The following is evidence for the usual trolling that river conducts whenever he is confronted with mainstream science and cosmology...many questions and no intention of accepting any answer or links supporting an answer. Why James lets this troll continue albeit banned from the sciences, when he will always act to dishonestly get around to rejecting any and all aspects of cosmology is anyone's guess.
Fine. We begin with you giving a comprehension description of your understanding of the character of star formation. I can then correct any misunderstandings, confirm what is right and we can build from there. It doesn't matter how simplified or disconnected the description is, just include all the points you believe to be important.
I apologise for having mistyped comprehensive as comprehension. Perhaps that explains the peculiarity of your response. I was looking for you to describe how you think stars are formed. "Physical" does not do that. Could you try again please.
From the globular center of a galaxy . Moving outward , throws off spining spheres of energy , ( Milky Way , Our Galaxy , for example ) cooling into a mass . A Star . Physically .
Good. A starting point. "From the globular centre of a galaxy": No. From within fragments of collapsing giant molecular clouds located primarily within spiral arms and thus extending across most of the width of the galaxy. "Moving outward , throws off spining spheres of energy": No. There is no meaningful evidence to support that, especially "spinning spheres of energy", a meaningless phrase. "cooling into a mass. A star.": No. Stars develop by heating up, not cooling down. Initially the heat is derived from gravitational energy from collapse, but once internal pressure/temperature reaches a trigger value the star "switches on" - nuclear reactions begin.
Indeed "From the globular centre of a galaxy" ( from post my post#66) . No. From within fragments of collapsing giant molecular clouds located primarily within spiral arms and thus extending across most of the width of the galaxy. . From extreme density , instability ; to balance . Gravity is the weakest of All the Forces .
Perhaps you think that was an informed, coherent reply. It wasn't. Do you want to try again, this time in English sentences? Fixing the QUOTE function would also be helpful.
It informed me, but not in the way you intended. I realise English is not your first language, but that surely makes you more aware that you need to take care in your writing. I'll have another go. The phrase extreme density implies, typically, very high density. That is not the starting point for star formation. High density is the end point of star formation. Although extreme density implies very high density, it might also be used to describe the opposite - very low density. The Intergalactic Medium is very low density. Stars do not form there. The Interstellar Medium is slightly more dense, but still a low density. However, stars do not form there. So extreme density, as a starting point for star formation is definite NO. Instability - Well, yes. The Molecular Clouds in which stars form are unstable, but is that what you were referring to? Replying in single words, or very short phrases does not help your readers to understand your meaning. That's down to you, not your readers. To balance - Well, yes - in that a star is in hydrostatic equilibrium, but again, is that what you were talking about? And yes, gravity is the weakest force, but so what?
But but but, you havn't commented on all the evidence that river has posted supporting all his claims! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And all the evidence in all his past posts supporting all his other claims that all conveniently defy all mainstream science also! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mean all the evidence that river has given you in all his typical one liner "explanations" have dismantled all of present day astronomy/cosmology, along with the uselessness of the myriad of state of the art scientific equipment and satellites that the mainstream foolishly base their theories on!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mean really Hipparchia, how can you dismiss such ground breaking knowledge from the fringes where all the bright thinkers are confined to? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please do better. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't get to decide whether or not your replies were informed or coherent. That is the role of the reader. If you have issues such as dyslexia, or have only recently learnt English, I shall be more tolerant. But if there is no sound reason for the poor quality of your writing I shall interpret it as either discourtesy, ignorance or low intellect.
I had another go. You ignored it. Now you throw out another one word repsonse. Unacceptable. I'm leaning towards a mixture of discourtesy and low intellect as the explanation for your inadequate posts. You are down to your last two chances to make a meaningful one.
Sadly, English is his first language. He as far as we know, is either Canadian or North American. A mistake easily made admittedly.
You have one last chance to make a post that is intelligible. A post that does not require the reader to guess at your meaning. A post that is more than a handful of words. A post that is not implicitly rude in its failure to offer clarity. I'm not optimistic, but the future of an ongoing, productive, polite discussion is in your hands. Don't disappoint me. (Note: If, as Paddoboy says, English is your first language, then you must be aware of how abyssmal your sentence structure is and consequently how incoherent your posts are. Persisting with that is just plain rude.)
river is a supporter of Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical that was long ago debunked. sadly again though, you will find he is also basically ignorant of that of which he pushes, which once again, simply illustrates his general anti mainstream science stance.
