Star Formation

The Pixie

Well-known member
Again, these are not the same conditions and scenarios. Yes, those statements do apply in context, but a giant gas cloud spread over light years is not comparable to a thin layer (approximately 100km thick) of atmosphere attracted to the earth which has a radius of ~6371km and a mass that is more than a million times greater. The atmospheric pressure is insufficient to generate enough velocity in the majority of the atmosphere and only those at the very top have enough energy and velocity to reach escape velocity at all.

This can be applied to the gas giants and stars as well. Their radii (which matters more than mass) are comparatively small and so the inverse square law demands that gravity be relatively strong in these cases, strong enough to hold those gasses under pressure from escaping except for small amounts at the surface.

Nebulae, on the other hand, are a different kind of body altogether. The radius is extremely large compared to the overall mass of the cloud and the pressure is more than sufficient to cause expansion in spite of gravity. In fact, if you look at what is observed with regard to nebulae, they are all expanding. This is basic astronomy and is directly observable.
So you are happy for gravity to keep gas in a concentrated place, but do not find it plausible for gravity to get it into that state?
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
In B335, the molecular gas is in fact collapsing with a developing magnetic field as predicted. Refinements in models are also upgraded in their precision as additional studies are conducted.
In these observations, did they observe the gas without a magnetic field earlier and now it has one? Or it doesn't have one yet, but they predict it will? Or has it always had a magnetic field over the course of observation and they are concluding that it used to not have one but does now?
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
So you are happy for gravity to keep gas in a concentrated place, but do not find it plausible for gravity to get it into that state?
This is what I observe and it is based on the inverse square law of the potency of gravity in relationship to distance.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
So far, none of these responses has actually provided real evidence. Allegedly the process to form a new star takes about a million years according to the scientists that talk about the process. If this is true, how can we say with any credibility (much less certainty) that what is being observed is star "formation" given that we have only been studying stellar life cycles for less than .02% of that amount of time? In other words, what is the actual evidence beyond the say-so of the scientific clergy?

For instance, looking at the Elephant's Trunk nebula example, we have observed previously unobserved stellar objects. They are referred to as proto-stars or newborn stars, but how do we know that? Or are scientists inferring it without it being a necessary implication of what has been observed? Perhaps they are stellar objects that we simply haven't seen before in the brief time we've had the technology to do so "due to obscuration by the thick cloud ('globule body') and by dust surrounding" them and because older technology wasn't up to the job. Just because we started observing them recently doesn't mean they weren't there before, only that we couldn't see them.
Anything that has not existed forever has to have had a beginning and anything that has a beginning had to have had a cause. The accepted cause to star formation is gravity when gases are compressed enough for gravity to take effect. The current observations and evidence gives credence to this accepted explanation.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
Anything that has not existed forever has to have had a beginning and anything that has a beginning had to have had a cause.
Agreed 100%!
The accepted cause to star formation is gravity when gases are compressed enough for gravity to take effect.
I am not understanding. Gravity causes the gasses to collapse until gravity takes effect?
The current observations and evidence gives credence to this accepted explanation.
This is what I'm asking for verification of, beyond because scientists say so or conjecture or desire.
 

inertia

Super Member
In these observations, did they observe the gas without a magnetic field earlier and now it has one? Or it doesn't have one yet, but they predict it will? Or has it always had a magnetic field over the course of observation and they are concluding that it used to not have one but does now?

I don't know when its magnetic field was initially discovered, and from my reading, initial studies showed uncertainties about its strength. Past studies provide estimates that range from 12 to 134 microgauss. Current research is being conducted at the South African Astronomical observatory.

Their findings reported on January 22, 2020:

In result of the study, axisymmetrically distorted, hourglass-shaped magnetic fields were identified for the first time in B335. The magnetic inclination angles in the plane-of-sky and line-of-sight directions were determined as 90 and 50 degrees, respectively.

