A Star is Born: Gravitational "Collapse" vs Condensation Reactions!

[@whgordon6109]

We should ask, Not a Professor Dave, and whatever he says, It's the Opposite! 😂 Love Your Work Dr. Robitaille! Many Many Thanks

[@russellcollins4291]

Hey, let's be fair now. Dave has a degree in chemistry. That doesn't make him right, though.

[@whgordon6109]

@@russellcollins4291 are you saying that "knot a professor dave" is the Real Heisenberg? Because if.... HAHAHAHAHA

[@russellcollins4291]

@@whgordon6109 No, just a man who doesn't play well with others.

[@bibi_999]

Every position will be defended by hysteria and circumvented by cynicism. Dave is just defending what's there. Dr Robitaille is doing something much more important.

[@jamesa702]

Dr. Robitaile shows the way to understand the new complexities governing star formation. It is breath taking.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure, Dr.Robitaille. Stay strong, sir, science needs you:)

[@sadist71]

Happy New Year (Dr. R) and everyone else. I hope you all get what you wish for in the coming year.

[@captainsensible298]

Happy New Year by the way, love your channel.

[@AboveMediocrity2010]

Is magnetic z-pinch the engine for condensation

[@allanroser1070]

Don't think so.

[@hoon_sol]

That could very well be. There is evidence that stars tend to form along filaments at least; see Amelia Stutz' classic paper _Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments_ if you're interested.

[@AboveMediocrity2010]

@davejones7632 you are assuming zero current. This may not be the case. We KNOW stars form along filaments, which are Birkland currents. Not a woo. The real woo is the violation of thermodynamics as a system cannot work on itself and violate the conditions on which the ideal gas law applies.

[@hoon_sol]

@@davejones7632: You're beyond clueless. Stars form where enormous interstellar Birkeland currents converge. You're like the morons who ridiculed Birkeland despite the fact that he was right all along. *_«The currents were predicted in 1908 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions north of the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. He rediscovered, using simple magnetic field measurement instruments, that when the aurora appeared the needles of magnetometers changed direction, confirming the findings of Anders Celsius and assistant Olof Hjorter more than a century before. This could only imply that currents were flowing in the atmosphere above. He theorized that somehow the Sun emitted a cathode ray, and corpuscles from what is now known as a solar wind entered the Earth's magnetic field and created currents, thereby creating the aurora. This view was scorned by other researchers, but in 1967 a satellite, launched into the auroral region, showed that the currents posited by Birkeland existed. In honour of him and his theory these currents are named Birkeland currents.»_* Electrical woo? Yeah, that's what they said about Birkeland. And that's what they said about Alfvén too. And that's what you're telling people now, because clownish morons like you never change.

[@sanctusexitium9956]

Absolutely, the z-pinch has to be a toroid that has formed along a Birkeland Current that has experienced and increase in voltage, magnetism is proportional to the voltage in the current. Charles Proteus Steinmetz has stated that magnetism is the same thing as dielectricity, and we know that a Birkeland Current is dielectricity. a toroidal field forming would strip much of the matter moving with the current and also pull on matter within it's surrounding influence. I don't see how gravity can even be considered. With all due respect Dr. Robitaille.

[@ChaniJRandazzo]

Excellent, as always. Thank you

[@johnlakey4983]

Thank you sir.

[@Socrates-ti2dh]

Thank You for this presentation. It gives me much to consider. Happy New Year

[@mdeasy]

Nicely explained Dr. Robitaille! I'm definitely in the condensed matter star camp with you!! Happy new year!!

[@sasquatchhadarock968]

I can go either condensed or electrical, but gravitational collapse is ridiculous.

[@tomwojcik9342]

Dr. Robitaille: The Condensed Matter star does start as Metallic Hydrogen but rather as an natural agglomeration of solid heavy dense elements: The naturally rocky planet-like body would be the ideal natural condensation point to grow by gathering all matter including Hydrogen and Helium from the surrounding space and gas clouds (Helium would also be present from natural radioactive decay of heavier isotopes). Similarly, Jupiter or Saturn is not a gaseous giant and their cores are surely a condensed matter, very likely a rocky Earth-like body. Congratulations on your work! I would be happy to hear your comments. Perhaps one day, Earth will become a Star. Regards, Tomasz Wojcik.

[@summerbrooks9922]

No. Rocky bodies do not first exist then collect. Negative entropy? Scientists say that Jupiter possesses liquid metallic hydrogen. Could go to solid if it were not for the heat some say exits. I doubt that any rocky core gets found inside of the radio pulsar called Jupiter.

[@SemantoKomatoschi24]

True. There a macromolecules, debris of supernovae and planets, asteroides involved too ... the gas only thing is a rather academic approach and has no foundation in the newly discovered realities of the cosmic environment ...

[@gratefulprepsnj]

Amazing! I love to learn new things like this. Why is it that mainstream “experts” in so many fields like astronomy, medicine geology and archaeology have it all so wrong? Thanks Dr R!

[@tomasbrchan]

Because to receive the truth is not just a question of the facts, but also of the condition of the heart.

[@stensballe3683]

appeal to concensus

[@drscott1]

Most experts are trained in one hyper focused area. Most training of experts relies on the trainee to learn FACTs in regard to their discipline of choice. So the amount of information to be assimilated by the student together with an isolation from other disciplines,even within the same general science, creates a situation where the expert accepts the focused discipline at face value to be true and does not have the tools or ability to question their own field of expertise. This is why renaissance thinkers like Robitaille are so effective at showing the errors within a discipline and proposing strong, credible solutions.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "they don't have it all wrong" Technically that is true, Ian. But they have a lot of it wrong. So much so that their credibility has been severely tarnished. If you don't believe that and have not been following the admission by Pfizer that the vaccines were never properly tested, then I have a vaccine I'd like to sell you. You haven't been banned yet?

[@cerebralm]

Incentives, territorial/protectionalist/tribalist behaviour, and collective institutional inertia. Normal human politics, in other words.

[@chakerhaddad]

Joyeux Nouvel An Dr. Robitaille. Enlightening channel with luminous videos. Thank you so much!

