collapsed interstellar clouds

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 04:30 AM

Interesting Mosheh. The theories of stellar and planetary formation from collapsing gas clouds makes several predictions of intermediate steps in the process. We then go out, figuratively, into space and observe many examples of each of these steps. You presumably have an explanation for each of these observations that better accounts for them. I should be fascinated to hear it.

yes i do...

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/304/fthoughts27gi.th.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fthoughts27gi.jpg)

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3725/theory441zl.th.jpg (http://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theory441zl.jpg)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1994/the5556ni.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=the5556ni.jpg)

and i am prepared to discuss it in detail.. as you can see...

i am not the first one to suggest it... but i have made sense of it.

nuetrons stars??? what if they explode???

clearly a good source of matter.. id say.

and some scientists suggest clearly the possiblity of nuetron stars at the center of all stars... of various sizes... being.. not made by star explosions... but instead... gave birth to the stars...

which is why they form the natural core... of star systems...

all of which can be found to fit the observed evidense.

think about it.

-MT

superluminal

02-04-06, 04:34 AM

MT,

I have skimmed your pages before and I still find them to be incomprehensible gibberish.

What mechanism could cause a neutron star to explode?

"and some scientists suggest clearly the possiblity of nuetron stars at the center of all stars"

Who?

"all of which can be found to fit the observed evidense."

Wrongo. Neutron stars at the cores of stars? How does this fit any evidence?

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 04:45 AM

superluminal

02-04-06, 04:53 AM

http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html

this is not the best link... but it is a beginning.. DR manuel.. is the shit.

he has given it alot of thought.. and while i may argue as to what nuetron stars are... and their signifigance in theory..

his basic arguements support my general views.. and so i happen to like him.

-MT

Well he's full of donkey dung.

“You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy and light,” Manuel insists. “If black holes exist at the center of galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving away from the center.”

It's called an accretion disk, and we do see stars orbiting (not "explosively moving away")about an object so massive it can't be a neutron star.

Ophiolite

02-04-06, 05:12 AM

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 05:25 AM

Mosheh, what is the nature of pathology that leads certain average individuals to believe they have been gifted with an insight that transcends the work of thousands of scientists and mountains of data?
Superluminal is too kind in describing your writings as incomprehensible gibberish. Indeed, I find them all too comprehensible. You have confused aimless mental meanderings with disciplined thought experiment; confounded tentative analogy with direct conceptual mapping; and discarded almost in its entirety the scientific method.
So, I ask again, what leads you this pass? I find that quite fascinating.

in short... the evidense... i have gone over all of it... have you?

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1827/abun335ks.th.jpg (http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abun335ks.jpg)

my book was written for those in the know...

you i guess... dont know...

please read up....

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

there is every reason to question big bang... if you dont..

it shows how little you know about the subject.. sorry.

-MT

Ophiolite

02-04-06, 06:01 AM

Mosheh, I have been questioning the Big Bang for almost as long as the Big Bang has been the accepted cosmology. However, since I have no cogent, convincing, mathematically rigorous alternative I conduct that questioning in the quiet of my own mind, or amongst small gathering of friends. On the rare occasions that I raise my doubts in a public forum such as this I do so by expressing reservations, not by promoting a half baked, unsubstantiated, ill founded, whimsical speculation.
I ask again, what pathological arrogance makes you a) think you have the answer; b) believe it consists of drivel that any half intelligent high school student could cobble together.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. With solid, maths and physics. I'll try to keep up with you. I am but a simple rock jock, so you may have to proceed slowly. I stand ready.

Anomalous

02-04-06, 08:19 AM

Yes. It's waiting for CHRISTMAS. What a scientific reply, I did expect such crap from U.

Anomalous

02-04-06, 08:22 AM

Light

02-04-06, 08:24 AM

And can U tell us why has thoes dust clouds havent yet formed stars after billions of years ?
Sure. Most of those clouds are hundreds of light years across, they consist of pretty light material and therefore are in no hurry to get together.

