Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[Native]

Getting the calculations correct from a general theory *is* getting the 'cosmological facts'. There is nothing else required.

Getting calculations of a theoretical issue is nothing more than getting the calculation right according to the theory.

I'll tell you what. Get the calculations based on E&M to come out even close to correct and you have a discussion. The laws for E&M are well known (Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law). Give *any* model that predicts

1. The basic elliptical orbits of planets and comets
2. The deviations from those orbits that are currently explained by gravitational interactions between the planets.

If you can get *anything* that works remotely close, you have at least the beginnings of an argument. Otherwise, frankly, you don't.

We were discussing the Thermodynamics of a cosmic cloud and not this for the moment. You´re just changing subject in order to avoid the nasty questions.

There is no such thing as 'above the gravity influence of the Earth' unless it is so far away only its internal gravity is relevant.

According to the laws of Thermodynamics a gaseous cloud cannot do work on itself, no matter where it is located.

Give me a brake, will you? The assumed heavy gravity from the Earth cannot even pull the lightest gaseous matters to the ground. Thermodynamical temperature is even stronger than your gravity.

On the other hand, thermodynamics in a gravitational field is regularly done and used to understand the distribution of gases in the atmosphere.

Oh, so you are speaking of atmospheric pressures and thermodynamic distributions of wheather systems And of course you again forgot the EM influence in weather systems which creates strong EM ligthnings

No, he is using the equations for gravity that only apply for a uniform sphere. Second, he is misusing thermo in this context. For small amount of gas (like what you get in a lab), the self-gravity is minimal. For large clouds of gas, light years across, it is a major aspect of the dynamics.

Your arguments here STILL goes against the laws of thermodynamics where gases cannot do work on itself and collapse - no matter the size of gaseous clouds. This was what the entire video content was all about.

Well, it is the gravitational equations and the thermodynamic equations that are used to give the correct motion. That makes it a gravitational thing.

Congratulations then! You/modern science have succeded to ignore the laws of thermodynamics where gases cannot make work on itself and collapse to anything and furthermore succeded to invent a gravitational force which precisely does the same dynamic work on gas and matter as electromagnetism in a circuit of formation

Beware! You´re on your way to find the TOE or at least a GUT if you keep on doing such unconscious things

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for your "interference"

It all depends on your "points of views" when it comes to understanding cosmos and things we cannot make experiments with, as "gravitational effects in cosmos". Up against thesse theoretical ideas, we all can make experiments with Thermodynamics and its affects on "gas and dust" and describe and explain these with with mathematical calculations.

Yes, and depending of your cosmological points of views, it even can be quite idiotic

I wouldn´t count on your judgement on these mythical/cosmological matters as you even don´t take mythical mentions of the Sun and Milky Way as other but your "Storyteller" fairy tales.

Sorry, but aren’t you telling fairytale whenever you tell us that Genesis Flood occurred in the Milky Way, and not on Earth itself.

How is your personal flood story any more credible than the Genesis version?

Both are myths.

Your story, or your version of the story, is no more than mystic woo.

 

[Polymath257]

Getting calculations of a theoretical issue is nothing more than getting the calculation right according to the theory.

No, the results ALSO have to agree with observations.

We were discussing the Thermodynamics of a cosmic cloud and not this for the moment. You´re just changing subject in order to avoid the nasty questions.

OK, gas clouds are NOT uniform (just look at the Orion and Eagle nebula). In large irregular structures, gravity tends to increases density differences: those areas that are high in density tend to get higher in density and those that are lower in density tends to get even lower (by losing mass to the high density regions).

If you want a thermodynamics treatment of this, go to Weinberg's book on Cosmology.

In your video, the bad assumption is that the gas cloud is uniform. That is where the energy formula in the video comes from (although that isn't mentioned). And that means that the entropy and thermodynamic calculations are not for the correct situation.

According to the laws of Thermodynamics a gaseous cloud cannot do work on itself, no matter where it is located.

Yes, the total energy of the cloud stays the same. So what? Areas of higher density can still collapse and those of less density expand, leading to what we actually see in nebulae. The energy *can* be redistributed and that redistribution is encouraged by gravity.

Give me a brake, will you? The assumed heavy gravity from the Earth cannot even pull the lightest gaseous matters to the ground. Thermodynamical temperature is even stronger than your gravity.

Huh? There is an equilibrium between the expansion of the gas and the gravity contracting it. That is why the gas stays close to the Earth and doesn't just expand into space.

