Magnetic Stars: Rebuttal to Max Planck Institute (Advanced Draft Release: The Grant Chronicles) | |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 07:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here is where you have it wrong the density is dependent upon the gravity and if you say it varies then you many centers of gravity independent and interfering with each other. Combine with the fact that the force of gravity on a shrinking mass falls off quickly to the rise in pressure. Would not the cloud break apart into smaller section at the neutral seam of the gravitational fields with independent centers? Think. |
Bored Huge Krill nli User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 07:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "[BHK] Why would the gravity not be variable? It's dependent on the distribution of density, since it acts on mass [Grant] Here is where you have it wrong the density is dependent upon the gravity and if you say it varies then you many centers of gravity independent and interfering with each other." Of course the local gravitational force depends on the density distribution. If you have an accumulation of mass in one location there will be gravitational attraction to it. That's kind of what gravity is, you know. And, yes, you will indeed get many centers of gravity independent from one another, and they will compete with each other in accreting matter. That's sort of exactly as described in the article I just posted a link to. "[Grant] Combine with the fact that the force of gravity on a shrinking mass falls off quickly to the rise in pressure." For a given mass, as it shrinks the gravitational force at the surface increases, not decreases. "Would not the cloud break apart into smaller section at the neutral seam of the gravitational fields with independent centers? Think." yes, that's exactly what happens, and why you end up with the cloud collapsing into more than one star. Just like the article I just posted a link to. What's the problem? Regards Krill |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63672 United Kingdom 01/16/2006 07:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant, you're waaaay out of your depth here. You have litle or no idea of the physics or mathematics involved, and you'd be struggling to even get the basics of this. I love your comment :- "Do the numbers Krill, they don't match so it is not me just saying so." when it's obvious you haven't even done even a basic calculation of the processes involved here. Time to make a strategic withdrawal I think ... |
User # 78/68
User ID: 63673 Canada 01/16/2006 07:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 07:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Your use of the word "believe" says quite a bit here. Of course, gravity as a particle has been proposed already, but nobody can make the hypothesis work. Why don't you help us all out by filling in the blanks for us? I did in my gravity paper [link to www.grantchronicles.com] Like I said mankind does know what gravity is as in this link provided by Krill. [link to en.wikipedia.org] In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity in most quantum gravity systems. In order to do this, one theory posits that gravitons have to be always-attractive (gravity never pushes), work over any distance (gravity is universal) and come in unlimited numbers (to provide high strengths near stars). In quantum theory, these requirements define an even-spin (spin 2 in this case) boson with a rest mass of zero. Detecting a graviton, if it exists, would prove rather problematic. Because the gravitational force is so incredibly weak, as of today, physicists were not even able to directly verify the existence of gravitational waves, as predicted by general relativity. (Many people are surprised to learn that gravity is the weakest force. A simple experiment will demonstrate this, however: an ordinary refrigerator magnet can generate enough force to lift a mass against the force of gravity generated by the entire planet.) Gravitational waves may be viewed as coherent states of many gravitons, much like the electromagnetic waves are coherent states of photons. Projects that should find the gravitational waves, such as LIGO and VIRGO, are just getting started. Many do not believe the graviton exists, at least in the simplistic manner in which it is envisioned. Superficially speaking, quantum gravity using the gauge interaction of a spin-2 field (graviton) fails to work like the photon and other gauge bosons do. But more importantly the spin-2, linear wave (classical gravitational wave) is only a perturbation on certain, highly restrictive metrics. In general there are wave-like fluctuations, but they are non-linear, as is often the case in General Relativity. Maxwell's equations always admit a spin-1, linear wave, but Einstein's equations rarely admit a spin-2, linear wave, and when they do it is only perturbative and not exact. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63672 United Kingdom 01/16/2006 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Keep it up, it is interesting." You must have very low standars for what constitues a "good argument" or "interesting". As far as I can see Grant hasn't properly answered anything put to him, and continues to dance around the issues (in between name calling and his usual pomposity). I was actually hoping for some proper answers when he finally did post, but as usual I was disappointed... |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 07:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant, you're waaaay out of your depth here. You have litle or no idea of the physics or mathematics involved, and you'd be struggling to even get the basics of this. I love your comment :- "Do the numbers Krill, they don't match so it is not me just saying so." when it's obvious you haven't even done even a basic calculation of the processes involved here. Time to make a strategic withdrawal I think ... Don’t think coward, because you are not part of this conversation We have done the numbers here many times please lets not go there, anybody in Physics knows the numbers do not come out in Krill’s favor |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 07:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "I did in my gravity paper [link] " Grant, waving your hands and saying "it does too have particles" doesn't constitute filling in the blanks. There are known mathematical issues with quantum gravity - I was inviting you to provide the answers, which are most certainly not on your web page. Regards Krill |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63672 United Kingdom 01/16/2006 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "We have done the numbers here many times please lets not go there" Really?? I must have missed that post, and I thought 'd read every one in the thread very carefully. "anybody in Physics knows the numbers do not come out in Krill’s favor" OK - so humour me. Post these calculations again, or at least refer me back to the date and time they were posted. As far as I can see all of the modelling done by people who are experts in this field support Krill's statements (in fact he and others refer to them). Is this just more of your usual BS posturing and pontificating? |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "We have done the numbers here many times please lets not go there, anybody in Physics knows the numbers do not come out in Krill’s favor" please provide the specifics. In fact, you could always provide "somebody in physics" who agrees. I already posted one link with results which contradict what you're saying. You haven't provided a counter, except to repeat that you're right, so there. Where is your source of data? Regards Krill |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63672 United Kingdom 01/16/2006 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't know how you guys have the patience for it. Have a nice night, but I'm outta here... |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "[BHK] Why would the gravity not be variable? It's dependent on the distribution of density, since it acts on mass [Grant] Here is where you have it wrong the density is dependent upon the gravity and if you say it varies then you many centers of gravity independent and interfering with each other." Of course the local gravitational force depends on the density distribution. If you have an accumulation of mass in one location there will be gravitational attraction to it. That's kind of what gravity is, you know. And, yes, you will indeed get many centers of gravity independent from one another, and they will compete with each other in accreting matter. That's sort of exactly as described in the article I just posted a link to. "[Grant] Combine with the fact that the force of gravity on a shrinking mass falls off quickly to the rise in pressure." For a given mass, as it shrinks the gravitational force at the surface increases, not decreases. "Would not the cloud break apart into smaller section at the neutral seam of the gravitational fields with independent centers? Think." yes, that's exactly what happens, and why you end up with the cloud collapsing into more than one star. Just like the article I just posted a link to. What's the problem? Regards Krill Grant: What’s the Problem lets look a how you responded to this several days ago. Bored Huge Krill User ID: 55138 1/11/2006 3:01 PM A nebula could only collapse to a single star at the center if it started out homogeneous and perfectly spherical. If it is of uneven density, naturally it's going to collapse unevenly - and once it starts to accumulate in a particular point, it will continue to accrete at that point preferentially. What's the problem? Grant NLI User ID: 2199 1/11/2006 3:26 PM will continue to accrete at that point preferentially, There is your problem now we have many gravitational focus points. If gravity is a wave like mankind states, (and it isn't) the same force you said would collapse, would now interfere with cancellation and reinforcement of gravity waves. This would occur at varying locations since the mass and form of the cloud changes much more rapidly than the formation of a star. The same principle of gravitational attraction to gather enough gas across cubic light years would be enough the gather the entire cloud. What is to stop it? Bored Huge Krill User ID: 55138 1/11/2006 3:46 PM I get it. You're going for #8, aren't you? Regards Krill Bored Huge Krill User ID: 55138 1/11/2006 4:45 PM "Stopped in your tracks Krill no answers, OK fade away" you're kidding, right? Your last post was barely intelligible strung together technical