[@louisvictor3473]

Really good presentation, Dr. Robitaille! Only one point I question. When it comes to those really large nebula, it still seems to me that them being gravitationally bound by local density differences could be at least partially true (or perhaps I should say initially true) and just add to your hypothesis rather than clash with it. The gases are real ones not ideal gases, nor are they likely uniform (be it in temperature, composition, or even isotope counts, all of which would affect density in addition to initial conditions) so their interactions aren't 100% elastic, etc. Even if they're moving rather fast, I assume it is less fast than gravity, so even if we assume the local interaction of these denser region due to real gas "imperfections" would normally dissipate, gravity of this blob would still be reaching and affecting further out layers with different properties a bit earlier in addition to constantly (where the "repulsion by colision" requires a colision). In fact, I think is how the initial condensed matter that would later appear in these clusters and form stars. As the above process happens, the bouncing around gets more "orderly" for lack of a better term as some directions of movement cancel each other with the different colisions in opposing directions, this increases the chances of molecules forming, maybe atoms fusing already, and other events that would contribute to phase shifts down to at least super critical fluid if not outright liquid or solid. I think that understanding is compatible with yours rather than clash with it. Rinse and repeat a bunch, and now you have some gas masses that don't dissipate and eventually do lead to star formation, and other clumps that don't and disperse more freely.

[@barbarian1111]

Happy New Year!

[@barrykrofchick2272]

crushed it again dr. robitaille. truly fascinating why a field like physics is able to attract people very skilled at absorbing complex theory, manipulating and regurgitating theory taught in advanced courses but are unable to detect errors which any 6 year old who has ever popped a balloon finds obvious. gases without a barrier have no fixed volume. i guess they are all afraid to challenge any idea once it appears in a textbook. most are so involved in building a career that they learn challenging authority is not welcomed and does not lead to advancement, esp if your superiors in a department are advocates of the theory being challenged. i see it as an example of regression to the mean. while we have more 'astrophysicists/astronomers' alive today than ever before , by several orders of magnitude probably, the average intellectual level of these professionals has dropped closer to the mean level of the population. i am surmising that in the past, before mass professionalization , physics was dominated by exceptional individuals with a strong interest in understqanding how the world worked, rather than by those looking for an income and an interesting job. so we end up with a class of professionals of ordinary intelligence and aptitude who end up dominating the field. those types are not very creative and are unabe to challenge accepted wisdom, and they automatically outcast the exceptional individuals who do so. hence progress stagnates and the job of building epicycles continues. this is what happens when physics follows Feynmann's mantra 'shut up and calculate' as aresponse to anyone questioning renormalization in quqntum electrodynamics (the arbitrary dropping of annoying infinities in your calculations). seems many areas of science suffer from this problem.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "no, you don't need a container to have pressure. gravitation will do the job just fine." Haaaaaa! Ian, my man. You are so blinkered. No, you need a surface. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please explain how elastic collisions can allow a gas to collapse with gravity? Don't bother. Dr. R. does a wonderful job of why that can't happen. Please explain how any gas at less than 10 degrees Kelvin in interstellar space can exists as a gas? You defy the laws of physics and call yourself educated? You need to be banned right away before anyone else wastes another minute on you.

[@changeddaily9133]

Spot on mate!

[@t00by00zer]

The filamentary nature of nebulae indicates ionization and the formation of plasma filaments. Plasma filaments can collapse matter in Marklund convection.

[@t00by00zer]

@@davejones7632 UV ionizes gas, even at 10K. 😉

[@t00by00zer]

@@davejones7632 What UV? Space is filled with radiation. That's why we can detect galaxies billions of light years away, across the electromagnetic spectrum. Every stellar birthplace is filled with filamentary structure, incompatible with gravitational accretion. One ION can drag many molecules with it. That's how ionic dust filters work. You don't have to ionize everything, just a few things, and the rest follow along. EM forces on an ION are 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than the mutual gravity of those ions. 39 orders of magnitude!!! COLD PLASMA is an observed FACT.

[@keithnorris6348]

Thank you Dr Robitaille I was hoping that you would provide information concerning the stars in the cosmos and it`s great to have such an early start to 2024. I hope more will follow soon and that science will move forward to a better understanding of the nature of the cosmos.

[@russellcollins4291]

I'm glad alternate theories are gaining traction in the field of astrophysics. Thank you for giving us another excellent presentation!

[@brendawilliams8062]

I am too. It’s nice to see persons as independent thinkers looking at alternative perspectives. You always get methods that are not confined to mainstream ideas. I personally think about layering grids. Now if you can’t take a string of numbers and figure that layering , then my , there’s a spicy meatball and a lot of actual action

[@russellcollins4291]

@@brendawilliams8062The ability for people to challenge their own assumptions gives me hope for the human race.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@russellcollins4291 the mathematical constructs of the imagination was never meant to be subject to any Supreme Court for final law

[@summerbrooks9922]

This hot speech remains one of your best. Common sense evades the Standard Model folks. Question: where do the condensation reactions take place on the sun from, say, the tachocline layer to the chromosphere or photosphere?

[@summerbrooks9922]

Another question; if atmospheres collapse without the sun, what about the heavy atmospheres of the Jovian planets plus poor Pluto?

[@estimatingonediscoveringthree]

3:49 Colossians 1:15-17

[@cerebralm]

I don't disagree with the thesis of condensed matter playing an important role, but I feel like I missed something obvious somewhere along the line. Isn't the increase in heat coming from the loss of gravitational potential as the cloud shrinks? Trading gravitational potential for heat doesn't violate thermodynamics, does it? The collisions are indeed all elastic, but in between collisions, are the particles not accelerating back towards the gravitational center of the cloud, losing outward velocity in the process?

[@stevecrothers6585]

I suggest that you carefully listen to Dr. Robitaille's lecture again because your post attests that you did not understand it. A gas cannot compress itself by any means.

[@hoon_sol]

As you say yourself, acceleration would always be towards the center, so there'd be no net change in speed in any direction. Think about what would theoretically happen if you dug a hollow tube through the center of Earth and placed a vacuum in it, then dropped something down; it'd simply oscillate back and forth forever. The same is true if you dug many such tunnels, even if you were to collide elastically with others doing the same. In other words the cloud would never shrink, gravitational potential energy would just constantly be shifting to kinetic energy and back forever.

[@cerebralm]

@@hoon_sol Thanks, that's a great analogy!

[@whatdoiknowsmith]

Thank you very much for your work. Your analysis is impeccable.

[@jsonjsoff]

Happy new year Dr. R Thank you for all the great videos

[@morphixnm]

Brilliant and objective, as usual!

[@davidmcguinness9187]

Thanks

[@Sir-Cyr_Rill-Nil-Mill]

this is now shared on the *_"Minds"_*_ platform_

[@allanroser1070]

Thanks Dr Robataille and all best for the New Year... I guess now Molecular Clouds that are not expanding are in fact half formed Stars!

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

Fascinating content. Thank you.

[@captainsensible298]

Great content, but how does ignition occur? I'm thinking dusty plasma creates the condensate. Once the condensate is stabilised how does ignition occur?