Oh, so you are speaking of atmospheric pressures and thermodynamic

distributions of wheather systems And of course you again forgot the EM influence in weather systems which creates strong EM ligthnings

I didn't forget it. E&M characteristics of weather clouds do produce some important effects locally. But they are NOT why we get the density profile in the atmosphere that we do: that is the playoff between thermo and gravity.

Your arguments here STILL goes against the laws of thermodynamics where gases cannot do work on itself and collapse - no matter the size of gaseous clouds. This was what the entire video content was all about.

And once again, that video was assuming a uniform cloud, which is almost never the case in the real world. The cloud does NOT 'do work on itself': the total energy of the cloud stays the same, but it is redistributed.

Congratulations then! You/modern science have succeded to ignore the laws of thermodynamics where gases cannot make work on itself and collapse to anything and furthermore succeded to invent a gravitational force which precisely does the same dynamic work on gas and matter as electromagnetism in a circuit of formation

Beware! You´re on your way to find the TOE or at least a GUT if you keep on doing such unconscious things

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring how thermodynamics works in a gravitational field. It is tricky, I agree, but not impossible and when it is done, it agrees with observations.

 

[Native]

Sorry, but aren’t you telling fairytale whenever you tell us that Genesis Flood occurred in the Milky Way, and not on Earth itself.

I´ve never said that a Genesis Flood "occured in the Milky Way". What I´m saying is that some of our cultural ancestors imagined the huge whitish contours of the Milky Way as a "River on the night Sky", i.e. ABOVE the Earth and not ON the Earth.

This ancient astro-myth have been interpreted by later literal scholars to be a factual flood which once was caused as a divine revenge over humans, covering the Earth and even the highest mountains.

Of course if later (or present) interpreters had no astronomical knowledge of the myths, they had no other choices but to take this global telling literary and then it became unbelievable fairy tellings.

Your story, or your version of the story, is no more than mystic woo.

Of course it is to you as you don´t take the astronomical facts in the myths seriously.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Getting calculations of a theoretical issue is nothing more than getting the calculation right according to the theory.

No, the results ALSO have to agree with observations.

Of course, but this again depends of HOW you INTERPRET the observations and how many of the fundamental forces are involved.

OK, gas clouds are NOT uniform (just look at the Orion and Eagle nebula). In large irregular structures, gravity tends to increases density differences: those areas that are high in density tend to get higher in density and those that are lower in density tends to get even lower (by losing mass to the high density regions).

Thermodynamic laws of course don´t differ between "regular or irregular gaseous clouds". Even in cosmos the normal inherent behavior of gas is dispersion and not contraction.

Huh? There is an equilibrium between the expansion of the gas and the gravity contracting it. That is why the gas stays close to the Earth and doesn't just expand into space.

You´re confusing the magnetic field on the Earth as a "gravitational field". You should know that we live in a EM bubble which even "covers us from cosmic radiation" as it is said. This EM bubble also holds the Earths atmosphere.

Yes, the total energy of the cloud stays the same. So what? Areas of higher density can still collapse and those of less density expand, leading to what we actually see in nebulae. The energy *can* be redistributed and that redistribution is encouraged by gravity.

Does the "energy" of a given cosmic cloud depend on "gravitational density"? I don´t think so. Obviously you´re falling in the gravity pit when you claim so. You take gas and matter as just "firm stuff" which has "gravitational mass" - and totally ignore the fact that atoms have EM properties of attraction and repulsion. And much stronger than your weakest gravity.

What you really observe in nebulae i (and otherwhere in cosmos) s a stronger charged EM force closer to its center, which is why strong gamma rays are radiated out from its center as a result of a nuclear formation. We are talking of EM formation in plasmatic clouds of gas and dust.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring how thermodynamics works in a gravitational field. It is tricky, I agree, but not impossible and when it is done, it agrees with observations.

I´m not ignoring anything at all. "Thermo" means "temperature" and it is governed by heating and cooling and not by the illusive and pathetic weak gravity which no one can explain dynamically and naturally. That´s why it´s tricky for you to explain too.

And I STILL claim that the consensus way of observing cosmos just confirms earlier assumptions build on assumptions on "how gravity works" - a work which was directly contradicted exactly in cosmic (galactic) areas.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Getting calculations of a theoretical issue is nothing more than getting the calculation right according to the theory.

Of course, but this again depends of HOW you INTERPRET the observations and how many of the fundamental forces are involved.