Anomalous

02-04-06, 08:30 AM

Mosheh, what is the nature of pathology that leads certain average individuals to believe they have been gifted with an insight that transcends the work of thousands of scientists and mountains of data? ie. Instead of focusing on the problem people like U try to get away with gurbish like below of yours. Just because U r not good enough to understand the problem your lack of humility becomes pathetatic.

Superluminal is too kind in describing your writings as incomprehensible gibberish. Indeed, I find them all too comprehensible. You have confused aimless mental meanderings with disciplined thought experiment; confounded tentative analogy with direct conceptual mapping; and discarded almost in its entirety the scientific method.
So, I ask again, what leads you this pass? I find that quite fascinating.

Anomalous

02-04-06, 08:37 AM

Sure. Most of those clouds are hundreds of light years across, they consist of pretty light material and therefore are in no hurry to get together.
For billions of years, U r damn right.

Ophiolite

02-04-06, 08:54 AM

ie. Instead of focusing on the problem people like U try to get away with gurbish like below of yours. Just because U r not good enough to understand the problem your lack of humility becomes pathetatic.
Anomalous, let me make a few things clear for you:
1) Thoughtful posters are aware that you are a bit of a prat.
2) garbage is not spelt gurbish, nor is rubbish spelled as gurbish.
3) I have focused on the problem. i.e. the topic of the thread is interstellar clouds and planetary formation. Mosheh, initially, appeared to be unaware of the considerable body of evidence relating to their formation and evolution. I questioned him on this. He then revealed he had a simplistic, unfounded explanation for certain cosmological and astronomical phenomena. I challenged the philosophy of his position. Do you now understand that I have precisely focused on the problem?
4) I rather suspect that when it comes to the matter of understanding planetary formation I have a far greater grasp of the issue than you. I would be delighted to learn the contrary is true, since that would afford an opportunity for me to learn from you. Perhaps we could trade detailed technical questions until one of us cries yield. I should be happy to allow you first strike.
5) I am humble in those settings where humility is apt. Dealing with children and deliberately ignorant is not such a setting.
6) Popular and informed opinion both favour the variant pathetic over your preferred pathetatic. Such pathos.

So, let us see you focus on the problem. Express your view. I have expressed mine. How does yours differ? Set it out for us to examine, or run scurrying for cover. I shall be satisfied with either action.

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 03:53 PM

SIMPLISTIC..???

ha... that is always the responce i get from morons.

i have gone over it in detail.. 19 pages of it with other scientists who are much more knowledgeable... and after all that effort..
they could not crush the foundations of what i put forth.

and i know clearly.. you could not as well.

if my writtings are gibberish.. it is you who must read it.. and pull out of it.. that which you call jibberish.. and we can argue it.

but you... clearly did not attempt to understand a word i wrote..

so why would i bother.. and apply so much effort? when in the end.. you...

you.. mr. ophioilte do not have the background to really discuss it.
and you will as most do... shut our eyes.. and say it is jibberish that hurts your brain.

im sorry.. but im running out of time.. and my time becomes precious.
-MT

Light

02-04-06, 04:12 PM

Ophiolite

02-04-06, 04:13 PM

SIMPLISTIC..???
ha... that is always the responce i get from morons.Do you think there might be something to be learned there? No, probably not. :(
i have gone over it in detail.. 19 pages of it with other scientists who are much more knowledgeable...
-MT
Nineteen pages detailing why the Big Bang may not be real.
Can you read my words if not my lips. I do not believe in the Big Bang. Refer to my earlier post. On that point, at least, we are in agreement.
Now be good enough to explain to my moronic, less knowledgeable, background lacking self, what in those nineteen pages pertains to the formation of stars and planetary systems, and which demonstrates, or suggests, that current theories are invalid.
Do you think you can dismount from your high horse long enough to do that Mosheh, or are you merely trying to deflect away from areas of ignorance: yours, not mine. I await your reply.