The total magnetic field strength of B335 was calculated to be about 30.2 µG. The magnetic critical mass of the core was found to be approximately 1.13 solar masses, which is less than the observed core mass. Moreover, the critical mass of B335, evaluated using both magnetic and thermal/turbulent support, was measured to be around 3.37 solar masses, what is similar to the observed core mass.

Barnard 335 (B335 shortened) is a dense isolated protostar core, and it is considered a Class 0 protostar that is 342 ly distant. Its mass is about 3.67 solar masses and has a radius of 13,100 AU with a dense molecular gas envelope. The protostar is a source of far-infrared radiation and strong submillimeter emissions.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I am not understanding. Gravity causes the gasses to collapse until gravity takes effect?
I have heard of a near by star as the cause but whatever the cause there is a critical mass achieved where the mass of the gases and their natural angular momentum causes the gas particles both to come together and to speed up. The particle acceleration is a result of the conservation of angular momentum much like an ice skater who folds his arms and legs to increase his angular velocity.
This is what I'm asking for verification of, beyond because scientists say so or conjecture or desire.
That would depend on what you mean by verification. A theory is normally accepted based on the concept of most likely explanation. And unlike evolution, star formations are simple enough so that they can be simulated on the computer. A theory is not proven it can only be falsified. Proving a theory is best left in the mathematical world. You may have let the dishonesty of evolutionary Darwinists to effect your judgment on other sciences as well, although I do realize that your background is physics.
 
Last edited:

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
I don't know when its magnetic field was initially discovered, and from my reading, initial studies showed uncertainties about its strength. Past studies provide estimates that range from 12 to 134 microgauss. Current research is being conducted at the South African Astronomical observatory.

Their findings reported on January 22, 2020:



Barnard 335 (B335 shortened) is a dense isolated protostar core, and it is considered a Class 0 protostar that is 342 ly distant. Its mass is about 3.67 solar masses and has a radius of 13,100 AU with a dense molecular gas envelope. The protostar is a source of far-infrared radiation and strong submillimeter emissions.
Thanks for the info. I will read through it.
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
but whatever the cause
This is exactly why I am asking. Is this what we know based on evidence or what we believe based on a scientific clergy preaching it.
there is a critical mass achieved where the mass of the gases and their natural angular momentum causes the gas particles both to come together and to speed up. The particle acceleration is a result of the conservation of angular momentum much like an ice skater who folds his arms and legs to increase his angular velocity.
The question is, has this been observed to happen or only achieved via computer modeling? I'd prefer not to accept anything on blind faith.
That would depend on what you mean by verification. A theory is normally accepted based on the concept of most likely explanation.
This is horrible science. Science means "to know", not "to believe based on likely". If this is what the scientific method has come to, no wonder we don't have interstellar travel yet.
And unlike evolution, star formations are simple enough so that they can be simulated on the computer.
Which is not actual evidence.
A theory is not proven it can only be falsified. Proving a theory is best left in the mathematical world.
As a classical scientist, I must disagree. Scientist should seek objective knowledge and until that is achieved, keep testing.
You may have let the dishonesty of evolutionary Darwinists to effect your judgment on other sciences as well, although I do realize that your background is physics.
What do you mean?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
This is exactly why I am asking. Is this what we know based on evidence or what we believe based on a scientific clergy preaching it.
It is based on evidence. Scientific preaching is called a hypothetical assertion. Two theoretical physicists can argue quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalist to destroy them both. Repeatable experiments and observation always win over theory.
The question is, has this been observed to happen or only achieved via computer modeling? I'd prefer not to accept anything on blind faith.
That is probably a good trait in science. Everything should always be on the chopping block with no viable alternatives left out.
This is horrible science. Science means "to know", not "to believe based on likely". If this is what the scientific method has come to, no wonder we don't have interstellar travel yet.
What alternative do you have? Unless one can come with a better alternative the most likely is your best answer. Otherwise you just sit there and look at a big ball of hot plasma and wonder where it came from.
Which is not actual evidence.
It becomes evidence when you can make predictions from your simulated model which can then be tested or observed. An example might be the Edington limit for the theoretical mass of a star.
As a classical scientist, I must disagree. Scientist should seek objective knowledge and until that is achieved, keep testing.
Ok, I don't see anyone giving back any research grants.
What do you mean?
If you have to ask then it might not apply to you. I am an ID proponent who is labeled as a creationist and a YEC. Even though the term Yec does not apply in this case.
 