Thermodynamic laws of course don´t differ between "regular or irregular gaseous clouds". Even in cosmos the normal inherent behavior of gas is dispersion and not contraction.

The usual thermodynamics laws are for equilibrium systems. And no, those don't apply to systems with density irregularities.

And, even for equilibrium systems, the thermodynamic laws have to take into consideration *all* of the energy of the system. And that includes the gravitational energy.

You´re confusing the magnetic field on the Earth as a "gravitational field". You should know that we live in a EM bubble which even "covers us from cosmic radiation" as it is said. This EM bubble also holds the Earths atmosphere.

No, I am NOT confusing the two. The E&M field is simply not strong enough to keep the atmosphere in place, especially since the atmosphere is mostly eletrically neutral. Maybe you should learn some E&M?

Does the "energy" of a given cosmic cloud depend on "gravitational density"?

Absolutely it does. The energy from the gravitational field will be the integral of the field squared over the volume of the gas.

I don´t think so. Obviously you´re falling in the gravity pit when you claim so. You take gas and matter as just "firm stuff" which has "gravitational mass" - and totally ignore the fact that atoms have EM properties of attraction and repulsion. And much stronger than your weakest gravity.

E&M is stronger for charged or magnetic substances, but not for neutral particles. And for large gas clouds (light years across), those small gravitational effects become major contributors. You are ignoring the differences in small clouds like in our atmosphere, where the gravitational effect of the gas itself is small, to the very large clouds we see in space, where the gravitational effect is much larger (there is a much larger mass).

What you really observe in nebulae i (and otherwhere in cosmos) s a stronger charged EM force closer to its center, which is why strong gamma rays are radiated out from its center as a result of a nuclear formation. We are talking of EM formation in plasmatic clouds of gas and dust.

Oh, we can measure the E&M fields also. And your explanation simply doens't correspond to the facts as those fields are measured.

I´m not ignoring anything at all. "Thermo" means "temperature" and it is governed by heating and cooling and not by the illusive and pathetic weak gravity which no one can explain dynamically and naturally. That´s why it´s tricky for you to explain too.

Thermodynamics is about *energy* where heat is one type of energy and temperature has to do with equilibrium of energy dispersion. Gravity affects the total energy.

And I STILL claim that the consensus way of observing cosmos just confirms earlier assumptions build on assumptions on "how gravity works" - a work which was directly contradicted exactly in cosmic (galactic) areas.

Except that it isn't. It is confirmed when we look at binary star systems. It is confirmed when we look at other planetary systems. It is confirmed even on the galactic scale *if* you take into account dark matter.

 

[Native]

The usual thermodynamics laws are for equilibrium systems. And no, those don't apply to systems with density irregularities.
And, even for equilibrium systems, the thermodynamic laws have to take into consideration *all* of the energy of the system. And that includes the gravitational energy.

You apparently don´t take the laws of thermodynamics to work universally and you confuse "particle mass" as an "contracting energy" only according to the weakest force of all, and thus COMPLETELY ignore the much stronger fundamental forces - and at the same time you underline that "thermodynamic laws have to take into consideration *all* of the energy of the system".

This isn´t consistent at all as you forget the 3 stronger forces and energies and their formative EM motions in all your arguments.

No, I am NOT confusing the two. The E&M field is simply not strong enough to keep the atmosphere in place, especially since the atmosphere is mostly eletrically neutral. Maybe you should learn some E&M?

You assume "gravity" from the Earth to hold the atmosphere - STILL the ligthest atmospheric gaseous elements keeps on flying up in the air away from the Earth. Of course the atmosphere isn´t electrically neutral. But maybe you take "gravity" to create lightnings too? And take "gravity" to create auroral lights too?

Maybe you should learn some natural philosophy?

E&M is stronger for charged or magnetic substances, but not for neutral particles. And for large gas clouds (light years across), those small gravitational effects become major contributors. You are ignoring the differences in small clouds like in our atmosphere, where the gravitational effect of the gas itself is small, to the very large clouds we see in space, where the gravitational effect is much larger (there is a much larger mass).

Let´s say: If gravity constitutes this "much larger mass", the electric charge in this large atomic gaseous and metallic cloud of course is STILL even much stronger than your weakest gravity.

But never mind It seems that your are personally very satisfied with counting on an unseen weak force which no one can observe physically or explain and which demands other unseen dark this and that forces in order to at least make it "function" on the calculus paper.