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 04:20 PM

Believe me, your time and effort is of no value to anyone but your own deluded self. Could this possibly mean that you are going away from us?? (Hope, hope, hope, hope...) :D

THIS IS TRUE...

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 04:27 PM

Do you think there might be something to be learned there? No, probably not. :(

Nineteen pages detailing why the Big Bang may not be real.
Can you read my words if not my lips. I do not believe in the Big Bang. Refer to my earlier post. On that point, at least, we are in agreement.
Now be good enough to explain to my moronic, less knowledgeable, background lacking self, what in those nineteen pages pertains to the formation of stars and planetary systems, and which demonstrates, or suggests, that current theories are invalid.
Do you think you can dismount from your high horse long enough to do that Mosheh, or are you merely trying to deflect away from areas of ignorance: yours, not mine. I await your reply.

my theory in short.. is the proposal for a natural progressive pattern in levels of dimensional motions or states apon what we now call space, but which i call the Ether in theory.... a transinental fluid which condesends to obey natural laws...
it incorporates all the best from m, string, big bang, chaos.. all those many theories ... but it unifies all of it by cutting out the fat of each.

these dimensional patterns.. as a natural progression being the result of the application of energy of specific quality... with a fundamental quality being Pi.. 3,1415962... which set the pattern of dimensional progression by setting the timing scale patterns by which these dimensional transitions would occur...
thus there are atleast `16 and up to 28 dimensions within our universe...

we could argue over every little detail... but in the end.. you would still not agree and i understand... it is typical.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3281/bcoverrrr1by.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bcoverrrr1by.jpg)

-MT

omarina

02-04-06, 04:42 PM

wow this topic went far

would u say it's about the size of our milky way? or is that too small?

Communist Hamster

02-04-06, 05:08 PM

Much, Much too big. It is within the milky way.

mstarry

02-04-06, 05:12 PM

Size of Earth's orbit around the Sun? or is that too small?
If Earth's orbit is too small, what about Pluto's?

Mosheh Thezion

02-04-06, 06:33 PM

all i am doing or trying, gentlemen and ladies.. is to show you a potential other side of the coin so to speak...

and by way of my proposed theory.. i would suggest that space is non- expanding..
and its volume.. is in itself not limited to the physical locality of all the mass in the universe...
i.e... all the matter in the universe is expanding... and the space within which it is expanding need only be large on a relative scale to allow for long term formations over that time frame... being the life span of a universe.

along this line some could argue for the steady state nature of space and the random application of energy resulting in these bursts of universal formation....
but such is clearly argueable.

-MT

Anomalous

02-05-06, 01:45 AM

....
but you... clearly did not attempt to understand a word i wrote..... They must have but failed.

Mosheh Thezion

02-05-06, 03:15 AM

MOST... dont even try.

Communist Hamster

02-05-06, 08:58 AM

Size of Earth's orbit around the Sun? or is that too small?
If Earth's orbit is too small, what about Pluto's?

I think I said how big the Eagle nebula was in the first page.

superluminal

02-05-06, 06:27 PM

This is all now just low entertainment at the expense of MT and to a lesser degree, Anom. Getting kinda boring.

Ophiolite

02-05-06, 07:25 PM

You are correct. Here are some facts. They may be equally boring, but they are facts.

Interstellar Gas Clouds

1. From Water Abundance in Molecular Cloud Cores: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v539n2/005259/005259.web.pdf
a) Cold clouds (temperatures as low as 10K-30K) may have only a few parts per billion water vapour.
b) Hot clouds, warmed by nearby young stars may contain 10,000 times more water.
c) The formation of water in such star nurseries may cool the clouds, promoting further star formation

2. From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/galactic_clouds_991123.html, summarising three papers in Nature 402 Nov 25 1999
There are high velocity clouds moving in the galactic halo. These likely have multiple origins:
a) Primordial remnants of the formation of the Milky Way.
b)Bilked leftovers of dwarf galaxies that got too close to the Milky Way.
c) Fountains of stuff formerly spewed by supernovas from within the Milky Way.

