Thunderbolts Forum

'12-11-30, 14:16 Maol	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: Red Giant Stars That's another thing I wanted to discuss with Charles and will mention it now so I don't forget to later. He said Red Giant Stars are what Sun-like stars become when they lose (not loose like a goose - I know proper spelling, usually) too much of their CI substance and their electric double layer/s. However, it's the double layers that he said are responsible for the Sun having a distinct limb, or surface boundary. So, without a double layer, I don't know what would give a red giant or supergiant star a distinct limb. But, on the other hand, maybe they don't have distinct limbs anyway. Here's Aldebaran, the closest red giant star at about 68 ly. http://www.greatdreams.com/constellations/aldebaran.jpg And here's Betelgeuse, the closest red supergiant star at 500 ly. http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/physics/space/pictures/b~ Neither one seems to be focused well enough to see any features clearly. Sorry if this is again tangential to your thread, but I see a connection among these things and the physical processes in your conjecture. The red hue of Aldebaran and Betelgeuse is about the color of ionized neon in a discharge tube in a neon sign. It seems reasonable that a star would emit colorful light for the same reasons as a neon tube. And, http://www.livescience.com/4897-earth-h ... rious.html some more about the "Earth's hum", the constant rumbling of the planet, which, by the description in this article, could be the result of piezoelectric and magnetostrictive or magnetohydrodynamic interactions of the several rotating E/M fields of the Earth and Sun and solar system and local universe. The entire system is like the rotating fields of several electric motors or generators (which?). Different types In the past, the oscillations that researchers found made up this hum were "spheroidal" — they basically involved patches of rock moving up and down, albeit near undetectably. Now oscillations have been discovered making up the hum that, oddly, are shaped roughly like rings. Imagine, if you will, rumbles that twist in circles in rock across the upper echelons of the planet, almost like dozens of lazy hurricanes. Scientists had actually expected to find these kinds of oscillations, but these new ring-like waves are surprisingly about as powerful as the spheroidal ones are. The expectation was they would be relatively insignificant.
'12-12-01, 20:29 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Maol, feel free to go into more detail with your ideas, if you like. I suppose Charles will get back here to reply to everything we post eventually. Your ideas are interesting in how they relate to the big picture. Pulsars This is my most recent thought about Charles' model. He said slow spinning stars, like the Sun, involve compressive ionization as the source of their radiation, electric currents etc, while fast spinning stars become pulsars etc with natural tokamaks at their cores, instead of compressive ionization, and the tokamaks produce the intense magnetic fields that are observed. I believe he has stated before that the natural tokamaks would produce fusion and electric currents and, I guess, radiation. It seems that fusion would produce heavy ions, so I'm wondering if it would result in a heavy core, like in slow-spinning stars. EU Theory persuaded me quite a few years ago that pulsars are likely not neutron stars and that their pulses are likely not due to rapidly rotating beams from one or two points on each star, but are due to electrical effects, like car blinker lights caused by capacitor charge build-up and discharge cycles. Charles' theory seems to say now that pulses from pulsars are due to the fast-spinning stars' beams. But in our Electric Sun Discussions he had not provided a counter-argument, so I wonder if he has one now. It still seems very unlikely that pulsars would rotate as fast as some pulsars pulse. And, if his theory is true, I think it would imply that there are at least 3 or 4 times as many pulsars as are detected, because beams from most pulsars would not be aligned on the same plane as Earth. If the theory is true, pulsars that are not aligned on our plane might still be detectable by their powerful magnetic fields. But another reason to doubt the theory is that, as Earth moves around its orbit around the Sun, and the Sun moves in an orbit around a local star group, many pulsar pulses should change over time because of becoming misaligned with Earth and then realigned again.
