Starship Asterisk*

distefanom wrote:"Collapsing due to self-gravity..."
I was wondering if this isn't a way too simple explanation to [cause] these clumps of matter...
even at these space scales couldn't it be that there are acting also *other* physical phenomena?

I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula due to "self-gravity." Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

The standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

A dense area of a nebula will attract more matter, but there is a limit to how dense the region as a whole can become. In a nebula, each little cubic centimeter of gas experiences the gravitational pull of its close neighbors in such a way that distant matter does not affect it much (gravity is proportional to 1/r², the inverse square of the distance between different cubic centimeters). Additionally, atoms in the gaseous nebula have small charge imbalances that cause them to repel each other; thus, they do not get close enough to form a gravitational instability. Therefore, a dense part of a nebula is not going to trigger gravitational collapse.

The orthodox thinking about star formation, treats all the mass within a 1-2 light year sphere of nebula gases as residing at the center of mass. In physics, the ability to consider all mass as residing at a point at the "center of mass" is:
a) due to how the calculus (math) of the calculation works out, and
b) appropriate for looking at the center of mass of one object versus another object that is at a distance r from the first object, not necessarily a continuous sphere of matter.

Chris Peterson wrote: It also happens that there are numerical simulations of gas and dust structures, and they demonstrate that gravity alone explains the way they collapse. That is, the models and our observations of natural structures are closely matching, which is strong evidence that our understanding of the mechanisms involved is accurate.

Chris, is reporting the state of the way things are in space-science. However, I offer these three empirical facts that contradict his belief and the belief of others that "our understanding of the mechanisms involved is accurate."

1. Planet-finding observatories in space, such as the Kepler planet-hunter, have found planets that are too close to their respective stars to have formed the way that the standard model says. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131105.html

2. Space scientists who have studied the center of the Milky Way see a group of stars that should not have formed so close to the black-hole center if the standard model is correct. "The problem is that according to standard scenarios of star formation and stellar dynamics the stars cannot be born in such an extreme environment because of the strong tidal shear, but are also too short-lived to have migrated there from farther out." [See Eisenhauer et al. (2005)]



3. Young Star Object CX330 went from black hole to observable young star object (CX330) within 3 years, 2007 Spitzer infra-red [left] to 2010 NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) [right]. [Reference: Maccarone, et. al 2016]
I am proposing a new theory of star-system formation called Mass Vortex Theory (which requires a book to describe and set forth the theory, more info available at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/76 ... nce-theory).

S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:

distefanom wrote:"Collapsing due to self-gravity..."
I was wondering if this isn't a way too simple explanation to [cause] these clumps of matter...
even at these space scales couldn't it be that there are acting also *other* physical phenomena?

I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula due to "self-gravity." Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

The standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

Unfortunately for your challenge, this process has been demonstrated experimentally by computer simulations. Note that planet formation is not a direct consequence of the gravitational collapse of gas. Collapsing gas is what forms stars. Planetary formation appears to depend upon the collapse of dust, and electromagnetic forces are important for that, not just gravity.

1. Planet-finding observatories in space, such as the Kepler planet-hunter, have found planets that are too close to their respective stars to have formed the way that the standard model says.

There is no "standard model" of planet formation.

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:

distefanom wrote:"Collapsing due to self-gravity..."
I was wondering if this isn't a way too simple explanation to [cause] these clumps of matter...
even at these space scales couldn't it be that there are acting also *other* physical phenomena?

I challenge the idea that gravitational collapse can happen from gases in a nebula due to "self-gravity." Consider the following. From Hawking and Penrose [1970]: "The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."

The standard theory of planet formation does not explain sufficiently how it is that gravity overcomes the coulomb force between atoms in the protostellar disk of gases to form the minerals and molecules of rocky material.

Unfortunately for your challenge, this process has been demonstrated experimentally by computer simulations.