Last edited:

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
It is based on evidence. Scientific preaching is called a hypothetical assertion. Two theoretical physicists can argue quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalist to destroy them both. Repeatable experiments and observation always win over theory.
And it should not be taught as true until it is known to be true.
That is probably a good trait in science. Everything should always be on the chopping block with no viable alternatives left out.
:)
What alternative do you have? Unless one can come with a better alternative the most likely is your best answer. Otherwise you just sit there and look at a big ball of hot plasma and wonder where it came from.
An example I would give is with regard to the origin of the Universe itself. Some would argue that it came from nothing (quantum fluctuations in nothing produced space, time, and energy/matter). Others would argue that there is a multiverse that ultimately resulted in the formation of our universe. And of course, there is your position of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism that says that a being outside of the laws of the universe made the universe from this being's thoughts a few thousand years ago. Objective science doesn't look at these and pick the one that sounds the best or is the most likely. Objective science eliminates all the wrong answers (theory) and then shows that the answer that is left is objectively true (law). Since Einstein, scientists have moved away from this kind of objective science and have decided that they can't know anything as objectively true, which is absurd. But because they have this mentality, they stop at what seems like the most likely explanation to them (which is inherently biased and unscientific since most likely isn't the same as knowing objectively).
It becomes evidence when you can make predictions from your simulated model which can then be tested or observed. An example might be the Edington limit for the theoretical mass of a star.
Yes, observation and testing of the actual phenomenon. Which is what I'm asking about in regard to the formation of stars. Great, your computer models have given you a picture of your hypothesis. Now, where is the evidence that your nebula ever collapsed? Where is your evidence that what was not a star became a star? We have observed for such a short period of time relative to the alleged time this process takes it's like taking a photograph or a single frame of a movie we've not ever seen before and trying to say what happened in the movie before that frame. I'm not interested in hypotheses. I want to know what we know in the objective sense.
Ok, I don't see anyone giving back any research grants.
:) But you do see people who don't know in the objective sense teaching things they prefer to be true, and for which they have some pretty computer models spanning billions of years in a few minutes or seconds as if it is objectively true.
If you have to ask then it might not apply to you. I am an ID proponent who is labeled as a creationist and a YEC. Even though the term Yec does not apply in this case.
My background is in Physics. I don't let the nonsense from any non-objectively true belief affect my quest for objective knowledge of the universe whether it be biological evolution, religious tradition, political and economic pressure, and so on. I empathize greatly with men like Nikola Tesla. I would rather die penniless having explored the depths of the mysteries of the universe and come to know what I can know than to live in luxury and ignorance.

Undoubtedly my quest for objective knowledge of the universe will be laughed at by modern scientists, but I'm not seeking their praise or acceptance either. I would rather be derided, scorned, and hated and know truth alone than to be loved as an ignorant fool among ignorant fools.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
And it should not be taught as true until it is known to be true.