'12-12-01, 22:16 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Doubts about Planetary Collisions Someone said: I consider the whole Saturnian thing to be too far-fetched. It's certainly possible that the planets were in some other alignment, but to get a planet out of one orbit and into another one would take two perfectly matched events — one to knock it out of its existing orbit, and the other to stop it from heading off into the wild black yonder. ... The chance of a celestial collision is very slight to begin with, but the chance of two perfectly matched events is too small to mention. Answering Doubts I think Thornhill may have solved all such presumed problems. See: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080220venusta~ http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070626venusscarri~ http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090508dots2.h~. The last one says: [... An electromagnetic theory of the great conjunction cannot only shed light on the traditional link with a world-devouring fire, but actually predicts subtle shifts in planetary orbits as well. In his proposed model of Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND), electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill has recently argued that, when an electric charge exchange transpires between adjacent planets, orbital adjustment and stabilisation are the inevitable consequences: "If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, … the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy."] - [An electromagnetic perspective on the workings of the solar system expects orbital adjustments at times of linear conjunction, when plasma tails interact with each other. If that may be granted, the use of retro-calculations to verify traditional dates for the most recent turning of the Great Year is invalidated and a greater reliance can be placed on traditional dates, provided that these did not themselves root in more ancient equivalents of retro-calculation.] - And this seems to be the source of all of the above: Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-electric-clockwork-so~.
'12-12-03, 11:09 Maol	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Planetary Piezoelectricity In Action Cornish tsunami triggers multiple explanations Posted on July 1, 2011 by Physics Today Daily Mail: Earlier this week a small tsunami struck off the Cornish coast of England. Just before it struck, people along the coastline reported that the air went unnaturally still and their hair "stood on end." Several theories have been proposed to explain the phenomenon. One is that the tsunami was caused by either a small earthquake or an undersea landslide. That precipitating event could have induced rock vibrations that generated a powerful electrical charge. "It's called the piezoelectric effect," said Chris Shepherd of the UK's Institute of Physics. Quartz crystals, present in the ancient rocks in and around Cornwall, could generate a high voltage if squeezed. Intriguingly, surges in electrical charge in the air occurred three days before the March earthquake that caused the massive tsunami in Japan, and before the 2007 earthquake in Haiti. Another theory is that the great stresses that have built up before a quake cause the release of large amounts of radioactive radon gas from deep in the ground; the radioactivity from the gas ionizes the air. Yet another explanation rejects the idea of an earthquake having occurred and proposes instead that Cornwall experienced a seiche, a freak wave that can occur in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, as in a wine glass which resonates when its rim is rubbed (see also today's News Pick on Tibetan singing bowls). Posted in Earth sciences, Fluids and rheology
'12-12-03, 19:39 webolife	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model The wind change before the tsunami might have a more mundane explanation: Just as the breaker is building there is commonly an outflow of water away from the coast, as is commonly observed with any waves and breakers at the shoreline, which would easily associated itself with a shift in the local wind pattern, especially the sudden stop or reversal of a sea-breeze. Electricity is involved here, since wind against a surface, such as a face, head or body, "deposits" charge on the windward side of the object — eg. a sudden change in wind direction would lead to the discharging or re-charging of the head, causing the hair to "stand on end". Lloyd, Regarding the standard pulsar explanation [not that I buy it... I don't], the rotating pulsar beams being aligned with earth observers are not such a big issue as you might think, because it would be assumed that these are not laser like beams, rather net-ly directional, conical beams which could conceivably intersect earth from a variety of angles. I do believe that the alleged rapid spin is a far-fetched conception as opposed to the EU explanation.