I am interested to know from other forum participants, which do you think is more compelling or carries more weight for deciding the correctness of the current orthodox model of star-system formation?

a) Computer simulations, which Chris says indicates the validity of the orthodox model
versus
b) Actual observations as is reported by the following peer-reviewed research, which discredits the orthodox model:
---“SINFONI in the Galactic Center: Young Stars and Infrared Flares in the Central Light-Month" by Eisenhauer et al, The Astrophysical Journal, 628:246-259, 2005: "In short, the problem is that according to standard scenarios of star formation and stellar dynamics the stars cannot be born in such an extreme environment because of the strong tidal shear, but are also too short-lived to have migrated there from farther out. None of the solutions proposed so far for the puzzle of the young stars … are entirely satisfactory.”
and
---Texas Tech University, http://today.ttu.edu/posts/2016/07/new-star#prettyPhoto

S. Seaver

I think that a computer model is only that : a MODEL, and cannot be used to validate any teory. Can be of a great help, to scale such rather *big* problems to a more human scale, but OBSERVATION is the best, if not the only, rule.
Also we tend to simplify problems so we can easily handle them.
If you see a thing that moves, walks, behaves like a duck, won't necessarily mean that you've seen a duck. That's the same for a computer model.

sallyseaver wrote:I am interested to know from other forum participants, which do you think is more compelling or carries more weight for deciding the correctness of the current orthodox model of star-system formation?

a) Computer simulations, which Chris says indicates the validity of the orthodox model
versus
b) Actual observations as is reported by the following peer-reviewed research, which discredits the orthodox model:
---“SINFONI in the Galactic Center: Young Stars and Infrared Flares in the Central Light-Month" by Eisenhauer et al, The Astrophysical Journal, 628:246-259, 2005: "In short, the problem is that according to standard scenarios of star formation and stellar dynamics the stars cannot be born in such an extreme environment because of the strong tidal shear, but are also too short-lived to have migrated there from farther out. None of the solutions proposed so far for the puzzle of the young stars … are entirely satisfactory.”

You are conflating two issues in your comments: the formation of stars and the formation of planets. Note that the reference you provide does not "discredit the orthodox model". First, there is no orthodox model. There are a number of different models of star formation. Second, what it does is suggest that current models are not adequate to explain the formation of stars in this particular environment.

In general, computer models offer much more compelling evidence than observations. Models are experiments, which can be controlled. Observations are just that- observations, subject to major limitations given that we cannot manipulate anything, and depend heavily on interpretation.

distefanom wrote:I think that a computer model is only that : a MODEL, and cannot be used to validate any teory. Can be of a great help, to scale such rather *big* problems to a more human scale, but OBSERVATION is the best, if not the only, rule.

Models and theories are substantially the same things.

Observation is almost always much weaker than modeling, because models are tied to experiment, where we can have controls and can manipulate variables. Observation only serves to help verify or dismiss theories/models, further limited by our interpretation of what we're seeing.

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:I am interested to know from other forum participants, which do you think is more compelling or carries more weight for deciding the correctness of the current orthodox model of star-system formation?

a) Computer simulations, which Chris says indicates the validity of the orthodox model
versus
b) Actual observations as is reported by the following peer-reviewed research, which discredits the orthodox model:
---“SINFONI in the Galactic Center: Young Stars and Infrared Flares in the Central Light-Month" by Eisenhauer et al, The Astrophysical Journal, 628:246-259, 2005: "In short, the problem is that according to standard scenarios of star formation and stellar dynamics the stars cannot be born in such an extreme environment because of the strong tidal shear, but are also too short-lived to have migrated there from farther out. None of the solutions proposed so far for the puzzle of the young stars … are entirely satisfactory.”

You are conflating two issues in your comments: the formation of stars and the formation of planets. Note that the reference you provide does not "discredit the orthodox model". First, there is no orthodox model. There are a number of different models of star formation. Second, what it does is suggest that current models are not adequate to explain the formation of stars in this particular environment.