[@walleyeguy1]

Ignition could occur from comet, asteroid and meteor impacts causing electrical lightning storms.

[@phobosmoon4643]

what a cool video

[@doltBmB]

The z-pinch theory is more convicing to me, and the "stars on a string" observation supports that.

[@Snailmailtrucker]

Have you watched The Primer Fields 1, 2 and 3 by David LaPoint ? I did and it solidified my views on The Z Pinch/Bennett Pinch Herbig/Haro Theory. FJB !

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@Snailmailtrucker "The z-pinch theory is more convicing to me," Complete nonsense. You can make up whatever you want to see in space. As John Campbell explained in another string below, Z-pinches are complex and work only in labs with precision equipment. Thunderbolts is a waste of money.

[@peacepoet1947]

Question: I've heard about pools of methane on heavily bodies and those places are really cold. So the helium condenses into larger and larger structures from being cold .. and it gets so cold that the helium turns into metal? 😊

[@multi_misa72]

Happy New year doc, loved this one .👌👍

[@deadgavin4218]

is it possible for a system purely of gases to lose bound electrons to form h+ and h3+ in the first place and generate condensed matter, or does the universe require started condensed matter to produce the conditions to produce free protons or shed electrons from gaseous protons?

[@gi169]

Happy New Year

[@herbyguitar]

What about the Z pinch in an electric plasma current?

[@herbyguitar]

@@HarryHab-w9k I was just curious as to how this might or might not fit into the "Sky Scholar" theory. I try to keep an open mind and look for all possibilities.

[@gsdalpha1358]

What a great way to start 2024! It seems too many in the sciences just regurgitate previous research and papers. Dr. Robitaille skill is eliminating the flaws in all that regurgitation and then presenting a far cleaner logical theory. Never ceases to amaze me. Thank you, sir, and Happy New Year to you and your's!

[@johncampbell9216]

Dear Pierre, as always, you are absolutely correct. There *must* be condensed matter present in these gaseous Nebulae in order to trigger a pressure-induced collapse. In other words- the introduction of a surface to generate pressure. Perhaps an ice chunk or, more likely an asteroid. I wish to grant you some additional thoughts to bolster your theory... As you excellently describe, stars such as our sun are condensed matter. This presents an as-yet unmentioned hypothesis on planetary formation. In accepting the condensed matter model, we accept that stars are essentially the same material consistency as every other condensed matter entity in the universe. This convinces me that all rocky spherical bodies in space are the cooled and condensed cores of stars. So planet earth, as well as every other planet and moon are dead stars. This explains why planets have an adundance of heavier elements, as they are the products of the very dense nature of the core of ancient stars. This also presents the plausible scenario that some stars may have been resurrected many times over as their rocky dead cores wander again into nebulae and trigger the stellar formative process yet again! In support of this hypothesis I cite the evidence of "wandering planets"... Dark bodies that have been observed floating free of any accompanying stars. I'd dearly like to have a chat with you sometime about the atomic model and put to you another profound hypothesis that could help explain much much more. Your humble servant sir.

[@backseatsamurai]

Very close to what I think. I think stars are solid metal cores, with plasma sheates. Electircal in nature. And planets are born from stars, when electrical charges combine with plasma at high intensity to spit out planets like pearls. The SARIE Project built and electric sun generator, and in some of the experiments, elements were created, transmuted, and little balls of metal were found. And then with the Thunderstorm Generator ala Malcolm Bendalls idea, elements are created in there as well. All of this points towards and electric universe model being the correct model, and the gravity model is broken. Gravity is probably the by product of electro magnetism and not a strong force at all. Cosmology dismissed electric currents in space, and looks at magnetic fields as after thoughts, when they are the primary drivers of al life. Once again, transmuitation, creation of elements, safe remediation of nuclear raditation and so much more.

[@summerbrooks9922]

Actually the Earth itself oscillates within its core. That means that you are standing on a brown dwarf star, instead of a planet. Yes, all stars oscillate. Our Earth star is covered with dust for soil. Go to Mr. BB333, Sky Watcher, to get more info. Jupiter also oscillates and is a radio source, thus another star. And a hypothesis is born that maybe planets all dying stars. So the story of the universe may get told as stars.

[@johncampbell9216]

@@HarryHab-w9k tripe. Gases dissipate. Pressure doesn't exist without a surface.

[@johncampbell9216]

@@backseatsamurai While I think electricity has a role to play I don't accept the results of the safire project. The metal balls were nothing more than impurities from the electrode. There is no correlation with that experiment and stellar or planetary formation.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "no, you don't need a surface (barrier, wall) to have pressure inside a body of gas" Ian, repeating your ridiculous mantra a thousand times on this video will win no converts. You offer no intelligent rebuttals, just cultish comments. Your astrophysics buddies are fudged.

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

For some reason nobody has bothered to simulate an N-body system (ideal gas) with gravitational forces for various initial conditions. If deus ex machina a gas can be collected into a sufficiently "small" volume where the gravitational attraction becomes substantial, then collapse could occur. The gravity is doing external work on the system and no laws of thermodynamics are violated. For a diffuse gas it is hard to see how such a local density anomaly could form since there is no particular reason for convergent flow of the gas.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"For some reason nobody has bothered to simulate an N-body system (ideal gas) with gravitational forces for various initial conditions. If deus ex machina a gas can be collected into a sufficiently "small" volume where the gravitational attraction becomes substantial, then collapse could occur." johnsmith-fr3sx First, an N-body system as no theoretical solution. For instance, take the N=3 problem of gravity. In General Relativity there is no means to even describe an N = 2 system. Secondly, it is evident that you have no understanding of the kinetic theory of an ideal gas. In the kinetic theory of an ideal gas there are no forces between the particles except when they collide elastically with one another and with the walls of their container. Gravity is a force, so it never arises in the kinetic theory of an ideal gas. Dr. Robitaille has explained this in terms of elastic collisions in this very lecture. No gas can compress itself by any means. "The gravity is doing external work on the system and no laws of thermodynamics are violated. For a diffuse gas it is hard to see how such a local density anomaly could form since there is no particular reason for convergent flow of the gas" johnsmith-fr3sx Gravity is not doing external work at all on the ideal gas particles, as explained above. Invoking gravitational forces between the gas particles violates the kinetic theory of an ideal gas. Consequently, it also violates the laws of thermodynamics. No gas can compress itself and thereby raise its own temperature - to do so is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas can compress itself and decrease its own entropy - to do so is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In combining gravity with the kinetic theory of an ideal gas the resulting temperature relations make temperature non-intensive - a violation of both the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists have never understood the kinetic theory of an ideal gas and they have never understood the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Since they can't even get them right they have no chance of getting the stars right. The astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists have had their day in the sun - real science is now taking back the stars.