'12-12-04, 20:21 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Pulsars Web said: Regarding the standard pulsar explanation [not that I buy it... I don't], the rotating pulsar beams being aligned with earth observers are not such a big issue as you might think, because it would be assumed that these are not laser like beams, rather net-ly directional, conical beams which could conceivably intersect earth from a variety of angles. I figured that, even if a "beam" is pretty wide, the greatest intensity should be at the center, and it should fall off considerably toward the periphery. And, in that case, I think the intensities of many pulsar "beams" should vary considerably over months and years. I suppose my idea is naive, since the change in position of Earth on opposite sides of its orbit would be a tiny angle from the great distances of pulsars. Better Astronomical Distance Measurements Looks like pulsars may make it possible to more accurately determine distances to the arms and center of our galaxy. The pulsar distance scale http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-5&a~ From the sky distribution shown in Fig. 6 it is immediately apparent that pulsars are strongly concentrated along the Galactic plane. This indicates that pulsars populate the disk of our Galaxy. Unlike most other classes of astrophysical objects, quantitative estimates of the distances to each pulsar can be made from an effect known as pulse dispersion, the delay in pulse arrival times across a finite bandwidth. Dispersion occurs because the group velocity of the pulsed radiation through the ionised component of the interstellar medium is frequency dependent: pulses emitted at higher radio frequencies travel faster through the interstellar medium, arriving earlier than those emitted at lower frequencies. And now back to Pulsar Beam Intensity Variations Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-bea~ - I'm curious about the radiant intensity distribution of pulsars: what's the general dependence of intensity on angle, and what are typical angular beam widths? How much does the beam width vary between pulsars? (Presumably this is tied to magnetic field strength.) - Even something as simple as a very sketchy plot of intensity vs. angle would be great. It's easy enough to find plots of observed intensity vs. time for individual pulsars, but it takes a bit to get from those to the distribution at the source. pulsars - asked Nov 3 '11 at 20:12, Jefromi - My incomplete understanding is that the width of pulsars generally seems to depend on their periods and the angle between their magnetic axes and rotational axes. The general trend is for shorter period pulsars to have pulse widths that are a larger fraction of their periods. See On the pulse-width statistics in radio pulsars [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1444M] for some more detail. It looks like there are pulse half widths as narrow as a few degrees (~1/100 of a period), and some that are as wide as ninety degrees (1/4 of a period, meaning that if we were able to see both pulsing sides, the pulsar is on ~1/2 the time). - Given that level of variation, I'm not sure if there is a very general sort of plot of intensity versus phase. Some are nicely Gaussian pulses, with a nice interpulse at 180 degree phase separation, whereas others have much more structure. Take a look at some of the figure[s] in Multi-frequency integrated profiles of pulsars [http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3838] (there are a total of 34 pulsar profiles plotted, and it should be available to all as it was posted to arXiv). - answered Feb 5 at 1:21, jdmcbr Intrinsic Variability of the Vela Pulsar http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/563/1/L65/fulltext/ ABSTRACT Individual pulses from pulsars have intensity phase profiles that differ widely from pulse to pulse, from the average profile, and from phase to phase within a pulse. Widely accepted explanations for pulsar radio emission and its time variability do not exist. In this Letter, by analyzing data near the peak of the Vela pulsar's average profile, we show that the variability of the Vela pulsar corresponds to lognormal field statistics, consistent with the prediction of stochastic growth theory (SGT) for a purely linear system close to marginal stability. The variability of the Vela pulsar is therefore a direct manifestation of an SGT state, and the field statistics constrain the emission mechanism to be linear (either direct or indirect), ruling out nonlinear mechanisms such as wave collapse. Field statistics are thus a powerful and potentially widely applicable tool for understanding variability and constraining mechanisms and source characteristics of coherent astrophysical and space emissions. ... DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The foregoing analyses are the first applications of SGT to propagating electromagnetic radiation and, simultaneously, to extrasolar system sources. Their success implies that radiation statistics are an underappreciated and potentially very powerful tool in astrophysics (and space physics), and it suggests that SGT may well be widely applicable to coherent astrophysical sources. As to whether the Vela pulsar results are representative of other pulsars, analyses are ongoing. Our results to date for pulsar PSR 1641-45 (see also Johnston & Romani 2001) suggest that the variability near the peak of the average profile also corresponds to lognormal statistics and is thereby consistent with SGT and the Vela pulsar results above.
'12-12-07, 08:47 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Solar Cycle - CD85 asked about the solar cycle on this thread: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. The thread may be useful for CC's research. - Celeste said this site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14615526 explains that the Sun moves above the galactic plane during one part of the solar cycle and below the plane during the other half of the cycle, each half being 11.2 years, I think. She said the barycenter of the solar system is involved, which agrees with the Millennium Group's claims, as I mentioned on the Electric Sun Discussions thread. - She said this site shows a comparison to help explain the motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:False-Color_Image_of_Doub~.