In general, computer models offer much more compelling evidence than observations. Models are experiments, which can be controlled. Observations are just that- observations, subject to major limitations given that we cannot manipulate anything, and depend heavily on interpretation.

Chris,

I noted your assertion regarding planets which is why I excluded planet formation from my follow-on question. So now we are talking about just star formation.

In the computer modeling of star formation that you are familiar with, is it possible for the infrared presence of a protostar to emerge in 3 years?

S. Seaver

distefanom wrote:I think that a computer model is only that : a MODEL, and cannot be used to validate any teory. Can be of a great help, to scale such rather *big* problems to a more human scale, but OBSERVATION is the best, if not the only, rule.
Also we tend to simplify problems so we can easily handle them.
If you see a thing that moves, walks, behaves like a duck, won't necessarily mean that you've seen a duck. That's the same for a computer model.

Thank you for responding.

I agree with you. Really a computer model is only as good as the coding and it makes assumptions that are not necessarily true.

S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:In the computer modeling of star formation that you are familiar with, is it possible for the infrared presence of a protostar to emerge in 3 years?

No idea. I'm not that familiar with any individual models.

I note, however, that there's a slight shifting of the goal posts here. What I originally said above was that our models very strongly demonstrate that hydrogen clouds collapse under self-gravitation. And this theoretical evidence is supported by copious observational confirmation.

sallyseaver wrote:Really a computer model is only as good as the coding and it makes assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Coding isn't usually an issue. Errors here are rare. Perhaps what you mean is that the models are only as good as our understanding of the underlying physics. That's certainly true.

Maybe i'm running OT, on computer simulations, Recently, I've seen a video on the tube, where A she scientist did a TEDx and talked on what would have been to see the EVENT HORIZON of a super massive black hole. She talked about computer simulations. All gave her some results. All where greatly influenced by the programmer who actually did the code. It was kind a "blend". It was like to "see" an image on a coin, from 30km far, or so. So she turned to neuronal computing. This way, she "trained" the program to "learn" (using tons of images, not even related to the subject) trying to see what would have been to see such image, but not influenced by programmer... She actually imaged the coin's. Using the same program, she produced this image :https://www.seeker.com/event-horizon-te ... 97724.html

distefanom wrote:Maybe i'm running OT, on computer simulations, Recently, I've seen a video on the tube, where A she scientist did a TEDx and talked on what would have been to see the EVENT HORIZON of a super massive black hole. She talked about computer simulations. All gave her some results. All where greatly influenced by the programmer who actually did the code. It was kind a "blend". It was like to "see" an image on a coin, from 30km far, or so. So she turned to neuronal computing. This way, she "trained" the program to "learn" (using tons of images, not even related to the subject) trying to see what would have been to see such image, but not influenced by programmer... She actually imaged the coin's. Using the same program, she produced this image :https://www.seeker.com/event-horizon-te ... 97724.html

I'd call that an imaging technique, not a physical model. Physical models utilize known physical laws, and apply them to systems too complex to analyze without discrete numerical simulation. The best models, those we have the most confidence in, use only physical laws. However, in some cases we don't know all the physical parameters, in which case empirical elements are included. That is, terms are included to get the output to match observations. In some cases that may lead to incorrect results. In others, it may lead to an expanded understanding of the underlying physics.

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:In the computer modeling of star formation that you are familiar with, is it possible for the infrared presence of a protostar to emerge in 3 years?

No idea. I'm not that familiar with any individual models.

I note, however, that there's a slight shifting of the goal posts here. What I originally said above was that our models very strongly demonstrate that hydrogen clouds collapse under self-gravitation. And this theoretical evidence is supported by copious observational confirmation.

Please supply references to some of the copious observational confirmation, because I have not found any in my research. Observations show that part of a nebula changes into a swirling disk of gas around a spin axis; however, there's nothing that shows that this is due to "collapse under self-gravitation." You are making a major claim, and I'd really appreciate it if you could back it up. I think you are saying that you have observational proof outside of computer models, yes?

