Collapsing the Gravitational Collapse

[epronovost]

Let me get this clear:
1) You don´t know what Pierre-Marie Robitaille are talking about.

The problem is that Pierre-Marie Robitaille doesn't know what he's talking about either. He seems to have no understanding of thermodynamics for example. His knowledge of astronomy is also suspiciously abscent for someone who want to talk about energy system in the cosmos. That be like having an Ancient Greece historian that doesn't know how to read ancient greek sources nor has read any translation. If they are correct about something it's by chance not by sagacity.

 

[Altfish]

Let me get this clear:
1) You don´t know what Pierre-Marie Robitaille are talking about.
2) Still you´re parotting what dogmatic consensus thinkers mean about him?

This is pure gossiping and nothing else so just get out!

No, I've read/watched accepted astrophysicists explain the same topic
PMR was an eminent radiologist, and has done much with MRI machines BUT he is NOT and astrophysicist..

 

[Thief]

Can the weakest force cause nuclear formation?

gravity?.....as the means to crush matter into heavier nuclei?

yes

and iron is the last element a star can fuse before becoming unstable

I read that somewhere

 

[Clara Tea]

Why believe in airplanes? Iron don't float.

 

[Clara Tea]

Gravitational collapse violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy of the universe always increases). Entropy can be thought of as mess (we had a professor with a messy office, and that was a scientific entropy lab). As a star collapses to a black hole, the universe around it doesn't get less organized, but inside the black hole, material is compacted neatly.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Gravitational collapse violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy of the universe always increases). Entropy can be thought of as mess (we had a professor with a messy office, and that was a scientific entropy lab). As a star collapses to a black hole, the universe around it doesn't get less organized, but inside the black hole, material is compacted neatly.

By that logic you are impossible too.

 

[Polymath257]

Gravitational collapse violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy of the universe always increases). Entropy can be thought of as mess (we had a professor with a messy office, and that was a scientific entropy lab). As a star collapses to a black hole, the universe around it doesn't get less organized, but inside the black hole, material is compacted neatly.

This is incorrect. The heat released from the inner collapse produces enough entropy to counteract the entropy lost by contraction.

 

[blü 2]

Nobel disease-type crank´s comes in two types:
1) Those who critically analyzes the logics of standing points of views in order to find new solutions to long time standing cosmological problems.
2) Those who don´t think for themselves but uncritically swallows all scientific dogmas raw - and brag of it too.

I'd like to be reassured that you're not placing yourself in category 2) here. For instance, the last time I asked you to actually explain what you were arguing and to set out the evidence that orthodoxy was wrong, you were unable to do that.

So please pinpoint the error ─ not just proclaim the existence of some unspecified error ─ in orthodoxy.

Then show how, exactly, Robitaille's notions address that error, and the evidence that shows he's right.

Please DO NOT refer us to writings and videos. Make your case in your own words.

 

[gnostic]

Gravitational collapse violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy of the universe always increases). Entropy can be thought of as mess (we had a professor with a messy office, and that was a scientific entropy lab). As a star collapses to a black hole, the universe around it doesn't get less organized, but inside the black hole, material is compacted neatly.

Except that not all gravitation collapses end up with stars collapsing into blackholes.

Only stars that are very massive end up being “blackhole”.

Our sun isn’t massive enough to become a blackhole.

The star of similar mass like our sun, the collapse will cause it start to fuse helium into heavier elements, which will cause the star to become “Red Giant” star, increasing star’s dimension & volume. Further collapse when it run out of helium to fuse, will cause outer layers of the star to be expel into space, eventually leaving a dense core of the star. This core is the star remnant, hence the star will become a White Dwarf.

That description above is what predicted for our Sun.

Other stars more massive than our sun, end up exploding as supernovas. There are several different types of supernova.

If the star’s massive core don’t survive the supernova, it will end up only leaving supernova remnant, where the energy will ionize nearby cosmic gases and dust, hence, it will be seen as a type of nebula.

But if the massive core did survive the supernova, the core might undergo further gravitation collapse, which might end up being a blackhole.

 

[Thief]

Explain "gravity" logically and dynamically before you assume it to work everywhere in all kinds of superstitious ways.

Hank Green has made that effort...minus the superstition
see SciShow
youtube

 

[Thief]

Why believe in airplanes? Iron don't float.

battle ships

 

[Native]

It is a description of how gravity works. What more do you want?

Some real answers instead of superstitious assumptions which have become pure dogmas.

 

[Native]

No, I've read/watched accepted astrophysicists explain the same topic
PMR was an eminent radiologist, and has done much with MRI machines BUT he is NOT and astrophysicist..

Apparently you haven´t watched the video and made your own independent conclusions. You´re just taking the "consensus mobbing" for granted because that is what consensus thinkers do when being seriously questioned on their twistings of thermodynamic laws and mathematical equations.

This is what Robitaille´s video is all about and it hurts the dogmatic believers a lot, inclusive your "Professor Dave" who "debunks" everything outside his squared black consensus box.

 

[Native]

Except that not all gravitation collapses end up with stars collapsing into blackholes.

Only stars that are very massive end up being “blackhole”.

Our sun isn’t massive enough to become a blackhole.