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

@@stevecrothers6585 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are no exact general *analytical* solutions to the N>2 case. But there are numerical initial conditions dependent solutions for N of any value. So the material discussed in the video can be tested directly with a numerical simulation. Instead we have handwaving and new-religion BS such as yours. For example the claim that pressure requires rigid boundaries is clearly nonsense. If molecules of gas are colliding then there is clearly a pressure. Without a boundary there is no steady state pressure but a transient pressure and diffusion of the gas. The nebulae in space are obviously not diffusion dominated and their densities are very low so that collisions are rare. Gravitational collapse of interstellar material resulting in stars involves cluster formation, clumping and dust accretion. It is obviously not an ideal gas problem whatever establishment zealots want to believe. But that does not matter to the academic problem of whether a gas with gravity can form high density regions through the formation of localized gravitational wells. Such regions would facilitate clustering and dust formation which would ultimately lead to stars.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@johnsmith-fr3sx "For example the claim that pressure requires rigid boundaries is clearly nonsense." johnsmith-fr3sx All gas pressures are measured relative to containment as hundreds of years of experiments attest. "If molecules of gas are colliding then there is clearly a pressure." johnsmith-fr3sx Then give the mathematical relation you rely upon. I wager you cannot provide it. " It is obviously not an ideal gas problem whatever establishment zealots want to believe. But that does not matter to the academic problem of whether a gas with gravity can form high density regions through the formation of localized gravitational wells. Such regions would facilitate clustering and dust formation which would ultimately lead to stars." johnsmith-fr3sx All gases when released from confinement expand, as a vast array of experiments attest. No gas can compress itself by any means. Provide your proof that gases can compress themselves. "Instead we have handwaving and new-religion BS such as yours." johnsmith-fr3sx It's clear that you don't understand the kinetic theory of gases or thermodynamics.

[@BB-cf9gx]

Thanks.

[@nrodas255]

Love your videos. Have you made a video explaining more in depth why stars are not gaseous plasmas that you can point me to? I don't even understand what a gaseous plasma is and why the majority of scientific community believes this.

[@RegisteredEngineer]

Can you make a playlist for stars formation. Also can you add the last two videos to the Microwave Background playlist.

[@sdvc244]

Thanks, I'm glad you have explained this in a very understandable method, Cheers!

[@MrSkypelessons]

Thanks for another fantastic video, Professor Robitaille. Have you ever read about the 'expanding Earth' theory? The Nobel- Prize winning geologist Samuel Carey defended the idea, and I've always found it the most logical explanation of continental drift (i.e. the continents are separating radially as the planet grows, and not because of drifting plates). I wondered if the condensation reactions that you mention could account for expanding planets/moons/meteorites as well as expanding stars. The increasing mass (and increasing gravity) must come from somewhere. Perhaps ions in the solar wind condense in the magnesium silicates (olivine, ringwoodite) deep inside the earth? Perhaps this explains how our planet could acquire so much water. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! Here is a video of the wonderful Professor Carey explaining the expanding Earth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haXLk2OuqNuNmJY&forced

[@hoon_sol]

That's spot on. Maxlow also has a great lecture on it where he goes through the evidence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXK1mqeJf9qVapI

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Since high school when I first learned PV = nRT I utterly rejected the gravitational collapse idea. I now need to consider condensation. My GUESS is that this doesn't work either but it is certainly worth considering.

[@hoon_sol]

It works perfectly, is exactly what's happening, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be the case.

[@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj]

@@hoon_sol Fart in an elevator and you don't get a solid ball. The fart goes everywhere. Such is the nature of gases, nebular hypothesis to the contrary.

[@hoon_sol]

@@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj: Your farts contain a lot of water vapor, which is a prime example of a gas which readily condenses, and in other conditions will cause even more water vapor to condense onto those newly formed water clusters in turn, until you get water droplets (or even huge hailstones in extreme cases). In a huge gas cloud it's only a matter of time until nucleation clusters condense, and subsequently start to condense more and more matter.

[@Thermiable]

Yes

[@raydelaforce8149]

Bravo Dr. Robitaille. So my sudy of physics wasn't lying to me wehn we ent throough the kinetic theory of ideal gases. Cosmologists live in a land where anything goes without consequences.

[@samtigernotiger3886]

Perhaps it would make sense to define the term 'gravitational bound' more precisely. According to elementary physics, a large cold cloud of an ideal gas in empty space is bound in a certain way by its own gravity. In order to move far away from the cloud, an ideal gas particle would have to reach the escape velocity of the total mass. This is not possible in a cold gas with a large total mass according to the statistical velocity distribution. The gas particles are bound to a certain extent by gravity and cannot be distributed throughout the entire space.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

Sorry, Bud. Nonsense... ...you still have the second law to deal with... ...that is elementary physics. A large cloud simply gets larger, exactly like the citation Dr. Robitaille provided proved!

[@samtigernotiger3886]

@@bushmangrizz4367 Regardless of the second law, the conservation of energy must be valid, so the cloud cannot expand arbitrarily. It does not shrink, it may expand slightly and become colder as thermal energy is converted into potential, but its maximum possible (and only asymptotically achievable) size is given when all the initial energy is in the form of potential energy and the temperature is at absolute zero lies.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@samtigernotiger3886 "Regardless of the second law, the conservation of energy must be valid, so the cloud cannot expand arbitrarily" No, Sam, not regardless of the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law cannot be violated. It's that simple. The cloud is not expanding arbitrarily. You need to go back and carefully watch all the videos on gases in space. They cannot collapse in on themselves.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "The second law can in fact be violated..." Only by astrophysicists, Ian. It is violated. You have not watched a single video, or you are completely incapable of learning fundamental science. You need to reread any textbook on thermodynamics and need to be banned again.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

@@bushmangrizz4367 which textbook would you recommend? How about Thermodynamics - A complete undergraduate course by Andrew M. Steane, Oxford University Press?

[@paxodont9136]

do you think atoms in the gas state constitute separate entities or are they connected at a more subtle level?

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

yes they exert a gravitational pull on one another

[@cubic-h6041]

this is really fascinating because we end up with a chicken and egg situation. if we need condensed matter to make a star, where does the condensed matter come from? oh well a supernova that came from a star...which needed condensed matter, which needed a star and so on. I love infinite loops like this and it really makes you wonder. It's almost like you need a seed to start a star. Its also interesting to see the astrophysics take on the same issues with other science by saying give me enough space, enough mass, enough time etc and we can justify our theory.