:)

An example I would give is with regard to the origin of the Universe itself. Some would argue that it came from nothing (quantum fluctuations in nothing produced space, time, and energy/matter). Others would argue that there is a multiverse that ultimately resulted in the formation of our universe. And of course, there is your position of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism that says that a being outside of the laws of the universe made the universe from this being's thoughts a few thousand years ago. Objective science doesn't look at these and pick the one that sounds the best or is the most likely. Objective science eliminates all the wrong answers (theory) and then shows that the answer that is left is objectively true (law). Since Einstein, scientists have moved away from this kind of objective science and have decided that they can't know anything as objectively true, which is absurd. But because they have this mentality, they stop at what seems like the most likely explanation to them (which is inherently biased and unscientific since most likely isn't the same as knowing objectively).
The best explanation is the one that explains all the observable data. When you have two competing explanations for the same observations, scientists normally develop experiments to test both explanations falsifying one and lending credence to the other which then becomes the best explanation for all observations until someone can come up with another competing explanation which starts the cycle oven again. Knowing objectively is actual application of what you accuse current science of doing. That is, you continue until you know objectively. But according to science, knowing objectively can never be reached.

Yes, observation and testing of the actual phenomenon. Which is what I'm asking about in regard to the formation of stars. Great, your computer models have given you a picture of your hypothesis. Now, where is the evidence that your nebula ever collapsed? Where is your evidence that what was not a star became a star? We have observed for such a short period of time relative to the alleged time this process takes it's like taking a photograph or a single frame of a movie we've not ever seen before and trying to say what happened in the movie before that frame. I'm not interested in hypotheses. I want to know what we know in the objective sense.
All that we can give you is a theory that best explains the current observational data. Unless you can come up with a better one which can then be tested against the current best theory, then there remains nothing left to discuss on this.

But you do see people who don't know in the objective sense teaching things they prefer to be true, and for which they have some pretty computer models spanning billions of years in a few minutes or seconds as if it is objectively true.
As a matter of fact, I do see this. For example, computer simulation models for evolution which include Genetic Algorithms, and the others such as, Avida, and Tierra the latter two being the only ones to claim to model between species. Tierra never converged on a solution that was acceptable to Darwinists while Avida was re-massaged, and recompiled until an acceptable answer was cranked out. After all, Darwinists aren't paying megabucks to computer programmers to prove them wrong. Discovery Institute members discovered that all these programs (including GA's) were able to converge on solutions because of hidden oracles of information not available to evolution. Without these hidden sources of information the computer simulations would not converge on the desired solutions. Since that time, GA's are no longer used in biological research and Avida has been relegated to a teaching tool in undergrad biology. It is not used in graduate studies since that involves research. As a side, because I know the subject will come up, GA's were able to converge on new antenna types by using information on already functional antennae.

My background is in Physics. I don't let the nonsense from any non-objectively true belief affect my quest for objective knowledge of the universe whether it be biological evolution, religious tradition, political and economic pressure, and so on. I empathize greatly with men like Nikola Tesla. I would rather die penniless having explored the depths of the mysteries of the universe and come to know what I can know than to live in luxury and ignorance.

Undoubtedly my quest for objective knowledge of the universe will be laughed at by modern scientists, but I'm not seeking their praise or acceptance either. I would rather be derided, scorned, and hated and know truth alone than to be loved as an ignorant fool among ignorant fools.
My background is engineering physics if you can call a B.S. in engineering physics with a few on-line graduate courses a background. But I may be on the opposite side of the coin, I would rather be an ignorant fool among ignorant fools rather than claim to know the truth.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I'm asking for hard evidence for star formation here
At a forum dedicated to Christian apologetics? You're looking for hard scientific evidence here???

Anyone serious about your question would be searching somewhere that hard scientific evidence is more readily found. Searching for it in a religious discussion forum is almost a declaration of your lack of interest in the subject...
 

Kade Rystalmane

Well-known member
At a forum dedicated to Christian apologetics? You're looking for hard scientific evidence here???

Anyone serious about your question would be searching somewhere that hard scientific evidence is more readily found. Searching for it in a religious discussion forum is almost a declaration of your lack of interest in the subject...
That depends entirely on the reason for asking, doesn't it?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
That depends entirely on the reason for asking, doesn't it?
Not really, no.