We live in a Universe of Light - it´s only the standard astronomers and astrophysicists and their supporters who lives in cosmological darkness.

 

[gnostic]

Of course it is to you as you don´t take the astronomical facts in the myths seriously.

No, Native.

I take fact as “fact”...meaning evidence-based fact.

I take myths as “myths”...meaning traditional native stories with no evidence and no real knowledge of astronomy. They are based on superstitions.

These myths were developed by priests and poets, not by astronomers.

 

[gnostic]

@Native

I guess I know where you get these pseudoscience BS about the Milky Way from, by watching YouTube videos made by hack astronomer, as P.M. Robitaille.

His qualification is in radiology; he has no qualifications in astronomy or astrophysics. And Robitaille has never worked in any observatories.

Oh, yes, I have watched his video, and it was waste of my time and patience.

Watch this video is like watching the Daniken’s pseudo-archaeology film Chariots Of The Gods? or like reading one of Graham Hancock’s BS books.

Only physics illiterate might believe Robitaille‘s video.

 

[Native]

No, Native.

I take fact as “fact”...meaning evidence-based fact.

I take myths as “myths”...meaning traditional native stories with no evidence and no real knowledge of astronomy. They are based on superstitions.

These myths were developed by priests and poets, not by astronomers.

I´m sincerely sorry for your lack of mythical understanding which is a direct insult of all our ancestors.

@Native

I guess I know where you get these pseudoscience BS about the Milky Way from, by watching YouTube videos made by hack astronomer, as P.M. Robitaille.

His qualification is in radiology; he has no qualifications in astronomy or astrophysics. And Robitaille has never worked in any observatories.

Oh, yes, I have watched his video, and it was waste of my time and patience.

Watch this video is like watching the Daniken’s pseudo-archaeology film Chariots Of The Gods? or like reading one of Graham Hancock’s BS books.

Only physics illiterate might believe Robitaille‘s video.

You are welcome to guess all that you wish from where I got my mythical and cosmological understanding, inclusive making Strawmen for your confusions.

I otherwise deleted my "Gnostic" ignoration but it seems that you´re still not worth reading so . . .

 

[Polymath257]

You apparently don´t take the laws of thermodynamics to work universally and you confuse "particle mass" as an "contracting energy" only according to the weakest force of all, and thus COMPLETELY ignore the much stronger fundamental forces - and at the same time you underline that "thermodynamic laws have to take into consideration *all* of the energy of the system".

non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a *much* harder subject and goes way beyond what was done in your video. That video only dealt with the equilibrium situation. And that is precisely the problem.

Yes, mass produces gravity which tends to contract things.

And yes, you have to account for *all* the energy of the system including the gravitational energy.

This isn´t consistent at all as you forget the 3 stronger forces and energies and their formative EM motions in all your arguments.

No, I do not ignore the stronger forces. The strong and weak nuclear forces have very limited range, so are only relevant for nuclear reactions. They are *very* important for understanding the fusion reactions in the cores of stars, for example.

E&M is also relevant when there are a lot of charged particles around. So, for example, in nebula that have highly ionizing radiation, it can be significant to understanding the dynamics.

You assume "gravity" from the Earth to hold the atmosphere - STILL the ligthest atmospheric gaseous elements keeps on flying up in the air away from the Earth. Of course the atmosphere isn´t electrically neutral. But maybe you take "gravity" to create lightnings too? And take "gravity" to create auroral lights too?

No, I do NOT assume. I know that it is gravity that keeps the air close to the Earth.

Except during thunderstorms, the atmosphere is neutral. And no, gravity does not create lightning. I am NOT saying that E&M doesn't exist. I am saying it isn't relevant for why the atmosphere stays on the Earth.

Maybe you should learn some natural philosophy?

I know physics. That is the modern version.

Let´s say: If gravity constitutes this "much larger mass", the electric charge in this large atomic gaseous and metallic cloud of course is STILL even much stronger than your weakest gravity.

Not if the gas is electrically neutral, it isn't. The much larger mass is what *produces* gravity: a force pulling things together.

But never mind It seems that your are personally very satisfied with counting on an unseen weak force which no one can observe physically or explain and which demands other unseen dark this and that forces in order to at least make it "function" on the calculus paper.

Huh? We see the results of gravity all the time. We can measure it, we can predict it, we can use it to send probes where we want.

Let's put it this way. if you want to send a probe to Mars, you should do it with the equations of gravity and not with those of E&M.