[@jimspear3033]

Why not use a raindrop analogy? A small high gravity body attracts gas until a critical density is reached and fusion initiates. Or compression leads to formation of solid structures that contain attracted gasses. Spin could initiate magnetic capture and compression.

[@stephenwagener349]

There is no outer container in atmosphere and gasses continuously expand. Soo, over long periods of time - What holds the Earth’s atmosphere from slowly drifting into the surrounding space ( ie not just the helium)

[@bushmangrizz4367]

The surface involved is the surface of the earth. Gases in our atmosphere can be gravitationally attracted to the earth. Dr. R. explains how this all works in this video and a few others. Perhaps you need to watch again and check out his other vids?

[@kirkpetersjr]

Im very interested in what you mean by condensation

[@triedproven9908]

When air molecules are cold enough they condense and create water. I think cluster would have been a better word, but that lacks the gravitic density proponent of the explaination as they become more compact. Condense is the scientific word for it. But when you say condensation everyone starts thinking about cold glasses of liquids and wet hands.

[@michaelk3582]

What about the role of the z-pinch effect along a birkland current as brought forth by the Thunderbolts project? And what about the inside of a star and a black hole being basically a plasmoid, almost like a large capacitor?

[@johncampbell9216]

The problem I have with that hypothesis is the extreme nature of a z-pinch, which can only be achieved with considerable effort and precision equipment. This is contrary to what occurs in nature.

[@summerbrooks9922]

Dr. ROBITAILLE believes that there is a fusion reaction inside of our sun. I got this from reading "The Liquid Sun" by Alexander Unzicker. Exact Chapter and page I need took up.

[@johncampbell9216]

@@summerbrooks9922 actually, Robitaille suggests (if I understand him correctly) that the fusion occurs relatively close to the surface... Perhaps ten or twenty miles down where the pressure is high enough to trigger the fusion process. What we then observe at the surface is the roiling result of the energy released from below. Deeper than that depth, there is too much pressure to allow any reaction, so the liquid hydrogen is stable to the core. As the Sun releases the energy and some mass daily, it gradually shrinks in size until eventually it runs out of hydrogen and starts fusing helium and then heavier elements. All the while cooling and condensing.

[@fredfarquar8301]

@@johncampbell9216Birkeland currents are self-organizing, and z-pinches occur easily under the proper conditions (not at all rare, considering the number of stars that exist). Remember the EM forces are scalable, to ALL scales.

[@johncampbell9216]

@@fredfarquar8301 I'm quite sure that if such a process was common we'd see evidence of it in star-forming nebulae. The fact we do not kinda undermines the hypothesis.

[@guytech7310]

The issue that I see persists, if the condense matter is either a liquid or ice. The material would heat up under collisions reverting back to a gas. Consider if the seed of a star is a few 100K mt. any condensed material colliding at significant velocity with the object would generate a lot of localized heat, and have enough energy to escape. Another issue would be sublimation of gases or ice in a vacuum. Liquids would quickly sublime & ice more slowly. The average nebula temperature would need to be well below the boiling temperature of the gases being condensed. In the case of hydrogen the average nebula temperature would need to be low 20 kelvin. However stellar nebular average temps are above 10,000K! The only way solution I could see if the matter was bound up in materials have have very high melting\boiling points, ie rock. Perhaps if the star seed was made of rocky materials & had enough mass to retain hydrogen in liquid & gaseous forms.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

"The only way solution I could see if the matter was bound up in materials have have very high melting\boiling points, ie rock." So where does the rock originate from? No need to reply.

[@guytech7310]

@@bushmangrizz4367 " So where does the rock originate from? " Yes, My thoughts as well. FWIW: I don't have any answers to this. I need to visit a stellar nebula and watch if for for a few millions years to answer the question :)

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@guytech7310 Now that would be fun.

[@legro19]

The heavier element would collapse faster than the light one.

[@svartvist]

So where is the "container" of the Earth's atmosphere? The pressure of the gas at sea level (one wall) is ~14.7 psi at a specific temperature (70ºF?). What is the nature of the other wall? I have read that the Earth's exosphere extends very much farther than originally thought, some 1/3 the distance to the Moon. And what force prevents the atmosphere's pressure to reducing to near zero? Gravity? How is the force of Gravity different than the force of the magnetic field? If the planet's magnetic field prevents the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere away, how is it possible Venus has such a large atmosphere, with compartively extreme temperature and pressure at the surface while orbiting the sun at 2/3 the distance as Earth, and no magnetic field? Mars and Venus have no magnetic field, yet Venus has an atmosphere, but Mars does not. Mercury has a magnetic field, but only a thin exosphere.Pluto has a thin atmosphere of nitrogen & methane, but no detectable magnetic field. If gravitational collapse of gases does not occur, then it cannot be gravity that holds our atmosphere to Earth's surface with a pressure gradient across the atmosphere. As for the sun's influence on the atmosphere, Ham radio operators have known nearly since they began association that atmosphere is dynamic; radio wave skip always takes place at the boundary where night and day exists. The Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields. They also all have atmospheres. They also have gravimetric fields. All of them possess some amount of intrinsic heat. What causes that heat, and in the case of the Sun, an exceptionally vast amount, mostly concentrated in the atmosphere? The formation of a star from condensation is inconsistent with the findings of Halton Arp on the formation of quasars which are proto galaxies. In that process, plasma as it loses energy reaches a condition of matter "clumping" the same process in effect with arc welding.

[@Saalvadaar]

