Collapse of gravitational collapse

Started by Stephen J. Crothers, August 01, 2017, 08:35:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stephen J. Crothers

With their gravitational collapse of a free gas to form stars, the astronomers and cosmologists unwittingly constructed perpetual motion machines of both the first and second kind, thereby violating the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, their theory is certainly false. 

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille,
How are Stars Formed? ?The Standard Model: ?Gravitational Collapse, ?Black Holes, ?and The Big Bang! ?

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Stephen J. Crothers on August 01, 2017, 08:35:43 AM
With their gravitational collapse of a free gas to form stars, the astronomers and cosmologists unwittingly constructed perpetual motion machines of both the first and second kind, thereby violating the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, their theory is certainly false. 

It's bad form to simply link to a youtube video.  Please explain the argument yourself.

GloriaPatri

I fail to see how a star is a perpetual motion machine, given that they inevitably die off.

CilantroTamales

I suppose (and I'm just guessing here) that the repetition of the Big Bang called the "Big Bounce" could be seen as a perpetual motion theory.  They are stating that after the Big Bang, the universe can only get so large before gravity pulls it all back to a single point, and then another Big Bang starts the whole process over again.  This runs into the horizon problem, inflation theory, blah, blah, blah.  So, they have to come up with other things like the constant of the speed of light is actually variable!   ::)

GloriaPatri

Quote from: CilantroTamales on August 04, 2017, 07:46:00 PM
I suppose (and I'm just guessing here) that the repetition of the Big Bang called the "Big Bounce" could be seen as a perpetual motion theory.  They are stating that after the Big Bang, the universe can only get so large before gravity pulls it all back to a single point, and then another Big Bang starts the whole process over again.  This runs into the horizon problem, inflation theory, blah, blah, blah.  So, they have to come up with other things like the constant of the speed of light is actually variable!   ::)

The Big Bounce is not a majority view amongs cosmologists. Most think that the universe will expand indefinitely into the future until it's nothing more than a dark void.

CilantroTamales

Right, it's no longer a view held in the majority; however it was just one representation as to how "scientists" break their own laws of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines, etc...

james03

Video is from Professor Robitaille, who has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, meaning he knows his stuff, especially thermodynamics.  He goes over the problems with the gas collapse theory for star formation and shows it violates the laws of thermodynamics.

I've read his paper on problems with Planck's derivation of the universality of his constant, and it was a great paper.

The inflation-deflation theory is completely bogus and violates entropy.  It is a desperate last attempt to deny God.  However I have to agree with G.P., it can't be held by anyone serious, especially anyone with proper training in thermo.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Maximilian

Quote from: james03 on August 06, 2017, 02:59:49 PM

The inflation-deflation theory is completely bogus and violates entropy.  It is a desperate last attempt to deny God.  However I have to agree with G.P., it can't be held by anyone serious, especially anyone with proper training in thermo.

This may be true of what was referred to previously on this thread as "the big bounce" as a derivation of the big bang. However, the theory that is debunked in the video is one that is held by virtually everybody, both scientists and ordinary people alike.

Rather than some sort of Hindu inflation-deflation, Prof. Robitaille is referring to the expansion and then gravitational collapse of gases, as you say in your first paragraph. This theory is believed by a great many serious people. If there is another theory currently vying for popularity in explaining the origin of stars and planets, I haven't heard of it.

Quaremerepulisti

Well, Dr. Robitaille has very successfully shown that star formation via gravitational collapse is impossible if the collapsing substance behaves like an ideal gas (e.g. collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic, and there are no other interactions between them).  The total average kinetic energy and total energy must stay the same, leaving no energy to perform work or decrease entropy.

But the entire theory of star formation is based on the gas being at low temperature and high pressure (where the effects of intermolecular forces become significant) and thus the ideal gas model no longer holds.  Energy to perform work and decrease entropy comes from the increased (in absolute value) gravitational binding energy.

GloriaPatri

#9
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 07, 2017, 11:37:22 AM
Well, Dr. Robitaille has very successfully shown that star formation via gravitational collapse is impossible if the collapsing substance behaves like an ideal gas (e.g. collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic, and there are no other interactions between them).  The total average kinetic energy and total energy must stay the same, leaving no energy to perform work or decrease entropy.

But the entire theory of star formation is based on the gas being at low temperature and high pressure (where the effects of intermolecular forces become significant) and thus the ideal gas model no longer holds.  Energy to perform work and decrease entropy comes from the increased (in absolute value) gravitational binding energy.

Quare, I'm glad you're around to put this nonsense to rest. Thank you.

james03

QuoteEnergy to perform work and decrease entropy comes from the increased (in absolute value) gravitational binding energy.

So the theory depends on a decrease in entropy in a closed system?  Come again?
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteBut the entire theory of star formation is based on the gas being at low temperature and high pressure

A low temperature, high pressure gas is known as a "liquid", or what he calls "Condensed matter".
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: james03 on August 13, 2017, 01:43:03 PM
So the theory depends on a decrease in entropy in a closed system?  Come again?

The system isn't closed; energy is radiated away to the rest of the universe.  The total entropy of the universe increases, but the entropy of the subsystem decreases, just like when water freezes.

Quote from: james03 on August 13, 2017, 02:31:15 PM
A low temperature, high pressure gas is known as a "liquid", or what he calls "Condensed matter".

No, it isn't.

GloriaPatri

James, a star is not a closed system. Why you would think so is beyond me. If you're going to attempt to argue against scientific theories you should at least have the basics down.

james03

QuoteThe system isn't closed; energy is radiated away to the rest of the universe.  The total entropy of the universe increases, but the entropy of the subsystem decreases, just like when water freezes.

Normally we ignore radiant heat transfer unless you get up to temperatures in the physical light spectrum.  I guess if this is a billion year process, you would have to consider it.  Except you have a problem, hydrogen does not emit light.  It is transparent being a non-polar gas.  This is why nitrogen is not a green house gas.

QuoteNo, it isn't.

Define "low temperature" and "high pressure".  Also what is the gas, i.e. helium, hydrogen, etc...
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"