The star of similar mass like our sun, the collapse will cause it start to fuse helium into heavier elements, which will cause the star to become “Red Giant” star, increasing star’s dimension & volume. Further collapse when it run out of helium to fuse, will cause outer layers of the star to be expel into space, eventually leaving a dense core of the star. This core is the star remnant, hence the star will become a White Dwarf.

That description above is what predicted for our Sun.

Other stars more massive than our sun, end up exploding as supernovas. There are several different types of supernova.

If the star’s massive core don’t survive the supernova, it will end up only leaving supernova remnant, where the energy will ionize nearby cosmic gases and dust, hence, it will be seen as a type of nebula.

But if the massive core did survive the supernova, the core might undergo further gravitation collapse, which might end up being a blackhole.

Excellent copy pastings Did you understand all of it?

 

[Native]

This is incorrect. The heat released from the inner collapse produces enough entropy to counteract the entropy lost by contraction.

This idea is impossible in the first place. "Gravitational collapse" require an EXTERNAL force to do any kind of work on a cosmic cloud - or a star - as it logically can´t do work on itself. This is just yet another gravity science fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This idea is impossible in the first place. "Gravitational collapse" require an EXTERNAL force to do any kind of work on a cosmic cloud - or a star - as it logically can´t do work on itself. This is just yet another gravity science fiction.

Gravity is that force. No "EXTERNAL force" need apply.

 

[Altfish]

Apparently you haven´t watched the video and made your own independent conclusions. You´re just taking the "consensus mobbing" for granted because that is what consensus thinkers do when being seriously questioned on their twistings of thermodynamic laws and mathematical equations.

This is what Robitaille´s video is all about and it hurts the dogmatic believers a lot, inclusive your "Professor Dave" who "debunks" everything outside his squared black consensus box.

I am unable to make my own judgement because (and I'll say it again) I AM NOT A COMPETENT ASTROPHYSICIST, But nether is Robitaille, so he shouldn't pretend he is.

 

[Native]

I am unable to make my own judgement because (and I'll say it again) I AM NOT A COMPETENT ASTROPHYSICIST, But nether is Robitaille, so he shouldn't pretend he is.

Which he doesn´t at all.

Quote from -
Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD | Ohio State College of Medicine
-----------
Background
I joined the Department of Radiology in 1989. At the time, my research centered on spectroscopic methods, with a focus on the experimental and theoretical aspects of nuclear magnetic resonance and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). I devoted considerable attention to NIH-funded spectroscopic analysis of in-vivo cardiac metabolism in the normal and failing heart, using both 13C- and 31P- NMR methods. I also focused on the development of new instrumentation for MRI. This included the design and assembly of the first torque compensated asymmetric gradient coil.

From 1995-2000, I was responsible for conceiving and assembling, at Ohio State, the world's first ultra high field clinical MRI system. This 8 Tesla/80cm MRI system was utilized to acquire many of the highest resolution images in existence. At the same time, early results with this instrument prompted a reconsideration of RF power requirements in MRI and of signal to noise. In turning my attention to these problems, I initially sought to consider NMR is a "thermal" process. In the early days of this modality, the T1 relaxation time was also known as the "thermal" relaxation time. This would lead to a detailed study of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission, a topic on which I have subsequently published extensively.

Kirchhoff's Law stands at the very heart of spectroscopic analysis, not only in medicine, but also in fields as seemingly remote as astronomy. For me, revisiting Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission has resulted in questioning many established ideas in astronomy, including the origin of the microwave background and, most importantly, the nature of the sun itself. That is because the standard model of the sun, relies on the validity of Kirchhoff's Law, in order to justify a gaseous state. Conversely, if Kirchhoff's Law is not valid, then the sun cannot be a gaseous in nature. Along these lines, I have recently advanced forty lines of evidence that the sun is comprised of condensed matter.
------------
All he does in his video´s is to revise some consensus claims and correcting the skewings of thermodynamic laws as well as analyzing the consensus skewings of the attached thermodynamic mathematics.

You and other debaters here should have known and recognized this serious work just by wacthing his video, but all you/they can, is just posting pathetic and childish name callings and refer to the very emotional "rational wiki" and the consensus frustration he is causing just by analyzing their scientific inconsistensies.

 

[Polymath257]

This idea is impossible in the first place. "Gravitational collapse" require an EXTERNAL force to do any kind of work on a cosmic cloud - or a star - as it logically can´t do work on itself. This is just yet another gravity science fiction.

And that is where you are wrong. There is nothing problematic with something 'doing work on itself'. In actuality, it is minimizing its total internal energy. So, no, no external force is required.

Think of a spring. If it is extended, it can and does contract because of the internal forces in the spring. No external force is required for it to contract.

 

[Native]

There is nothing problematic with something 'doing work on itself'. In actuality, it is minimizing its total internal energy. So, no, no external force is required.

Beside ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, you´re also violating your guru´s first law: Newton's laws of motion

"The first law states that an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force".

What about agreeing with your favorite guru before posting opposite arguments just for the fun of it?

Think of a spring. If it is extended, it can and does contract because of the internal forces in the spring. No external force is required for it to contract.

What a bad and speculative comparison! There are no springs between atomic gases in a cosmic cloud.

But maybe imaginative intellectual SPRINGS constitutes Newton´s gravity in general?