If you want to know where a planet is going to be in 50 years, you should use the equations of gravity and not those of E&M.

 

[Native]

No, I do not ignore the stronger forces. The strong and weak nuclear forces have very limited range, so are only relevant for nuclear reactions. They are *very* important for understanding the fusion reactions in the cores of stars, for example.

At least you don´t take "gravity" to work in nuclear reactions since you refer to the strong and weak fundamental force.

Personally I don´t differ between strong and weak force compared to the force of EM. It´s the same EM force just with different charges frequensies and ranges.

Otherwise that´s just one of the most important points of EM aspects in the Universe, making nuclear formation in cosmos in clouds of gas and dust = plasmatic elements and binding these elements into stars and planets etc. etc.

Huh? We see the results of gravity all the time. We can measure it, we can predict it, we can use it to send probes where we want.

Gravitational ideas failed completely in galactic matters - that´s enough for me to discard the ideas.

 

[gnostic]

I´m sincerely sorry for your lack of mythical understanding which is a direct insult of all our ancestors.

Good grief...

Mysticism are also not qualifications for astronomy or for astrophysics. Mystics aren’t astronomers.

You apparently don´t take the laws of thermodynamics to work universally and you confuse "particle mass" as an "contracting energy" only according to the weakest force of all, and thus COMPLETELY ignore the much stronger fundamental forces - and at the same time you underline that "thermodynamic laws have to take into consideration *all* of the energy of the system".

This isn´t consistent at all as you forget the 3 stronger forces and energies and their formative EM motions in all your arguments.

I don’t know of any scientists, especially astrophysicists involved in the Big Bang cosmology, are ignoring any of the 4 fundamental forces, let alone EM forces.

The only people here ignoring any force, is you and that silly (stupid) Robitaille guy.

Like Robitaille, you are ignoring gravitation force, simply because it is the weakest, just show how you two understand so little about physics relating to formation of stars and galaxies.

Astrophysicists have taken every forces into account, ignoring none, and you would know this, if you bothered to read and understand the current BB theory.

No single fundamental force was responsible for the formation of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc.

Each fundamental interactions have their respective roles to play.

The two nuclear forces, strong nuclear and weak nuclear are stronger than gravity, as @Polymath257 have already pointed out to you, but their ranges are only limited to subatomic (strong nuclear) and atomic levels (weak nuclear).

And while the range of EM force is greater than all others, including gravitational force, EM isn’t the force responsible for motion of astronomical bodies, eg galaxies, stars, planets, etc, what keeping them in orbits.

Watching the video, Robitaille may understand gases about when releasing them from the canister, and how it will fill the room, but Robitaille is ignorant when it comes to gases in deep space, and even a bigger moron when it comes to understanding gravitational collapses.

In space, the conditions are different, because if the cosmic gases are already in motion, then it become less active. Each gas atoms have masses, so if one come near another atom, it will attract them towards each other, and over time, as the mass of more atoms draw more gas atoms it will become large and it will increase their masses, thereby increasing its gravitational field.

This drawing or attracting smaller individual masses to larger, more denser and therefore massive mass, this isn’t a “gravitational collapse”....what this is, is simply basic Newton’s gravitational principle - the law of attraction - that more mass it attained, the more it will attract smaller masses.

It is obvious that Robitaille doesn’t understand this much.

Gravitational collapse is very different.

In my example above, where the gaseous body increase in size and mass, there will be no collapse, if the internal pressure of the body counterbalance the attraction, and this result with body’s internal pressure and gravitational forces being in equilibrium.

But once, the gravitational force becomes stronger than internal pressure that push outward, then a collapse will occur.

The gravitational collapse is what cause mass in the gaseous core become denser. And the higher pressure pushing inward, the hotter the core will become. Once the core reach critical mass, reach critical inward pressure (meaning even higher gravitational force), and reach critical temperature, it will trigger nuclear fusions, fusing lighter hydrogen atoms into heavier helium atoms, stellar nucleosynthesis.

And that’s how a new star will be born.

The new star will eventually reach equilibrium when the core’s pressures that push outward to counterbalance the gravitational force pushing inward, thereby preventing further gravitational collapse (further collapse will result in

either (A) a different stellar nucleosynthesis, eg fusing into carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms instead of helium,

or (B) the total collapse of a star, eg turning into red giant, or going supernova, neutron star or blackhole, etc, depending on the star’s mass).​

Robitaille is such a bloody idiot, that he - a mere radiologist - think he know more about astronomy and astrophysics than the astronomers and astrophysicists.