3. The dominant element in all these clouds, naturally, is hydrogen.
http://cosmos.swin.edu.au/entries/interstellargascloud/interstellargascloud.html
a) Only the coldest clouds contain molecular hydrogen. These are also rich in dust. These are the Giant Molecular Clouds.
b) Where the temperature is a little higher, around 100 K, the hydrogen dissociates into neutral hyrdogen atoms. These are the HI clouds.
c) In the region of hot stars the clouds may heat up to 10,000 K, ionising the hydrogen. These are the HII regions.

4. And those vaguely familiar with the Virial theorem relating to cloud collapse may find this link useful. http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/stars/collapse.html
It includes a worked example of a collapsing cloud - diameter: 50 light years; mass: 330,000 x Sun

superluminal

02-05-06, 07:31 PM

I find all things astronomy to be fascinating.

Nova1021

02-06-06, 12:56 AM

MT, I skimmed through your proposal, and there is nothing there. I have a degree in astrophysics and have done research in star formation, and your work is entirely composed of cute drawings and incomprehensible techno-babble. You will claim that, because nobody can understand what you wrote, it is therefore an invincible theory. Unfortunately, this compounds the evidence that you know nothing about the scientific process. The goal of technical writing is to express, in simple, direct language, exactly what your work is about, not to obscure it with inpenetrable writing. One does not understand a theory until one can express it clearly to someone who has no background in the subject and make them understand it. Since your work cannot be understood even by intelligent people, it seems that you have failed this crucial step.

Best of luck with your work, but you need to learn how to write, and learn some physics to back up the ideas. Cartoons are not science. Including pi (NOT Pie, as you spelled it in the papers), and tossing out the names of famous scientists does not make something science.

And, just out of curiosity, could you define this "quality of Pie" that the externally applied energy supposedly has? I sincerely hope it has nothing to do with the famous Sagan quote: "To bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

Anomalous

02-06-06, 01:01 AM

Ophiolite

02-06-06, 05:55 AM

Nova1021, your post was a delight of economy, accuracy and focus. Thank you.

Lucas

02-06-06, 07:45 AM

Anomalous

02-06-06, 07:58 AM

Just to answer the question of the OP with precise ciphers, the Solar Nebula, i.e, the molecular cloud that gave birth to the Solar System, had a radius of 50 AU. In comparison, the radius of the orbit of Pluto is 40 AU. Curiously, our Solar System is actually much bigger than that, because the (hypothetical) Oort Cloud has an outer radius of 100000 AU. The Oort Cloud objects were formed much closer to the Sun than their actual abode, but were ejected to their actual orbits So do U think the hydrogen the first of the elements in the universe just collapsed into stars instead of expanding out into space being pure gas molecules ? And that too when the universe was very very hot.

Ophiolite

02-06-06, 08:00 AM

Yes.

Lucas

02-06-06, 08:05 AM

So do U think the hydrogen the first of the elements in the universe just collapsed into stars instead of expanding out into space being pure gas molecules ? And that too when the universe was very very hot.

But take into account that this hydrogen was not distributed homogenously, but was more dense in some zones that in others. It's pure gravity: the more denser zones collapsed to form stars

Anomalous

02-06-06, 08:09 AM

But take into account that this hydrogen was not distributed homogenously, but was more dense in some zones that in others. It's pure gravity: the more denser zones collapsed to form stars So By that defination there should be no BigBang At all Or in the first few seconds after BigBang the universe should become a single gaint star and hence a single Blackhole.

Communist Hamster

02-06-06, 03:11 PM

So By that defination there should be no BigBang At all Or in the first few seconds after BigBang the universe should become a single gaint star and hence a single Blackhole.
Matter didn't form instantly "at the big bang", it appeared shortly after.
And I remember U arguing with valid points over it, but now I cant find them again in this thread.
Must've been those despicable human moderators, eh Anomy?

superluminal

02-06-06, 07:16 PM

Hey Nova 1021, excellent post.