'12-12-10, 21:21 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Gravity as Electrical Effect? In my recent post here, I provided some of Thornhill's ideas about subatomic particles starting out massless and then gaining mass, as in quasars. I see that one of the Thunderbloggers discussed this topic this past spring and winter. So I'll provide links to those for now and later maybe I'll have time to quote the more important passages. I suppose I did read these before, but there was no connection then to CC's model. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/25/article-14-solvi~ Subtrons: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/03/article-15-point~ Gravitational Constant: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/10/article-16-impli~ Electric Forces in Nature and Space: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/26/article-17-impli~ Gravity, Neutrinos, Aether: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-impli~ Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Compressive Ionization: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/29/article-19-impli~
'12-12-11, 19:04 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Re: Distances in Astronomy? This is another question that I think is important to answer eventually, like asap: How reliable is the science of measuring distances to other stars and galaxies? After studying this matter casually for over a year, I think, it seems that it's not yet very reliable even to the nearest star outside the solar system. Even this website stated a year or so ago that it's not reliable beyond a few hundred lightyears. But their estimate was likely based on the assumption that "background stars" move almost not at all compared to foreground stars over some months or years time. I like Kalensar's comment, so I'm quoting it here as a potential lead for deeper research. It's relevant to CC's solar and planetary model, because we need to learn what is the range of sizes of planets and stars. If they're much closer than assumed, then they're much smaller than assumed, including galaxies. Here's the post URL: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ post by kalensar » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:27 am - There is one good counter to the Pulsar distance idea and Cepheid Variables. - 1. Betelgeuse. After all this time of studying this giant body of an object, the parallax method still doesn't add up because of how much variability is in it's brightness. The + to - ratio on the measurement of 45 parsecs is huge unlike its blue brother Rigel. This one star practically puts Cepheid variables to shame too. 45*3.26 = 146.7 ly + or minus. - With that in mind just about this famous star, the distance of all the other variable stars will most likely follow the same pattern. With the Magellanic cloud being based off the cepheids; which ends up dealing with redshifts ;which can be accounted for by the Wolf Shift, the distances measured can be tossed in the trash simply because semi-new discoveries and old techniques just don't work for one naked-eye star. - It's truly too bad they never turned Hipparchos' eye onto the Andromeda galaxy to see if Adrian Van Maanen's parallax measurement was correct.
'12-12-19, 22:12 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Nebular Densities Charles, this TPOD, http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11/21/crumbling-pillar~, says the Eagle Nebula (I think) is a thousand times less dense than a puff of smoke on Earth. Since your theory suggests that nebulae condense via combined forces of gravitation and electrical interactions, nebulae and the like should be observed with varying densities. Or at least that would seem to be true if less dense layers of the nebulae don't block observation of the dense portions. So I'm just wondering if high nebular densities are ever observed. This webpage, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26326/how-dense-~, says: - They [nebulae] are very sparse. Typical densities are in the range of 100 to 10,000 particles per cm^3. - This is much more dense than the general interstellar medium (1 particle per cm^3), but much, much less dense than anything you are used to - air is around 10^19 particles per cm^3. You would very easily see your own hand in a nebula. - Density variations can be quite sharp within the nebula; in star-forming regions, the variations are strong and the density variations appear to be organized like a fractal, produced by turbulence within the cloud. - However, most nebulae are basically the same, and there aren't huge differences between the densities of different star-forming regions. Planetary nebulae and supernova remnants, of course, can have very different densities depending on their ages, since they are expanding balls of gas rather than broad molecular clouds loosely bound by gravity. I suppose the only nebulae visible are all within the Milky Way.
'13-01-08, 01:47 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Hey Folks! It will take me a long time to go through the backlog of posts. In the meantime, I just wanted to say that I did a bunch of reading on tectonics, and integrated a lot more information into the compressive ionization (CI) model. It now handles a broad range of otherwise inexplicable behaviors, such as earthquake lights, long-lasting seismic wave-trains (which shouldn't happen in the inelastic crustal granite/basalt), aftershock swarms (which shouldn't happen after all of the pent-up energy has been released, and the hot rocks in the fault have fused back together again), and more. Generally speaking, when this many new pieces of the puzzle start falling into place, this easily, I start thinking that the picture is becoming clear, so check it out and let me know what you think. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9981 Cheers!