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:Really a computer model is only as good as the coding and it makes assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Coding isn't usually an issue. Errors here are rare. Perhaps what you mean is that the models are only as good as our understanding of the underlying physics. That's certainly true.

What I'm saying is that in coding, the coder sets up the variables, constants and the routines for processing the data in these variables and constants. So the computer programming is only as good as the assumptions and physics understanding involved. Key assumptions can be hidden in code.

When it comes to gravitation, the equation (whether in one direction or a tensor that is used for a gravitational field) is valid for the gravitational force between 2 objects. There is not a similar solution for a 3-body configuration ["In 1887, mathematicians Heinrich Bruns[4] and Henri Poincaré showed that there is no general analytical solution for the three-body problem given by algebraic expressions and integrals" -Wikipedia]. The part of a nebula that turns into a swirling disk of gases involves a huge number of gas atoms, way more than 3, so there is no way for a computer program to experimentally verify how all the atoms in the nebula behave.

I am very disappointed to learn that you are giving the weight of proof to modeling that you really have no knowledge of. For example, does the computer model for star formation include the coulomb force between atoms? How does the model calculate the time required for the nebula to "collapse" into a protoplanetary disk? Does it really take into account the fact that for every 1 cm sphere of gas, the other surrounding 1 cm spheres only affect it for a few km or so before the drop off with 1/r^2 makes the distant mass insignificant for its pull on the original sphere?

I think you will find, that the computer modelers take what they want to be the case and reverse engineer it. They use the fact that you can treat all mass as being at the center of mass --- when it comes to problems between 2 objects --- and figure that they can do this for all the mass in a 1-2 light-year radius. They also use the temperature as a key variable to determine "stability" of the 2 light-year sphere.

I figured that you would take seriously, the assertion from Hawking and Penrose [1970]: The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. "The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces." [“The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology” by S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 314, 529-548. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 9.full.pdf ] In other words, gravitational collapse is NOT going to happen due to the regular gravity going on between atoms in a nebula.

I can't help but feel that you are casually accepting the significance of the modeling due to the social expectation that the researchers claims are true.

Tycho Brahe found examples that the cosmological model of his day was not correct: 1) a new star among the fixed stars which were supposed to never change, and 2) a comet in the solar system. "He was able to determine that the comet's distance to Earth was much greater than the distance of the Moon, so that the comet could not have originated in the "earthly sphere", confirming his prior anti-Aristotelian conclusions about the fixed nature of the sky beyond the Moon." [Wikipedia article on Tycho Brahe] I have offered 2 examples that discredit the model you support, namely that "hydrogen clouds collapse under self-gravitation." The 2 examples are: a) stars near Sagittarius A* (paradox of youth), and b) young Star Object CX330 that went from black hole to observable young star object (CX330) within 3 years. You are ignoring these examples the same way that people of the past ignored Tycho's examples. It is your prerogative to do so, but to do so is against the objectives and values of science. In science it is generally recognized that a theory must not contradict empirical facts. The empirical facts in this case are observations made by trustworthy scientists.

S. Seaver

Hello Sally. I think you've made some valid points in questioning conventional wisdom re star formation, especially in areas like the vacinity of Sag A*. However, at least twice in this thread you have claimed that the young star object CX330 changed from a black hole into a protostellar object. Can you provide any support for this claim?

Bruce

sallyseaver wrote:I am very disappointed to learn that you are giving the weight of proof to modeling that you really have no knowledge of.

Honestly, I don't have time to educate you on all the things you comment on (and in many cases, such as modeling, clearly lack any real understanding of).

I give weight to modeling because I give weight to the modelers, who are experts in this area and who have published their work in peer reviewed journals. This is why we should treat their evidence as important. This is how scientists work: we look at the opinions (and especially consensus opinions) of other scientists who are outside our own areas of specialization. It is because I'm not an expert in these specific models that I do look to the experts.