I would have more respect for your reply, if you have bothered to show me YouTube video from actual qualified and experienced astronomers than a pseudoscience hack like Robitaille.

 

[Polymath257]

At least you don´t take "gravity" to work in nuclear reactions since you refer to the strong and weak fundamental force.

Personally I don´t differ between strong and weak force compared to the force of EM. It´s the same EM force just with different charges frequensies and ranges.

No, the E&M force and the strong force and the weak force are different forces. Frequencies have nothing to do with it.

Now, the weak and E&M forces have been unified into the electroweak force, but even that recognizes their differences (photons as carriers of the E&M and W and Z particles for the weak).

The strong force is *very* different than these and from gravity. For one, it is the same between neutrons and protons, so electric charge isn't directly relevant for the strong interaction (of course, E&M and the weak for also enter into consideration, though).

Otherwise that´s just one of the most important points of EM aspects in the Universe, making nuclear formation in cosmos in clouds of gas and dust = plasmatic elements and binding these elements into stars and planets etc. etc.

Nope. E&M if anything tends to *prevent* nuclear reactions by making a high energy barrier. The strong force and, to a lesser extent, the weak force, are the relevant ones for nuclear reactions.

Plasmas happen at a completely different level: that of ionized atoms. And yes, E&M is very relevant for the dynamics of plasmas.

Gravitational ideas failed completely in galactic matters - that´s enough for me to discard the ideas.

And that is simply incorrect. Gravity works quite well in most cases, even galactically. The one place where there is an issue is resolved if *all* the relevant matter is included (including dark matter) and that is the rotation curves.

You have to remember that we can see other galaxies and look at their dynamics. Often that is easier than it is to look at the dynamics of the Milky Way simply because we are inside of the Milky Way. But we see star forming regions both in our galaxy and in other galaxies. We can measure the electric and magnetic fields and compute their effects on the dynamics. We can also understand the effect that gravity has.

Here is a simple example. Consider a spherical gas cloud of uniform density. How do you think it will change over time due to gravitational effects? How large does it have to be for gravity to be a significant factor in the dynamics?

 

[gnostic]

Here is a simple example. Consider a spherical gas cloud of uniform density. How do you think it will change over time due to gravitational effects? How large does it have to be for gravity to be a significant factor in the dynamics?

Important questions. Very important.

 

[gnostic]

No, I am NOT confusing the two. The E&M field is simply not strong enough to keep the atmosphere in place, especially since the atmosphere is mostly eletrically neutral. Maybe you should learn some E&M?

I think Native needs to learn more about the planet’s atmosphere too.

 

[Native]

Good grief...

Mysticism are also not qualifications for astronomy or for astrophysics. Mystics aren’t astronomers.

I don’t know of any scientists, especially astrophysicists involved in the Big Bang cosmology, are ignoring any of the 4 fundamental forces, let alone EM forces.

The only people here ignoring any force, is you and that silly (stupid) Robitaille guy.

Like Robitaille, you are ignoring gravitation force, simply because it is the weakest, just show how you two understand so little about physics relating to formation of stars and galaxies.

Astrophysicists have taken every forces into account, ignoring none, and you would know this, if you bothered to read and understand the current BB theory.

No single fundamental force was responsible for the formation of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc.

Each fundamental interactions have their respective roles to play.

The two nuclear forces, strong nuclear and weak nuclear are stronger than gravity, as @Polymath257 have already pointed out to you, but their ranges are only limited to subatomic (strong nuclear) and atomic levels (weak nuclear).

And while the range of EM force is greater than all others, including gravitational force, EM isn’t the force responsible for motion of astronomical bodies, eg galaxies, stars, planets, etc, what keeping them in orbits.

Watching the video, Robitaille may understand gases about when releasing them from the canister, and how it will fill the room, but Robitaille is ignorant when it comes to gases in deep space, and even a bigger moron when it comes to understanding gravitational collapses.

In space, the conditions are different, because if the cosmic gases are already in motion, then it become less active. Each gas atoms have masses, so if one come near another atom, it will attract them towards each other, and over time, as the mass of more atoms draw more gas atoms it will become large and it will increase their masses, thereby increasing its gravitational field.

This drawing or attracting smaller individual masses to larger, more denser and therefore massive mass, this isn’t a “gravitational collapse”....what this is, is simply basic Newton’s gravitational principle - the law of attraction - that more mass it attained, the more it will attract smaller masses.