'13-01-10, 02:52 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Hi Charles. I remember you. I reread the webpage, but can't tell how much you changed it. The whole thing seems to make sense and there don't seem to be any weak points, but I guess the hardest parts for scientists to buy might be the compressive ionization and the inchworm plate movements. I like the comparison with an inchworm, although scientists might prefer centimeterworm. Your model seems to depend on plates overlapping, so the overlap can produce the ratcheting inchworm effect, pulling them together. Do you have good evidence that, while two plates are overlapping, they don't weld together, or they only form weak bonds? And do you think continental drift would be possible without plates overlapping? Did you initially have diagrams of microfractures? If not, I'm probably remembering Tassos or Robitaille, whoever showed those. Toward the end where you discuss earthquake lights briefly, you mention those associated with ridges and mountain tops. Would the rainbow colors seen in the sky before an earthquake as in China or Japan in recent years be the same effect? I think it would help to explain that Figure 5 is the conventional model and not yours, if I understand it. Near Figure 1 you have a grammatical error: "The Moon's gravity is elevates...." Are you planning eventually to cover ideas on how continental drift began in the first place? I suspect that your analysis could eliminate a lot of theories and show which ones remain standing. I'd like to see if you can also determine how fast the continents moved apart initially.
'13-01-10, 06:23 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Hey Lloyd! Lloyd wrote: I reread the webpage, but can't tell how much you changed it. Mainly I just clarified the writing, and added a bunch more detail. Lloyd wrote: Do you have good evidence that, while two plates are overlapping, they don't weld together, or they only form weak bonds? I think that the only "evidence" is just that the same subduction fault appears to get re-used over and over again through successive ruptures. At least I haven't seen any evidence that the next quake forms a new fault. So this would mean that when the plates fuse back together after the rupture, the bond is weaker than the rest of the rock, and the next quake will re-use the old fault. Lloyd wrote: Did you initially have diagrams of microfractures? If not, I'm probably remembering Tassos or Robitaille, whoever showed those. I don't remember seeing any diagrams, but Tassos said that a fracture only 1 nm wide allows the passage of electrons. I guess I could try to find a molecular diagram of a granite molecule, and see how big a 1 nm crack would be in the crystal lattice. Lloyd wrote: Toward the end where you discuss earthquake lights briefly, you mention those associated with ridges and mountain tops. Would the rainbow colors seen in the sky before an earthquake as in China or Japan in recent years be the same effect? Earthquake lights are glow discharges from pointy objects. The rainbow colors up in the sky are different. My guess is that the enhanced fair weather field just before the quake encouraged the condensation of water vapor, and then also polarized the water molecules. The result was a prism effect that isn't impossible under normal conditions, but the effect was greatly enhanced by the electric field. Lloyd wrote: And do you think continental drift would be possible without plates overlapping? Interesting question. This "tectonic ratcheting" model only addresses subduction. I "think" that this is only one type of tectonic motion. Lloyd wrote: Are you planning eventually to cover ideas on how continental drift began in the first place? i added a reference to Shock Dynamics at the end. Lloyd wrote: I'd like to see if you can also determine how fast the continents moved apart initially. Do you mean during the initial shock? I think Fischer has the whole thing happening in 26 hours. But that doesn't explain the magnetic striping at the mid-ocean ridges, which would seem to have taken a lot longer to form. Unless of course the Earth's magnetic field was going bonkers as the continents spread out rapidly, and the magnetic stripes formed all in the first 26 hours. I personally think that the major mountain building (Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, etc.) could have happened in 26 hours. But the plates are still moving, so it's not like they shifted to their current positions and then just stopped. So I think that the impact event shifted everything, and built the mountains, and set up the subduction zones, which then started ratcheting, keeping the plates moving. In other cases, maybe the plates are still moving just from the momentum of the impact event?