Anomalous

02-07-06, 03:59 AM

Matter didn't form instantly "at the big bang", it appeared shortly after. .... ****TROLLING**** So it formed after a while so as not to collapse but yet it did not fly off into nothingness, instead it formed into universe, how unbelievable.

Mosheh Thezion

02-07-06, 04:33 AM

Anomalous

02-07-06, 04:51 AM

Anomalous

02-07-06, 04:55 AM

....

not condense to form clouds..

unless the atoms can cool....

so how did they cool??

i.e.. slow down.. in their exspansive motion?

-MT The cooling wont do anything to the speed , infact the universe is in acceleration expansion, that tells me that at some point acceleration musta been zero, hence there was a LUMP and not a explosion.

Nova1021

02-07-06, 11:37 AM

was all matter at a super high temp when it formed??? IN BIG BANG???

and does that temp relate to velocity???

and is not this heated gas.. in an expanding volume???

well... science tells us.... a heated gas will always expand to fill its container...

not condense to form clouds..

unless the atoms can cool....

so how did they cool??

i.e.. slow down.. in their exspansive motion?

-MT

The Big Bang theory (note: that's a scientific theory, make sure you understand what that means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) says that the universe began with a period of rapid expansion and "cooling". It is important to remember that this is not like a gas expanding to fill its container. The universe is the container and it was simply expanding. It wasn't that space was empty blackness, and all of a sudden there was a huge explosion. Space itself was created with the big bang. This is a very important concept to wrap your mind around.

The second important concept is that there was no distinction between matter and energy when the big bang occurred. By Einstien's famous equation energy can be related to mass by the speed of light (E-MC^2), so energy and mass are the same thing. At the instant after the big bang, there was just energy. As the universe expanded, the energy density dropped enough so that particles started to form out of the energy. Then the particles began to interact to form larger particles. Quarks formed protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons began to stick together into helium and lithium.

This soup of particles cooled because, as you say, the volume they were in was expanding. If you've ever used an aerosol spray can you get some idea of what I mean. As the gas expands into a much greater volume (the space outside the can) it gets cold. Frost can even form on the can. Similar idea with the universe, except the gas isnt leaving its container, the container is just getting bigger. You have a very hot gas in a small volume, but that volume is expanding, so the gas cools down. It's called adiabatic expansion, look it up.

Eventually, the universe cooled enough that the electrons could bind to the nuclei flying around, and form atoms. When this happened, the universe suddenly was no longer "opaque." That is - electromagnetic radiation could travel without being instantly absorbed by the charged paticles flying around. That radiation is still traveling through the universe today. It's called the cosmic microwave background.

Slight variations in the density of this cloud of atoms caused gravity to start to pull them into clumps. Those clumps collapsed and formed galaxies. A similar collapse process occured in the galaxies to form stars, and around the stars to form planets, and around some planets to form moons.

Mosheh Thezion

02-08-06, 02:08 AM

EXPANDING AND COOLING.. and lumps... i see.

one question...

this cooling... where does the heat go?

OH AND BY THE WAY.... a gas in an expanding volume will always obsorb energy....
that why it causes cooling...

the gas itself... in the exspansin process is actually obsorning energy... heating up.

so again... where does the heat go?? outside our space..??????

it must convert to something... and photons.. again.. will all be expanding and spreading.... not condensing.

but please.. explain..

1) where heat go?
2) do gas obosrb heat in expansion? yes they do.

-MT

Communist Hamster

02-08-06, 02:51 AM

The heat goes into empty space as IR radiation I think.

Anomalous

02-08-06, 05:06 AM

So the space was created in the nothingness and the bigbang happened nowhere yet we are here. Get real guys.