It is obvious that Robitaille doesn’t understand this much.

Gravitational collapse is very different.

In my example above, where the gaseous body increase in size and mass, there will be no collapse, if the internal pressure of the body counterbalance the attraction, and this result with body’s internal pressure and gravitational forces being in equilibrium.

But once, the gravitational force becomes stronger than internal pressure that push outward, then a collapse will occur.

The gravitational collapse is what cause mass in the gaseous core become denser. And the higher pressure pushing inward, the hotter the core will become. Once the core reach critical mass, reach critical inward pressure (meaning even higher gravitational force), and reach critical temperature, it will trigger nuclear fusions, fusing lighter hydrogen atoms into heavier helium atoms, stellar nucleosynthesis.

And that’s how a new star will be born.

The new star will eventually reach equilibrium when the core’s pressures that push outward to counterbalance the gravitational force pushing inward, thereby preventing further gravitational collapse (further collapse will result in

either (A) a different stellar nucleosynthesis, eg fusing into carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms instead of helium,

or (B) the total collapse of a star, eg turning into red giant, or going supernova, neutron star or blackhole, etc, depending on the star’s mass).​

Robitaille is such a bloody idiot, that he - a mere radiologist - think he know more about astronomy and astrophysics than the astronomers and astrophysicists.

I would have more respect for your reply, if you have bothered to show me YouTube video from actual qualified and experienced astronomers than a pseudoscience hack like Robitaille.

I MAYBE would have replied to this, if it wasn´t for your personal insults of those who dares to think outside the squared scientific box in where you obviously belong.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
At least you don´t take "gravity" to work in nuclear reactions since you refer to the strong and weak fundamental force.
Personally I don´t differ between strong and weak force compared to the force of EM. It´s the same EM force just with different charges frequensies and ranges.
---------

No, the E&M force and the strong force and the weak force are different forces. Frequencies have nothing to do with it.

Now, the weak and E&M forces have been unified into the electroweak force, but even that recognizes their differences (photons as carriers of the E&M and W and Z particles for the weak).

The strong force is *very* different than these and from gravity. For one, it is the same between neutrons and protons, so electric charge isn't directly relevant for the strong interaction (of course, E&M and the weak for also enter into consideration, though).

I fully understand why some debaters oppose me when I advocate for the EM to govern the Universe as even modern astrophysicists and cosmologists fails to “put their own EM dots together” which of course also affects the convictions of “laymen” who just accepts and follows the consensus ideas and theories.

From – Electromagnetism - Wikipedia

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics involving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force is carried by electromagnetic fields composed of electric fields and magnetic fields, and it is responsible for electromagnetic radiation such as light. It is one of the four fundamental interactions (commonly called forces) in nature, together with the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation. At high energy the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force”.

--------------

Electromagnetism is defined as a “scientific branch of physics”, i.e. it is not thought of and defined as an universal force in spite of several physical situations where it merges with and splits up in other fundamental forces as described in the quotes above and below.

From - Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

In particle physics, the electroweak interaction or electroweak force is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 246 GeV,[a] they would merge into a single force. Thus, if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature not exceeded since shortly after the Big Bang), then the electromagnetic force and weak force merge into a combined electroweak force. During the quark epoch, the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and weak force”.
----------

So: The general EM force is depending on energy/charge and it works on different atomic or elementary stages and ranges. It can merge into a single force and split up in consensus defined different fundamental EM forces. In my opinion the EM fundamental force is ONE and it even can explain a cosmic formation where “gravity” otherwise is thought to play the main role.

Plasmas happen at a completely different level: that of ionized atoms. And yes, E&M is very relevant for the dynamics of plasmas.

"Ionized atoms" just and only depends on EM polarized charges and I just described "cosmic clouds" as plasmatic.

I said:
Gravitational ideas failed completely in galactic matters - that´s enough for me to discard the ideas.
---------------

And that is simply incorrect. Gravity works quite well in most cases, even galactically. The one place where there is an issue is resolved if *all* the relevant matter is included (including dark matter) and that is the rotation curves.

You can say that only because it only "works" hypothetical in gravitational calculations - which again is dependent on the pure assumptions of "dark this and that".

You have to remember that we can see other galaxies and look at their dynamics. Often that is easier than it is to look at the dynamics of the Milky Way simply because we are inside of the Milky Way. But we see star forming regions both in our galaxy and in other galaxies. We can measure the electric and magnetic fields and compute their effects on the dynamics. We can also understand the effect that gravity has.