While I like where you're going with this, I have a couple points on which I disagree. I would argue that black holes do exist but they are not the result of gravity, but the result of electromagnetism in a 'massive' enough or rather, conductively coherent enough structure across a large enough scale to become permanently counterspacial. That is, an object of extremely coherent aether sufficiently active enough to lose its ability to express a magnitude disparately and instead becomes a single persistent dielectric moment, the waveform of which is expressed by the size of its event horizon. To clarify, I mean a special interpretation of electromagnetism that does not involve any quanta, and is more a set of fractal geometric laws, because that's the best I can do working off of an assumption that all matter is made of a luminiferous aether whose center is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere, from which you might end up describing a universe that is roughly hydrodynamic and acoustic in its overall behavior. As for the solid/liquid/gas dilemma, my intuition is that there are two flaws with the current thinking you and also the standard model physicists are drawing from - starting with the notion of particles. If instead you start with the baseline that all 'particles' and 'atoms' are actually oscillating aether intersections/semistable field vortex structures at the Planck level, their behavior at large scale becomes significantly different. It is my personal intuition that because of this, distinctions of states of matter are arbitrary and misleading. For some purposes, it might be sufficient to describe some phenomena, but it will never be fully accurate, and breaks down more and more especially at successively larger scales the more force is involved. The most accurate equations are going to be a lot more loose on the units and amusingly more abstract due to trying to account for the behavior of a base medium of principally dielectric and consequentially (as attribute) magnetic fields conducting all force at all scales which has no true quanta. If we're working from a pure field basis, every 'state' is only a difference of scalar and fractal geometries built on smaller fractal vortex field objects, only 'quantifiable' to a a limited degree because there are no true quanta. The scalar differences loosely allow for larger objects and structures to act like mediums themselves with varying properties in terms of conductivity, permeability, and coherence, on top of the true aether medium at the lowest level which is more limited in what array of shapes it can express as it conveys force than at larger scales. Now, I'm not that smart but I have been around the block enough trying to figure this out that if I were a math genius trying to describe physics, I bet it would be a nightmare trying to find perfect units with which to describe a unified aether field theory at all, so if this sounds hard to work off of, believe me I know. Nonetheless, I think that is the case, and if someone with a more coherent brain wants to take a crack at it, I don't envy them. Ken Wheeler has done the best work on this that I know of. So what do I think a star is? Roughly, what you described sounds right. I'd say it's a structure of very active aether operating like a liquid and a crystal with an outer plasma atmosphere, conducting 'fusion' of smaller aether vortex structures (atoms) mostly on its surface in countless z-pinches. To be truly consistent with what I said above, I would also argue the distinctions between stars and planets are arbitrarily categorized for our own convenience because they are more similar in what they can do and act like than they are different overall. Fusion occurs naturally on many planets, just not anywhere near as often as it does with our star. Even a black hole isn't too much different from a hydrogen atom, from where I'm standing. If my limited ability to articulate the above makes any sense to you, perhaps you'll arrive at a much more novel set of hypotheses for what's going on in objects like stars than you might've expected in the future. I appreciate people like you who are willing to be heterodox investigators in a time stifled without innovative scientific thinking, so I hope you can appreciate the spirit of my disagreement with some of your conclusions.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Black holes do not exist so it makes no difference as to what process you would like to make them. According to the luminaries the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated in a 'physical singularity' of zero volume, infinite density and infinite gravity. But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density and infinite gravity.

[@Zerbii]

I still like the idea that black holes are strange matter stars.

[@FelonyVideos]

This makes sense. It just takes one drop or 1 pebble to act as the condensation vehicle for the rest of the gas cloud. The final temperature of the condensed gas cloud can be calculated based upon the total potential energy. Beautiful explanation, doc.

[@ROBMCKISSOCK]

finally some real science

[@ROBMCKISSOCK]

main stream science, the science for morons, congratulations @@davejones7632

[@Jackhole_Cat]

But... but... but... The science is settled! Right?! *rolling my eyes*

[@Jackhole_Cat]

@@HarryHab-w9k Great! So let's base the rest on political power grabs and narrative funding! Especially now that the "mechanics" of 2 + 2 = racism... Sounds great to me *still rolling my eyes*

[@m.c.4674]

Even though the temperature is low, the kinetic energy is very high . The reason why it is cold is because there are very few atom, but that does mean that each atom doesn't have a large kinetic energy.

[@glennswart1487]

Star formation cannot be "seeded" gravitationally, but yes it can be electromagnetic, that is common sense, I cannot comnent further but you may be right and there may be a chemical component, but I cannot see it driving the process.

[@BullittGT40]

The crazy thing this is so simple and logical. This should have been obvious when the revelations of Jupiter's core were worked out.

[@peterdegroot466]

A truly scientific explanation without all the fiction they teach at universities !

[@dennisklipa4141]

Dr. Robitaille, I thank you for your wonderful series of lucid videos. I applaud your challenge, in the best tradition of the scientific method, of the current cosmological dogma. I don't understand all of your arguments, but I find no conflict in any that I do. I do have one request. I would like to ask that you consider not using the term spontaneous to imply thermodynamically favorable or exergonic. Although in common use, it creates more confusion for the student of thermodynamics than clarity. I offer this paper in support of this request: Ochs, R.S., J. Chem. Ed., 1996, 73, 952-4.

[@bramblemat]

condensation. i suppose its difficult to separate heat from condensation. strange i feel like the chapter a of history has resolved somehow. sehr interresant.

[@rickshafer6688]

A great documentary about the work of Paris Herouni is on KZbin : ' Paris Heroini, The Silence of Stars'.

[@tonywdidit8826]

I hope you might respond to this subject. It is said that our Sun can bend space and time because of gravity. At least I have heard that. It has been said that objects around the sun, but out of direct view can be seen because of the space time gravitational effect. So I present this thought. As I drive down a road heated by the Sun, I can see a car ahead of me. Yet the cars image is inverted above the roads surface in this heated mirage. A water tower up ahead is also seen upside down in this image. An image created by the effect of heat upon the roads surface interacting with the atmosphere just above the surface. Could the atmosphere of the Sun create the same effect of an object just beyond a line of direct sight?

[@allanroser1070]

See the Sky Scholar video with guest speaker Dr Edward Dowdye... light is bent at the Plasma Limb of Stars in a one shot angle... it does not decrease gradually as it should were Gravity involved. ..

[@louisvictor3473]

I have seen some people claim that lensing is purely a light difraction phenomena as an alternative to gravitational lensing/space distortion. I never ran the numbers or bothered much looking up that hypothesis, however, so I can't actually comment with my own opinion on their take beyond the extremely superficial. Imagine it is at least theoreticlaly possible to have some atmospheric lensing instead (how much, does it match observation, these I have no idea). If that happens, the heat/density difference between lower and higher layers would paly a factor, just as the fact that the near vacuum of space and even an "ideal" 100% uniform atmosphere (composition and density) have different light speeds. But again, I am just presenting this as a hypothesis if you want to look up on that, I did not do more homework on it to have an opinion either way beyond "at least sounds internaly consistent".

[@guytech7310]

@@allanroser1070 Yes, but the Mirage tonywdidit8826 is referring to is also caused by refraction, same as the sun's plasmasphere refracting light. I believe this was what tonywdidit8826 was asking. Which would be correct. The Mirage & sun's plasmasphere are both effects of refraction.

[@tonywdidit8826]

@@acmhfmggru thats a week claim

[@tonywdidit8826]

I was looking for a disclaimer. I only hear interjections.