I will also say that your approach to science causes me to have no confidence in your ideas. If they were worth my time to study, I'd find them in published in reputable journals, reviewed by experts and commented on by others.

Hi sallyseaver
Even thou I don't like direct word fighting, I found your arguments strikingly interesting...
Way too complex to manage to an uneducated mind like mine, but I'll try to dig down the few references you gave, hopefully not getting lost
ciao
Mario

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:In the computer modeling of star formation that you are familiar with, is it possible for the infrared presence of a protostar to emerge in 3 years?

No idea. I'm not that familiar with any individual models.

I note, however, that there's a slight shifting of the goal posts here. What I originally said above was that our models very strongly demonstrate that hydrogen clouds collapse under self-gravitation. And this theoretical evidence is supported by copious observational confirmation.

I have looked for posts by observatories and been an APOD follower for 3 or more years, and I have not been exposed to the "copious observational confirmation" of "hydrogen clouds [that] collapse under self-gravitation." Observations show a dust disk that forms as part of early star formation (this can be seen in the study of the Orion nebula by the Hubble Space Telescope); but there is no direct evidence that this is a result of gravitational collapse, or due to "self-gravitation." The self-gravitation trigger for gravitational collapse is a guess that has been adopted as fact ... as far as I can see. I have provided a quote from research by Hawking and Penrose that gravitational collapse will not happen under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. I have also shown an example of where the dust disk became present within 3 years which is much too fast for the standard model of gravitational collapse.

Please supply 2-3 examples of your evidence that the dust disk forms under self-gravitation. Please back up your claim.

Respectfully,
S. Seaver

BDanielMayfield wrote:Hello Sally. I think you've made some valid points in questioning conventional wisdom re star formation, especially in areas like the vacinity of Sag A*. However, at least twice in this thread you have claimed that the young star object CX330 changed from a black hole into a protostellar object. Can you provide any support for this claim?

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

First of all, thank you VERY much for considering my debate points and providing consideration even though they are not in a peer-reviewed article.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify about CX330. I should not have said "black hole". The original observation in 2009 was the detection of an x-ray source. And it's true that x-ray sources are seen as potential candidates for black holes among space scientists, but it is not a confirmed black hole. It was observed giving off some light in additional observations. Then based on data from NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) in 2010, the researchers saw that this object had quite a lot of warm dust around it. The research team that has reported on this does NOT see it as discrediting the standard model. They say that it is unusual for being born in a region where there are not other young stars being born. I am the one saying that going from no infrared presence in 2007 to a dust disk with infrared presence in 2010 is contradictory to the standard model.

The research team is from Texas Tech University
http://today.ttu.edu/posts/2016/07/new-star#prettyPhoto

Best regards and Happy New Year,
Sally

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:I am very disappointed to learn that you are giving the weight of proof to modeling that you really have no knowledge of.

Honestly, I don't have time to educate you on all the things you comment on (and in many cases, such as modeling, clearly lack any real understanding of).

I give weight to modeling because I give weight to the modelers, who are experts in this area and who have published their work in peer reviewed journals. This is why we should treat their evidence as important. This is how scientists work: we look at the opinions (and especially consensus opinions) of other scientists who are outside our own areas of specialization. It is because I'm not an expert in these specific models that I do look to the experts.

I will also say that your approach to science causes me to have no confidence in your ideas. If they were worth my time to study, I'd find them in published in reputable journals, reviewed by experts and commented on by others.

Oh, Chris. You are better than this. You are telling me to go away because you have not read about my research in a reputable journal? Peer-review and publishing come down the road with research that is worthy, right? You have claimed to be an educator, and as an educator, you need to be able to trust the sources that you read. But I would expect you to know the limitations of the research teams and methods they use.

I completely reject your criticism that I do not have understanding of modeling. I have plumbed the depths of formal modeling in college-level coursework in mathematical logic. And I have read research papers that get into the details of their respective models when it comes to subjects of space science. I also direct coders for a living. And I have had some formal training in coding myself.