Well, what then are the observable EM measurements of the central nuclear force of formation in galaxies? (I´m skipping your statement of "understanding gravity" as no one really understand gravity).

Here is a simple example. Consider a spherical gas cloud of uniform density. How do you think it will change over time due to gravitational effects? How large does it have to be for gravity to be a significant factor in the dynamics?

Remember the Laws of Thermodynamics where "a gaseous cloud cannot make work on itself"?

 

[gnostic]

I MAYBE would have replied to this, if it wasn´t for your personal insults of those who dares to think outside the squared scientific box in where you obviously belong.

There is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box, Native.

But you are forgetting thinking will only get you so far. If the thinking are not verified by falsifiable and empirical evidence, then these thinking outside of the box is merely baseless speculation.

Robitaille, whom you admired so much is nothing more than hack, no better than the likes of Michael Behe, Graham Hancock and Kent Hovind.

 

[Polymath257]

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics involving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force is carried by electromagnetic fields composed of electric fields and magnetic fields, and it is responsible for electromagnetic radiation such as light. It is one of the four fundamental interactions (commonly called forces) in nature, together with the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation. At high energy the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force”.

--------------

Good start. Now, what energies are required for these to be unified? How common are such energies in the universe?

Below such energies, these forces are NOT unified, right?

Electromagnetism is defined as a “scientific branch of physics”, i.e. it is not thought of and defined as an universal force in spite of several physical situations where it merges with and splits up in other fundamental forces as described in the quotes above and below.

From - Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

In particle physics, the electroweak interaction or electroweak force is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 246 GeV,[a] they would merge into a single force. Thus, if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature not exceeded since shortly after the Big Bang), then the electromagnetic force and weak force merge into a combined electroweak force. During the quark epoch, the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and weak force”.
----------

Right. At very high energies, the weak and E&M force are unified. When the energy level (temperature) of the universe decreased enough, the two forces split. By the way, that should be 10^15 K, which is 1 quadrillion degrees, not 1015 K.

So: The general EM force is depending on energy/charge and it works on different atomic or elementary stages and ranges.

What you just wrote is gobbledegook. The E&M force between things depends on their charges and their velocities. The phrase 'works on different atomic or elementary stages and ranges' makes no sense.

It can merge into a single force and split up in consensus defined different fundamental EM forces.

Nope. At very high energies, the equations describing the E&M force also describe the weak force. No 'consensus' is required.

In my opinion the EM fundamental force is ONE and it even can explain a cosmic formation where “gravity” otherwise is thought to play the main role.

Please provide evidence this is possible. Give specific, testable calculations based on what we know about the E&M force. You get to choose the situation (make it one where classical physics thinks it is gravity working), but you need to supply the calculations and the data and show they correspond.

"Ionized atoms" just and only depends on EM polarized charges and I just described "cosmic clouds" as plasmatic.

No. Ionized atoms means atoms that have gained or lost an electron and so are not neutrally charged. No polarization is required.

A plasma is simply a gas of ionized atoms. Not all cosmic gases are plasmas.

I said:
Gravitational ideas failed completely in galactic matters - that´s enough for me to discard the ideas.
---------------

And that is simply wrong. gravity has NOT 'completely failed' in cosmic matters. For example, it works quite well with binary star systems, or other planetary systems.

And, even with galactic rotation curves, all that needs to be added in is the contribution from dark matter. And dark matter can be mapped out *independent* of rotation curves by using gravitational lensing.

You can say that only because it only "works" hypothetical in gravitational calculations - which again is dependent on the pure assumptions of "dark this and that".

Which is what has worked many times in the past with gravity. For example, when the planet Uranus was discovered, it was found that the equations of gravity didn't match the observed motions. So, a 'dark planet' was postulated. That planet was later found, in the location that gravity predicted, and named Neptune.

Well, what then are the observable EM measurements of the central nuclear force of formation in galaxies? (I´m skipping your statement of "understanding gravity" as no one really understand gravity).

Huh? the term 'nuclear force' isn't relevant here. Formation of galaxies happens on a scale that is much, much, much larger than the nuclear scale. The energies are small enough that E&M and the weak force are NOT unified.

As for actual measurements, we can, and do, measure both the electric field and the magnetic field at galactic level.

Remember the Laws of Thermodynamics where "a gaseous cloud cannot make work on itself"?

Do you know what that means?