[@sanctusexitium9956]

What if we take gravity and pretend it does not exist and replace it with, say dielectric magnetism. Birkeland currents filaments can be seen throughout the cosmos some individual and other joining in a braid. The filaments are dielectric by nature, we can see examples where two or more have joined to form a braid. The point at which they begin twisting has doubled or tripled it's voltage in a more confined area. Since magnetism is proportional to voltage there is now enough voltage to create a substantially larger magnetic field , or a bulge of magnetism in an otherwise stable dielectric current in one area this would form a toroid. The gas that is flowing in the plasma stream which is dielectric and flowing both ways within the filament and into a toroid and accumulating not by gravity nor by condensation but due to a massive dielectric magnetic bulge or field. Idk this seems a simpler way to think of star formation, and I am not a scientist so there's no way for me to back it up with quoting laws and equations.

[@svenweihusen57]

He is right about the ideal gas laws BUT you can use ideal gas laws and still have gravitational pull. The point is that your container is small enough to have no INTERNAL gravitational pull but this doesn’t mean that there can’t be gravitational pull on the container. So the molecules inside the container only experienced gravity as pressure from the outside. If you use a container that is big enough to contain the whole cloud ideal gas laws wouldn’t work.

[@kimberlyboldt5213]

I agree the conventional theory for star formation from academic cosmologists today is ridiculous. And I like your theory about chemical reactions in star formation. You are a very intelligent man. But what is the catalyst? This is why I like the electric universe model of star formation along Birkeland Currents, and stars forming in cosmic Z-pinches. Now you have the catalyst for star formation which causes the chemical reactions to take place in star formation. Remember, you cannot have magnetic fields without moving electrical charge or current. That current has to come from somewhere. Why not Birkeland Currents first proposed 100 years ago? The James Webb Telescope is helping us to see the "filaments" spreading out among stars and galaxies. And you have to account for the rotation of galaxies. What makes them rotate? For that matter why do most things in the universe rotate as if they are powered by something?

[@kimberlyboldt5213]

@@HarryHab-w9k He hasn't fully rejected the theory. He just isn't convinced, yet. The problem with physicists and other scientists today is that they are not cross-trained in several disciplines. Most do not study electric principles. They tend to have tunnel vision in their own field of study.

[@kimberlyboldt5213]

@@HarryHab-w9k It's not a matter of belief. It's knowing.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"But what is the catalyst? This is why I like the electric universe model of star formation along Birkeland Currents, and stars forming in cosmic Z-pinches." kimberlyboldt5213 I suggest that you listen carefully to Dr. Robitaille's lecture and pay attention to his discussion of hydrogen clusters. Birkeland currents and Z-pinches do not form the stars.

[@kimberlyboldt5213]

@@stevecrothers6585 Obviously, I've listened more carefully than you have. Hydrogen clusters don't form themselves out of nothing and nowhere. Go back to your basic science classes.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@kimberlyboldt5213 What are you talking about? You could just as well say that Birkeland currents and Z-pinches do not form themselves out of nothing. Your post is irrational.

[@HoratioNegersky]

Based Robitaille

[@E.lectricityNorth]

You are a visionary, Dr. R, and your spirit is one full of love and serenity. I have no doubt the two phenomena are related!

[@xkguy]

We know you have tried to tell them.

[@bonsang1073]

plasma double layer can be a perfect container

[@bonsang1073]

@@davejones7632 says who? even radiowaves are bouncing on the ionosphere

[@spatialdba]

Thank you doctor for not focussing too much on the math. I was therefore able to concentrate on your argument. As an early follower of Sky Scholar, I appreciate your work, and urge you to keep up the great work despite the detractors. ❤

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you Dr. Robitaille! Great video to start 2024! The universe is full of dust and electromagnetic fields, not only gases. This would help the aggregation of condensed matter and gases to form stars and smaller bodies.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

@@davejones7632 The same kind of sane people that went out of their way against the heliocentric theory. The zealots always come out in force, when they perceive their cult in danger.

[@bobdunit]

Air pressure on earth has only one wall, earth.

[@johnlord8337]

Graviton cores create the system of electro-gravitic (EG) compression. Electro-static accretionary theory can only accrete up to 1 meter (as physics readily states). Only electro-gravitic properties of acquisition and compression of accreted material can then create suns, planets, and moons (with active gravity cores) for full cosmogeny. This is the only logical source for cosmogeny and cosmic evolution.

[@johnlord8337]

Cosmic nursery gas and dust clouds have no electro-gravitic objects within their region. They can only have electro-static accretion - leaving no cosmogeny there - unless some rogue gravitational object flies through that region and accretes the gas and dust onto the moving object. If such a gravitational object does fly into (and ~somehow~ remain) then its appearance and gravitic properties would start the electro-gravitic accretionary theory. This proves that there is no electro-gravitic object in this area.

[@nonlinearplasma]

Stars and planets are formed during massive solar storms create plasmoids in the magnetotail of the parent object. These plasmoids form toroids that can rapidly decrease in volume from magnetoc confinement if the toroid geometry gets close enough to 1.1° aka the magic angle of a graphene superconductor as shown by MIT.

[@FlightSimDude]

👍

[@alphalima6810]

I always liked the Bible verse that goes: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[@PM9Video]

Excellence

[@romado59]

What is not being said is the fact that plasma are electrical in nature. If a birkeland current develops it will pinch the plasma. The dispersion is one over the square of radius as compared to wire which is one over the radius. For thermals and light the dispersion is one over radius squared. This is important because astronomers are always assuming homogenous and isotropic properties which is not true in most cases.

[@hawklord100]

The Z pinch theory seems to provide all the answers

[@hawklord100]

@@HarryHab-w9k A scientist should not reject any theory, just have a favoured one that they work to prove or disprove

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "theories that contradict the known data are rejected" Really, Ian. Then why can't you apply that to the failed gaseous model of the sun?

[@hawklord100]

@@HarryHab-w9k what a fkg idiot, thats not science you stupid fool, you may not agree with it, but to claim the known data contrdicts a theorie when the known data contradicts the standard theories as well LOL what a twat!!

[@hawklord100]

@@HarryHab-w9k Thats better, an expression of opinion on which unproven theory that is still been researched.

[@hawklord100]

@@HarryHab-w9k The Plasma universe theory has been around for years with many books written about it including some peer reviewed papers, this has nothing to do with the Thundebolt electric universe, but an older theory that the latest scientific studies support with the discovery and observation of the Plasma filimants which exist in no doubt, seen by Hubble, JWST as well as discovered by the radio telescopes many years ago. Only a fool would ignore the evidence of the Plasma filiments when they seem to be ubiquitous across the universe as we are not seeing things just on a planetary scale but a galactic scale right down to the planetary scale. What you or your mates believe is irrelevant, but finding a place for them in cosmology is currently the cutting edge of astronomy, not ignoring them and hoping they go away LOL good luck in breathing with your head buried in the sand LOL

[@maxhubert3785]

❤

[@whaleoilbeefhooked6688]

They talk about gases when they should be talking about plasma where electromagnetic forces overwhelmingly dominate.