Communist Hamster

02-08-06, 11:37 AM

Got a better theory? That maths supports the Big Bang theory.

superluminal

02-08-06, 09:30 PM

draqon

02-08-06, 10:57 PM

Anomalous

02-09-06, 12:22 AM

Got a better theory? That maths supports the Big Bang theory. Sure, But who told U that BB theory had acceleration of expansion in mind ? U seem to be from the lost generations.

Anomalous

02-09-06, 12:24 AM

Ok heres a theory...Life created Life...Universe created Universe...That is someone/something created a universe in his/her/it's universe...Sort of like matrix...but without all the junk of machines feeding off humans' energy... U dont seem to get it do U.

SuperLuminal is asking where the hell did God create universe in and whereever he was before that, wasnt that part of universe too ?

draqon

02-09-06, 12:28 AM

U dont seem to get it do U.

SuperLuminal is asking where the hell did God create universe in and whereever he was before that, wasnt that part of universe too ?

ask God.

Communist Hamster

02-09-06, 02:56 AM

No, ask Qorl. He seems to have a direct link to God.

draqon

02-09-06, 03:04 AM

U dont seem to get it do U.

SuperLuminal is asking where the hell did God create universe in and whereever he was before that, wasnt that part of universe too ?

Well did you ever visualize a universe without a beginning or an end? What if the future gave birth to the beginning, what if part of the future is sent back through time, to its beginning. The universe collapses into itself and then expands, there is no end and no beginning, it is analogous with a circle. Can you visualize that?

Mosheh Thezion

02-09-06, 03:11 AM

no one answered me... im sad now.

-MT

Anomalous

02-09-06, 03:27 AM

Well did you ever visualize a universe without a beginning or an end? What if the future gave birth to the beginning, what if part of the future is sent back through time, to its beginning. The universe collapses into itself and then expands, there is no end and no beginning, it is analogous with a circle. Can you visualize that? Speculations cannot be science, thats the job of religion. One has to be logically sound.

Anomalous

02-09-06, 03:29 AM

no one answered me... im sad now.

-MT
Delete the old post, rephrase and try your luck again.

draqon

02-09-06, 03:34 AM

EXPANDING AND COOLING...... where does the heat go?....-MT

If you are asking were does the heat go from anything in our universe...then hear me...the universe as we know it today is complex and heat/energy is trapped in complex molecules and is awakened from interaction of these molecules or atoms... Heat escapes and dissociates...just like everything else does...entropy increases...heat by essence is the movement of any molecules at high speed...thus creating energy...thing is...that heat once awakened must be kept alive...that is something must reimburse that heat...if it is not reimbursed...then these movement of molecules gets passed through molecules...sort of like waves...except some molecules can slow down these waves...in the end we have increase on entropy...I believe thats what it is called...entropy increases and everything expands....and heat gets lost, an analogy with waves in a pond...it fades away...also analogous with people...their actions which were so acute and important during their lifetime, fade away, affect the life today less and less. That is unless you were the creator of a big wave, something that has caused the universe to change, and you will be remembered for a long time, because you were that wave that changed it all, but then of course it will fade away into ever expanding nothingness...

Mosheh Thezion

02-09-06, 03:35 AM

im not really sad.. dismayed perhaps... disapointed... its hard to say.

draqon

02-09-06, 03:36 AM

read the above statement Mosheh

Anomalous

02-09-06, 03:43 AM

The argument that BB explosion was hindered by expanding space is crap, because we dont know the speeed of expanding space and over that there no evidence that something can be bounced back from the edge of space.

Form hence forth I will call such claims as Black Science.

Mosheh Thezion

02-09-06, 03:46 AM

thats very nice... well done..

but you do know that the energy didint just fritter off...

big BANG supposes.. we begin with an expanding space and the magical formation of mass from the cosmic foam....

and that these particle are said to begin at super high tempurtures...

in an expanding volume...

these tempurtures corispond to velocities...

and there are high.. so if matter was at these velocities and simply... condensed sideways with all the matter at the same speed next to it...
then all the matter today would be moving with that same outward velocity.

especially since now they say it is accelorating...

acceolorating means applied force..... energy is being added..

so... the major flaw here as i see it.. is the physcial velocities of our galaxy...

not to mention the spiral superclusters... and galaxies... and solar systems... and atoms... and electrons... and photons... all.... spinning... spinning. spinning.

