is perfectly legit as a response.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then explain Newton´s "gravity" as a real force - which even Einstein failed to conclude.

After your attempt to explain "gravity", we can have a discussion of the gravitational assumptions et all and what is evidences or biased interpretations and further ad hoc assumptions.

@Polymath257 already provided a proper testable description and you handwaved it away.

 

[Native]

Why should your sources be taken seriously? What qualifications do they have? Given that they spout clear non-sense, isn't the best tact to simply admit they are fools and find a better resource?

The conclusion that they are cranks and charlatans is *because* of what they say. Their statements are directly contradicted by the facts, and yet they still insist that they are correct. *That* is what makes them cranks.

Why give them respect when they do not deserve it?

I otherwise thought you were well occupied of this relevant question and problem:

Beside ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, you´re also violating your guru´s first law: Newton's laws of motion

"The first law states that an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force".

What about agreeing with your favorite guru before posting opposite arguments just for the fun of it?

But now it seem that you too are joining the frustrated mob who acts emotionally when being questioned.

Gravity is a force that is proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is a 'real force' with those properties.

And those properties are ALL that is required: they allow predictions of new observations that are then verified. In those cases where there are discrepancies, it is because something has been left out (say, Neptune).

You keep asking us to 'explain' gravity and then reject it when the explanation is given.

What more do you want?

Real explanations in stead of superstitious apple-assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

I otherwise thought you were well occupied of this relevant question and problem:

Dealt with. A cloud of gas is NOT a 'single object'. As such, the forces generated by one part can act of other parts.

But now it seem that you too are joining the frustrated mob who acts emotionally when being questioned.

It's not an emotional reaction to point out that someone is clearly ignorant of the basics and is spouting nonsense.

Real explanations in stead of superstitious apple-assumptions.

And what would that look like, according to you?

I *gave* the 'real explanation'. You rejected it.

 

[Native]

It's rather pointing out quackery. Which is perfectly legit as a response.

I have to agree in this, as this is excactly the cause why I´m dealing with much of the consensus speculations

 

[Native]

Dealt with. A cloud of gas is NOT a 'single object'. As such, the forces generated by one part can act of other parts.

You´re SO inconsistent. In all other circumstances you´re having atoms to be particles and as lots of atoms in a cosmic cloud consists of small objects, you STILL need an EXTERNAL FORCE to set the entire cloud in motion.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re SO inconsistent. In all other circumstances you´re having atoms to be particles and as lots of atoms in a cosmic cloud consists of small objects, You STILL ahve an

Exactly. A gas cloud consists of many atoms/molecules. Each can exert a force on all of the others. That force (gravity) is additive and attractive.

What is the inconsistency? A 'single object', like a metal ball *also* has internal forces that act on it (in this case, mostly E&M forces, but they are overwhelmed if the ball is planet sized).

 

[Native]

I *gave* the 'real explanation'. You rejected it.

NOPE! You gave me your consensus assumptions based on an "OCCULT AGENCY" which I of course reject as I don´t believe in superstious forces.

 

[Native]

Exactly. A gas cloud consists of many atoms/molecules. Each can exert a force on all of the others. That force (gravity) is additive and attractive.

Explain your occult gravity before making all kinds of assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

NOPE! You gave me your consensus assumptions based on an "OCCULT AGENCY" which I of course reject as I don´t believe in superstious forces.

What is that 'occult agency' you claim?

I simply claim a force proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

No spirits are involved: only a real force.

 

[Polymath257]

Explain your occult gravity before making all kinds of assumptions.

What sort of explanation do you want?

I *gave* an explanation and you rejected it. So please explain what it is you want. Your use of the word 'occult' just seems irrelevant here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have to agree in this, as this is excactly the cause why I´m dealing with much of the consensus speculations

Yea, for some reason you believe that all actual astro-physicists, astronomers, cosmologists etc are "quacks" while the one non-astro-physicist, non-astronomer, non-cosmologist who can't even get the basics of astronomy 101 correct, knows better then all others combined.

Creationists feel the same way about Ken Ham and the entire actual community of scientists working the biological fields.

 

[Native]

What is that 'occult agency' you claim?

I simply claim a force proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

No spirits are involved: only a real force.

Is it your magical SPRINGS you´re of again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NOPE! You gave me your consensus assumptions based on an "OCCULT AGENCY" which I of course reject as I don´t believe in superstious forces.

There's nothing "occult" or "superstitious" about models that describe phenomenon in independently testable and verifiable ways.