Then, there's the fact that scholars who have been published in respectable journals, Hawking and Penrose [1970], say:

"The instability of gravitation is not manifest under normal conditions owing to the extreme smallness of the gravitational constant. The pull of gravity is readily counteracted by other forces."
-- Hawking and Penrose [1970]

1970: “The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology” by S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 314, 529-548. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 9.full.pdf
That should be peer-review, reputable-journal enough for you, yes?

I believe Hawking and Penrose on this matter due to a line of reasoning presented earlier in this thread. A dense area of a nebula will attract more matter, but there is a limit to how dense the region as a whole can become. In a nebula, each little cubic centimeter of gas experiences the gravitational pull of its close neighbors in such a way that distant matter does not affect it much (gravity is proportional to 1/r2, the inverse square of the distance between different cubic centimeters). Additionally, atoms in the gaseous nebula have small charge imbalances that cause them to repel each other; thus, they do not get close enough to form a gravitational instability. Therefore, a dense part of a nebula is not going to trigger gravitational collapse.

But for the record, you are saying you believe the researchers using computer models over Hawking and Penrose, right?

What is your academic background? Do you have a degree in physics?

The academic publisher University of Chicago Press is generally considered reputable, I believe.
D. Crane, 1972 "Invisible colleges : diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities;" University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL"
Article citations can reveal clusters of interrelated researchers and underlying social networks in what Price refers to as "invisible colleges."

[In order for science to advance,] the exchange of ideas is important in generating new lines of inquiry and in producing some integration of the findings from diverse areas." --Crane, p. 114

I'm not going to hang my head in shame and I am not going away.

Sincerely,
S. Seaver

distefanom wrote:Hi sallyseaver
Even thou I don't like direct word fighting, I found your arguments strikingly interesting...
Way too complex to manage to an uneducated mind like mine, but I'll try to dig down the few references you gave, hopefully not getting lost
ciao
Mario

Thank you for the positive comment, Mario.

Even though word fighting may be somewhat unpleasant (to witness and participate in), the state of knowledge on star formation is important to me. Better observations via modern observatories, space telescopes and probes have revealed information that discredits the standard model of star formation. On this forum that I am fond of, I am picking up the challenge to make participants aware of the failure of the currently-accepted standard theory.

Please feel free to offer research or references in support of Chris' point of view ... or that educate me more.

Sincerely,
S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:I am very disappointed to learn that you are giving the weight of proof to modeling that you really have no knowledge of.

Honestly, I don't have time to educate you on all the things you comment on (and in many cases, such as modeling, clearly lack any real understanding of).

Oh, Chris. You are better than this. You are telling me to go away because you have not read about my research in a reputable journal?

I'm not telling you to go away. That's not my decision to make. I'm telling you that if you don't publish your work in peer reviewed journals, I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure it out. (Especially given your obvious and serious holes in understanding very fundamental ideas such as how computer modeling works, and your lack of knowledge of much recent work.)

sallyseaver wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:Hello Sally. I think you've made some valid points in questioning conventional wisdom re star formation, especially in areas like the vacinity of Sag A*. However, at least twice in this thread you have claimed that the young star object CX330 changed from a black hole into a protostellar object. Can you provide any support for this claim?

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

First of all, thank you VERY much for considering my debate points and providing consideration even though they are not in a peer-reviewed article.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify about CX330. I should not have said "black hole". The original observation in 2009 was the detection of an x-ray source. And it's true that x-ray sources are seen as potential candidates for black holes among space scientists, but it is not a confirmed black hole. It was observed giving off some light in additional observations. Then based on data from NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) in 2010, the researchers saw that this object had quite a lot of warm dust around it. The research team that has reported on this does NOT see it as discrediting the standard model. They say that it is unusual for being born in a region where there are not other young stars being born. I am the one saying that going from no infrared presence in 2007 to a dust disk with infrared presence in 2010 is contradictory to the standard model.