You could legitimately be looking for discussion, but rejecting links in favor of "hard evidence for star formation" is a discussion forum is almost dishonest. It's literally impossible for anyone to provide evidence like that via a web browser - at a Christian apologetics web site - as that kind of evidence is found in data, and with experts who understand and can explain it.

If you want "hard evidence" from people who gathered to discuss Christianity, don't pretend that links are somehow inadequate. Given the context of the CARM forums, that is literally the best evidence you'll ever get. And THAT is no one's fault but yours.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Not really, no.

You could legitimately be looking for discussion, but rejecting links in favor of "hard evidence for star formation" is a discussion forum is almost dishonest. It's literally impossible for anyone to provide evidence like that via a web browser - at a Christian apologetics web site - as that kind of evidence is found in data, and with experts who understand and can explain it.

If you want "hard evidence" from people who gathered to discuss Christianity, don't pretend that links are somehow inadequate. Given the context of the CARM forums, that is literally the best evidence you'll ever get. And THAT is no one's fault but yours.
An excellent point, which could legitimately be made about fifty times a day to many different posters, though I'm thinking specifically of one.
 

inertia

Super Member
I'd like to approach this from a different vector by addressing some known physics.

1. Gasses expand to fill available space.
2. Nebulae are gasses that are many light years across and very sparse (10^3 particles/cu cm) and cold (~100K).
3. As gasses are condensed, pressure increases, making them "want" to expand even moreso.
4. Gravity is by far the weakest of forces (G = 6.67x10^(-11) and is diminished by the inverse square law (1/d^2).
5. Electromagnetism is 134 quadrillion times stronger than gravity (k_e = 9.00x10^9) and is also diminished by the inverse square law (1/d^2).
6. Nebulae are said to be formed by a rapidly expanding (exploding) star (supernova).

Knowing these things, why would we conclude that these sparse gases ever could or would contract into a star?
The viral theorem plays a significant role here.

Fundamentally, in an equilibrium condition, it takes twice the internal kinetic energy within a given molecular cloud to equal its gravitational potential energy. So, if twice the total kinetic energy of a molecular cloud exceeds the absolute magnitude of its potential energy, the force due to the gas pressure will dominate and the cloud will expand. On the other hand, if the total kinetic energy is too low, it will collapse.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to approach this from a different vector by addressing some known physics.

1. Gasses expand to fill available space.
2. Nebulae are gasses that are many light years across and very sparse (10^3 particles/cu cm) and cold (~100K).
3. As gasses are condensed, pressure increases, making them "want" to expand even moreso.
4. Gravity is by far the weakest of forces (G = 6.67x10^(-11) and is diminished by the inverse square law (1/d^2).
5. Electromagnetism is 134 quadrillion times stronger than gravity (k_e = 9.00x10^9) and is also diminished by the inverse square law (1/d^2).
6. Nebulae are said to be formed by a rapidly expanding (exploding) star (supernova).

Knowing these things, why would we conclude that these sparse gases ever could or would contract into a star? I suggest to you that the amount of time we have been observing nebulae and alleged "protostars" has been far too short to make direct observational measurements necessary to come to the conclusion that new stars form. I suggest that much of what is alleged about new star formation is conjecture rather than necessary inference from observation of nature. While a process has been hypothesized, there has been no meaningful testing of the hypothesis other than computer models which alone are insufficient to show anything other than the conjectures in action.

We do not know what was happening in the Universe millions of years ago, what forces influenced the formation of celestial bodies. Our capabilities are limited by the power of our telescopes and the lack of space travel beyond our solar system (although we do not travel within the solar system yet, only satellites and rovers are launched). This is not enough at this stage to solve the mysteries of the Universe. But humanity is on the way to this and it seems to me that an important step is the ability to look at the planets with the help of telescopes and, with sufficient skill, to follow the processes on the Sun from your home. I found the Celestron Computerized Telescope and was generous with such a purchase. As for me, with the popularization of science there will be more and more different discoveries.
 
Top