[@Critter145]

This is approaching laboratory experimental outlines…

[@triedproven9908]

You wouldn't have a lab big enough to test the theory. But im sure in the center of gas clouds there is increased temperature and pressure which would mean that there just isn't enough gas to form anything meaningful. It'll always just be a cloud.

[@erikjbaker]

How many mic drops does👏it👏take👏???

[@davestorm6718]

Based on this, I would presume as matter accumulates to build the star, regions of large charge separation would have to be created - and then "destroyed". This would account for nuclear fusion reactions and the solar plasma on the exterior (electrostatic fusion), but implies that lattice confinement fusion would have to occur deeper within. We observe X-Ray and Gamma emissions, so we know fusion is occurring. The problem I see is that lattice confinement fusion would destroy the lattice as it occurs, so a mechanism of how the lattice is continually re-created is necessary. It couldn't be created without pressure. Where would the pressure (compression) required to recreate the lattice come from, if not from gravitational attraction?

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@nonlinearplasma]

"volume is defined by the container and pressure is generated at the walls" This statement is fundamentally wrong. The volume of a plasma is governed by magnetic confinement. The universe isn't made of solid object Dr R, it is however full of magnetospheres that contain the atmospheres of celestial objects.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

This video deals with ideal gases and if you bother to study kinetic theory, you will learn that Dr. Robitaille is absolutely correct. Pressure is generated at the walls in kinetic theory and when using the ideal gas law. If you actually watched the video, you should have learned that it addresses the fact that astronomers used the ideal gas law to treat gravitational collapse. Their approach has nothing to do with plasmas. So, go back to the begining, pay attention, and don't take a fragment of a sentence and argue out of context.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@HarryHab-w9k "that is not how pressure is defined" Yes it is, Ian. You would save yourself a lot of anxiety if you actually tried to learn the material.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"volume is defined by the container and pressure is generated at the walls" This statement is fundamentally wrong. nonlinearplasma1370 Wrong. The statement is correct. The gas laws developed from experiments on gases in containers on Earth. The volume of a gas is the volume of its container. The shape of a gas is the shape of its container; a gas has no intrinsic shape. The pressure of a gas is due to the collisions of the gas particles with the walls of its container. Pressure and volume and temperature of a gas cannot be defined in the absence of real containers.

[@nonlinearplasma]

@@stevecrothers6585 hate to break it to you but the Earth's atmosphere does not have walls, however it volume can be roughly appropriated into layers of magnetical confined toroids, the first layer consists of the Hadley Ferrell and Polar cells all of which are helical toroids interacting with one another forming KH instabilities at 90° which form the High and low pressure systems. The atmosphere and ocean is governed by MHD.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@nonlinearplasma "hate to break it to you but the Earth's atmosphere does not have walls" nonlinearplasma1370 What ignorant rubbish! The surface of Earth is an effective wall. The surface of Earth is a real surface. The rest of your post is just as asinine as that quoted above.

[@nastybadger-tn4kl]

We can prove that easily by counting number of planets near by stars. Dying star will have more planets

[@Snailmailtrucker]

J.H. Jeans = Just another *Math-a-Magician !* *FJB !*

[@timothy8426]

Stars have internal magnetic fields and multiple external magnetic fields. Earth's magnetic field is internal and surface mass grounds to the earth towards the center of force of flow. Quantum magnetic fields are redirected trajectories towards the center of Earth's magnetic field. The northern polarity is repulsion, and the southern polarity is propulsion. Cold and heat. Cold repulsion, heat propulsion. Stars decay as heat loss of waves of thermaldynamics singularities passing through space outside of entanglement of mass as dark energy at the cosmic speed limit in resistance to cold space itself. Cold and heat coexist as perpetual forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance as motion. These waves of thermaldynamics singularities striking atmospheres, producing sparks of electrons as light, heat resonating waves. Chain reactions pass through mass in perpetual motion in resistance point to point to point of resistance exchanging singularities as sparks of electrons as light in resistance as renewable energy exchanging singularities continuously until resistance is overcome by open space itself. Lightning burns through atmospheres as sparks of electrons as light and resonating heat waves. Atoms are disolves into thermaldynamics singularities and cold space itself as a void. Proximity atmosphere slamming shut on the void as resonating waves of thunder. Internal magnetic fields allow surface mass to ground quantum magnetic fields towards the center flow of force. Quatum magnetic fields are stronger than the earth's wider reaching weaker magnetic fields. A large magnet with a greater magnetic field will cause quantum magnetic fields to spin flow into directional unification of the unidirectional flow of the greater magnetic field called grounding electronic fields as force of pressure known as weight. The farther away from the central point of earth's magnetic field, weight decreases. External magnetic fields break down quantum magnetic fields into the greater magnetic field of force flow. Stars decay their external magnetic fields as dark energy outside of entanglement of mass. As external magnetic fields break down in stars, they begin to reduce and the internal magnetic field draws them into its magnetic field force of flow, and the heat goes to nuclear fusion and blows outward creating a void. Spinning off it, thermaldynamics singularities from its rotation and cold repulsion repels it towards the void. Where the debris left behind circulation around the void of pure cold repulsion within as an external magnetic field. The nucleus of pure cold space is surrounded by thermaldynamics singularities like a spinning top. The nucleus is northern polarity, and the surrounding thermaldynamics singularities are the southern polarity. There is no grounding of quantum magnetic fields. Proximity mass repels its magnetic fields towards the greater magnetic field and disolves into singularities outside of entanglement of mass as heat waves around these bubbles of pure fabric of cold space. The event horizon is singularities outside of entanglement of mass moving at the cosmic speed limit in resistance as constant cosmic speed. Spinning like a top. Both poles are repulsion to thermaldynamics singularities. Theoretically factual probability that works with quantum physics without gravity.

[@eltonrobb6208]

Ah, I like this one. It's amazing that Astrophysics have made a wrong turn.

[@plhebel1]

Years of theories have been presented from channels here and others and need to be argued and researched but you'll never see that until a change in thinking and attitudes happen by the academics and physics communities. Maybe the very least those with the degrees could do is not make it their mission to destroy students and others for having committed the sin of considering about a alternative to what is written?

[@shawns0762]

I agree, General Relativity predicts dilation not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light". He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. To date, 5 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities in the 1960's that the concept gradually became mainstream.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

"considering about a alternative to what is written" is what academics do all the time - it is a myth that this is somehow forbidden