The research team is from Texas Tech University
http://today.ttu.edu/posts/2016/07/new-star#prettyPhoto

Best regards and Happy New Year,
Sally

Thanks for your reply Sally, and may you be happy too. And for amending and clarifying your claims re CX330. I also enjoyed reading the reference from TTU, which shows that more than just UT and TAMU are doing cutting-edge astronomy.

Yes, the protostar ? CX330 did show a remarkable outburst of infrared light over a short period, and it is in a location far from other star forming regions. However, conditions can change rapidly as the collapse of gas in free fall heats up and as radiation from a protostar burns and/or blows openings in its surrounding dust cloud. I would have to agree with the TTU astronomers; this object doesn't 'discredit the standard model' as you put it.

However, to be fair, upon reflection this object doesn't discredit your model either. But, to be honest, I think other facts do.

Bruce

Hello again sally. I admire your politeness, your interest in the fascinating and challenging subjects of star and planet formation, your statements showing respect for the scientific method, your imagination and your pluck. You're trying to overturn some very well established theories however, and that is a very tall order. For a new theory to gain support it must be a better explanation than previous theories.

One of the interesting claims you've made is that gas clouds cannot gravitationally contract on their own, and you've referenced a 1970 Hawking & Penrose statement as proof. In the light of that I wondered, what exactly is the currently accepted theory re gravitational collapse of interstellar gas clouds? Here is what I found:

Wikipedia, Jeans instability wrote:In stellar physics, the Jeans instability causes the collapse of interstellar gas clouds and subsequent star formation. It occurs when the internal gas pressure is not strong enough to prevent gravitational collapse of a region filled with matter. For stability, the cloud must be in hydrostatic equilibrium, which in case of a spherical cloud translates to:
[much math which unfortunately didn't copy well]
...
The equilibrium is stable if small perturbations are damped and unstable if they are amplified. In general, the cloud is unstable if it is either very massive at a given temperature or very cool at a given mass for the gas pressure to overcome gravity.

I recommend learning about Jeans instability to anyone interested in this topic. It is what could be called the "standard model" of how and why stars form out of interstellar gas.
Is Sally's model better? She has a very tall mountain to climb, I think. I also wonder if Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose still agree with the 1970 quote.

Bruce

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Honestly, I don't have time to educate you on all the things you comment on (and in many cases, such as modeling, clearly lack any real understanding of).

Oh, Chris. You are better than this. You are telling me to go away because you have not read about my research in a reputable journal?

I'm not telling you to go away. That's not my decision to make. I'm telling you that if you don't publish your work in peer reviewed journals, I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure it out. (Especially given your obvious and serious holes in understanding very fundamental ideas such as how computer modeling works, and your lack of knowledge of much recent work.)

When you make a dismissive comment, the inference is obvious. (Definition of "to dismiss": order or allow to leave; send away)

I never asked you to evaluate or understand my theory. And even though the title of this thread is "Sally's Stars" (not named by me) I do not get to talk about my theory due to the rules and nature of this forum. And this was not my purpose anyway.

What I wanted, at first, was to point out that the start of star formation via gravitational collapse due to self-gravity is contrary to knowledge from physics, and it is discredited by observations.

I think, the proper Forum answer that you thought you gave me is: "you may think you have reasoning from physics that discredits the gravitational collapse model of star formation, but given that the community of space scientists accept it, so too do we on the Forum accept it...and it is not up for discussion. Any change to the Forum's position that star formation starts with gravitational collapse requires peer-reviewed research."

Then secondly, with your responses, I wanted either:
a) to obtain supporting evidence outside of modeling for star formation via gravitational collapse due to self-gravitation [because you said there were copious amounts of such evidence], or
b) receive recognition that there is no evidence outside of modeling

It's okay, no big deal. We can agree to disagree about the validity of gravitational collapse due to self-gravity. Bystander has told me to desist, so I think I should desist. Hopefully, you and Bystander won't mind if I respond to Bruce or anyone else who directs a comment to me.

Sally