-MT

draqon

02-09-06, 03:51 AM

Speculations cannot be science, thats the job of religion. One has to be logically sound.

Speculations come first...and then we seek truth...otherwise Newton wouldnt have found his laws...he first speculated and then tried to find a prove...my speculation requires a prove that takes time of a human civilization lifetime, their ultimate goal is to learn were and how this world in which they live, came from

Anomalous

02-09-06, 04:15 AM

With such high speeds they still managed to collapse and become star.

Anomalous

02-09-06, 04:18 AM

Speculations come first...and then we seek truth...otherwise Newton wouldnt have found his laws...he first speculated and then tried to find a prove...my speculation requires a prove that takes time of a human civilization lifetime, their ultimate goal is to learn were and how this world in which they live, came from Hence I speculate that there was a big Lump that formed into Uranium that suddenly became a Gaint single star and then exploded splitting atoms that splitting in the end results in Hydrogen and the universe will end into hydrogen.

draqon

02-09-06, 04:19 AM

They collapse because of gravitational instability, fragmenting into magnetically supercritical cloud cores.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

Anomalous

02-09-06, 04:36 AM

They collapse because of gravitational instability, fragmenting into magnetically supercritical cloud cores.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

So the dust clouds have hydrogen and its waiting there to form stars intsead of voozingout in the open space. Give me a break freaks

draqon

02-09-06, 04:38 AM

So the dust clouds have hydrogen and its waiting there to form stars intsead of voozingout in the open space. Give me a break freaks

First of all...u need a force in order for something to voozingout, as you have reluctantly said, into space.
Second..."freaks" as you called them are Harvard phd's.

And you are?...

Anomalous

02-09-06, 04:59 AM

....

And you are?... //////////////// I am a genetic miracle

draqon

02-09-06, 04:59 AM

//////////////// I am a genetic miracle

we all are. Our actions are that which define us.

Nova1021

02-09-06, 12:24 PM

This is for Nova, if you're still around.

I understand the theory behind the BB, that space and time itself began at T=0. Is there any serious speculation regarding the context in which this 'explosion' of spacetime occurred? Or is it meaningless to even ask?

Good question. As far as I know, the only people who claim to have an explanation are string/M-theorists. I don't know about the details of their theory, but there is the claim that the big bang occurred due to the collision of two many-dimensional (they keep changing the number of dimensions that the theory seems to predict/require) membranes. So, maybe they have an answer, but they have to prove the validity of their theory first.

Also, I read references to the BB being the ultimate energetic quantum vacuum fluctuation. But if space didn't exist, what did this "vacuum fluctuation" fluctuate in? If you get my meaning?
Thanks.

I think that's what they're talking about with these "membranes" colliding. I'm as confused as you are about where these membranes are that are colliding though. I get the impression that the fluctuations or collisions they're talking about are not physical processes at all, in any normal sense of the word, and are more like the result of the theorists saying "ok, we have these mathematical constructs called membranes, what happens if they somehow intersect?"

Nova1021

02-09-06, 12:29 PM

So the dust clouds have hydrogen and its waiting there to form stars intsead of voozingout in the open space. Give me a break freaks

Dust clouds are normally in equilibrium in space: the random motions of their particles (temperature) tries to press outward, and gravity tries to pull inward. This sets up stable masses of gas and dust in space. Then what happens if you perturb the blob? Maybe a supernova shockwave hits the cloud? All of a sudden the inward pressure is greater than the outward pressure and it begins to collapse. As it collapses, gravity gets stronger (remember it is inversely proportional to distance squared), so you get a runaway collapse.

Not freaks. This is all classical physics: thermodynamics and newtonian gravitation. It's been known for centuries.