Figure 3 shows the believed formation process of a star. But note that in Fig. 3(a) the simulation begins with a dense core, such that gravitational collapse can occur in Fig. 3(b). ‘Something’ is added at the beginning else nothing can happen.
The Jeans’ limit
Without this ‘something’, fundamental physics must necessarily be violated or the Jeans limit must be overcome by either compression of or cooling of the cloud. However, once this limit is overcome, gravity can take over [Fig. 3(b)] and compress the cloud further, to form the protostar [Fig. 3(c)]. But without a mechanism to overcome this natural limitation the cloud would naturally heat up and that would prevent further compression, resulting in equilibrium.
Magnetic fields in the gas cloud are also being investigated. They are no help, but, in fact, an impediment to collapse, unless the cloud can remove the magnetic fields by diffusing away the ions that carry them. The main hope of forming stars is with cooling channels, via infrared radiation from molecular hydrogen, but that requires long periods of time, and thus the simulations start with a mixture of dark matter and hydrogen (normal matter). There is no hope to form stars without the help of the assumed dark matter, no matter (no pun intended) how many hundreds of millions of years you give it. Physics is still the problem.
Interaction effect of party and conspiracy mentality on the rejection of human evolution. Simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction (adjusting the cutoff p value to .013) suggest that the effect of conspiracy mentality on rejecting evolution is marginally significant for Republicans ( b = 0.57, p = .018) and for unaffiliated/other ( b = 1.66, p < .001), but it is not significant for Democrats ( b = 0.41, p = .067) or independents ( b = 0.19, p = .350).
‘all the flat Earthers surveyed rejected the existence of anthropogenic climate change (and human evolution)’.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
505
If the radius is tripled, the volume by 4/3pi.r^3 is x 27. If density is constant then the mass, and gravitational field strength at the same distance r from the centre of gravity is too.
g=G.m/r^2
derived from Newton’s law of universal gravitation:
F=G.m1.m2/r^2
where G is 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
506
They don’t as much as they used to. Down 97% from cosmic noon 10ga ago go. In fact the universe has formed 95% of the stars that it ever will.
That being key, of course. Yes - the math is very straightforward. It would help to distinguish situations, then, to know we are not talking about something like an actually expanding gas cloud (sources, let’s say, from a supernova) where density would decidedly not be constant. But the more general and applicable situation would be for large already existing gas clouds scattered around the cosmos. As weak as gravity certainly is in those situations, it is still by far chief over all the other gas energies that Patrick is trying to invoke at that scale.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
508
Aye, it’s all here. Refuted irrationally in AiG I’m sure. Which wins hands down of course. We are not primarily a rational creature as we didn’t need to be for 95% of our existence as a species.
You are confusing when Isaiah was first composed with when the copy among the Dead Sea scrolls was penned. The copy dates from over 100 years before Christ at the latest. Yes, the events prophesied are accorded as fulfilled in the NT. But your comment about the NT being written decades after the events does not count against them. In fact, so far as documents from the ancient world are concerned, they are among the closest to the events they record of any we have from that time. The disciples at first preached the gospel in the expectation that christ would return during their lifetime, so they didn’t write down what they’d heard him teach. When they became convinced they were wrong about that, they wrote down what they’d heard him say and seen him do. So what’s the problem?
When you have something theoretical with little to no evidence to prove it one way or the other, then either belief is rational. Sort of.
The fact is that dark matter, like the Oort cloud was created as pixie dust to prop up current theories that otherwise would fall flat with no real evidence of their existence.
Since we (I) can’t seem to agree on whether the maths being used here are actual or theoretical, I will drop out of the star formation debate until I can find better data.
These winds are characterised by a continuous outflow of material moving at speeds anywhere between 20 and 2,000 km/s.
And why is that? Heat. It’s already too hot, and the equations should be showing that. It takes special cooling and mass to bypass Boyle’s law, among others.
That’s not actually a real fact. Where do you get your facts from?
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
514
I’m confusing no such thing Roy. The gap between the events described and the descriptions is more than enough for a priestly class to make their stories fit Second Temple Messianic fantasy, convincing themselves it had to have happened that way as look, they believe it. It’s very easy to be that brutal about it all.
And I want to believe it too.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
515
How did ‘it’ get too hot? What’s ‘it’? These equations?. Physics is not the problem. The misreading of it through the filter of religiosity is.
That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because we haven’t detected the quantum particle for the force. There is tons of evidence for dark matter without needing to have detected the actual particle.
I’m trying to understand why you think Jewish priests would add to a document (they regarded as holy and untouchable) in order to make it look as though Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. I can’t think of any reason.
]