'13-01-11, 13:17 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Nebular Hypothesis, Heliophysics, Geophysics Charles, I emailed Mathis to tell him a little about your theory. Hopefully, he'll have some comments. Here's what I told him (and in my next post, I'll quote from a Mathis paper on Star Formation). - Charles Chandler has a website (http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660) with sections dealing with heliophysics and geophysics. Like you, he thinks very mechanically and considers that gravity generally has the greatest effect, but the charge field, i.e. EM forces, often play a dominant role locally. (I'll reread your paper on Star Formation soon to see if you have similar ideas.) - Charle argues that gravity alone could not cause nebulae to collapse and condense into celestial objects. I think it's because, as gas molecules become denser, they heat up and the heat causes expansion, instead of further contraction. So he considers that photoionization [?] should ionize many molecules, which should assist condensation. I don't think he has the details worked out much beyond that, until the point at which a celestial object begins to form. - I think his model says that very fast spinning nebulae form cores that act as natural tokamaks, which become pulsars. Slower spinning nebulae form stars and planets, but at high enough gravitational pressure, they develop compressive ionization, removing electrons, which form a layer just above the compressed material. The electron-rich material above and the electron-poor, compressed material become electrical double-layers. - So these compressively ionized, double-layered stars and planets act like storage batteries. If tidal or other forces produce waves on the surface of the compressively ionized layer, there is charge recombination on the surface, resulting in generation of electricity and radiation of heat and possibly light. - Since your theory seems to be that the heat and light of the planets is determined by their positions in the solar system and the amount of charge field that they receive from each other and from the galactic center, do you think that would [contradict] Charles' theory? Or might the two be compatible?
'13-01-11, 13:21 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Mathis' Critique of Conventional Nebular Hypothesis (http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf) These are selections from his paper on Star Formation. - The first sentence [at Wikipedia] on the page "Star Formation" under the heading "cloud collapse" is this one: - "An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. - how can a gas in space have any pressure at all? - Pressure requires containment, and we have no containment. - They tell us these nebulae are very dense (for a gas), but 100 molecules/cm3 is not dense at all. - First of all, that kind of density couldn't cause a temperature rise of 6K even if the gas were contained (the temperature of empty space is about 4K, according to current models). - the molecules should be free to disperse, and both the temperature and the density should go to zero over time. - If we apply normal gravity equations to these molecules, we get gravitational forces that are effectively zero. - [In the lab] we don't see hydrogen gases collapsing into stars, not with atmospheric pressure, not with containment in glass jars, and not even with added pressure and temperature. - Shouldn't hydrogen molecules display more E/M characteristics than gravitational characteristics? - The second sentence of the "cloud collapse" section is this: - "Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy. - As I have shown, the virial is historically derived from the moment of inertia, which means it only applies to systems with angular momenta. - We haven't been told how or why these initial gases have angular momenta, or how they can be set up around a center, so the entrance of the virial is a mystery. - we require a center to postulate a collapse. - What caused the center? An uncontained gas doesn't have a center. - Gravitational forces between molecules cannot create a center in a super tenuous gas, no matter how large the gas field is. - Gravitational potential energy increases with distance between molecules. - So the gravitational potential energy and the internal thermal energy of a gas are in inverse proportion. - these people don't even know the difference between gravity and gravitational potential, although the two are opposites. - To see what I mean, we may look at the hydrogen gas in space. - Under normal circumstances, heat does not cause clumping, it causes dispersal. - this sentence [is] hiding in the middle of the paragraph we are analyzing: - "Complicating this picture of a collapsing cloud are the effects of turbulence, macroscopic flows, rotation, magnetic fields and the cloud geometry. - "Both rotation and magnetic fields can hinder the collapse of a cloud. - Amazing. In two sentences, we not only get multiple misdirection, we also get black theory - that purposely mentions the correct answer, but tells you it is the wrong answer. - Rotation requires a centripetal force and a center, both of which would seem to help this theory, but we are shooed away from the idea. - And magnetism is a force of attraction, but we aren't to consider it? - the first sentence of the entire page at Wiki: - "Star formation is the process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma to form a star. - They - admit the existence of plasma, and admit that plasma is an E/M entity, but somehow a gas collapses into a plasma with gravity only.