terms. What's with the "gravity is a wave" thing? IIRC there are hypothesised to exist such things as "gravity waves" but that isn't the same thing as saying "gravity is a wave". In response o your claims that gravity could not cause star formation in a nebula, I can only point you to the large volumes of research which suggest otherwise: |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 08:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Grant, waving your hands and saying "it does too have particles" doesn't constitute filling in the blanks. There are known mathematical issues with quantum gravity - I was inviting you to provide the answers, which are most certainly not on your web page. Here is where I seperate, I do not believe in a quantum particle for gravity nor is theory based on Quantum mechanics going to yeild an answer to the "Theory of Everything". During the next seven years your corfort zone in astrophysics will thrown into a tail spin with most theories discarded. |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 08:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OK the Math lesson for who doubt Gravity is determined by G * M /R^2 Since Mass and G are constant the only thing that determine the force of gravity is dependent radius squared. In the volume of a sphere 4/3 *3.1416 (approx.) * R^3 Since Pi & 4/3 are constants again the equation is dependent upon radius cubed for reduction of volume. Pressure is dierect related to volume the temperature of space in a cloud region are generally near absolute zero. So pressure increases in direct proportion to the reduction of volume on a one to one basis. But the ratio of change in the radius affecting gravity vs. volume is related to r^ 2 :: r ^3 It is not even close. |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 08:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2782 United States 01/16/2006 08:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Spelling and grammar aside, how do you figure? You've been making claims of one thing or another for years, none of which has come to pass. |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 08:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "So pressure increases in direct proportion to the reduction of volume on a one to one basis. But the ratio of change in the radius affecting gravity vs. volume is related to r^ 2 :: r ^3" okay, modulo a bunch of handwaving and leaving out several other variables: what you are saying is that a massive ball of gas which can be modelled as an ideal gas will not collapse into itself forever, but rather there will be an equilibrium point at which the pressure and gravity balance each other. No argument with that. But what's your point? None of this actually tells you where the equilibrium point is (and, by the way, until you take into account the effects of a nuclear process at the core, that equilibrium radius is going to be very, very small). Do you want to provide a calculation/reference which shows what the equilibrium radius would be for a given mass, or do you want me to do it? Regards Krill |
craig_is_tha_best User ID: 63686 Australia 01/16/2006 08:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 08:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | But what's your point? None of this actually tells you where the equilibrium point is (and, by the way, until you take into account the effects of a nuclear process at the core, that equilibrium radius is going to be very, very small). This is to tell that the concept of a self-collapsing nebula cloud due to gravity could not support itself at any phase of development. If the pressure doubled the increase in gravity could not contain it. |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 08:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | it says nothing of the sort, Grant, because you haven't included the starting pressure and gravitational forces. The pressure doubling doesn't help if it was very small relative to the gravitational force to begin with. To answer this question you need to determine the radius at which there is an equilibrium for a given mass. So what is your answer? Regards Krill PS - time for dinner. laters... |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 09:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The pressure doubling doesn't help if it was very small relative to the gravitational force to begin with. To answer this question you need to determine the radius at which there is an equilibrium for a given mass. So what is your answer? Krill I like your style of questions, but lets point you in the right direction why don’t you analze this statement you gave me. The simulation followed the collapse of an interstellar gas cloud more than 1 light-year in diameter and containing a mass of gas and dust equal to 50 Suns. The end result, after 266,000 years, was the formation of a cluster of stars typical to our galaxy." Just for fun calculate the force of gravity at the edge of the cloud using a sphere 1 lightyear in diameter with the mass of 50 suns (mass kg. 1.989e+30), now reduce the volume of space by 50 % and calculate the force of gravity on the edge, at half the new radius, then a quarter then ask yourself is this enough to contain the mounting pressure and will be enough to continue. This is a better resolution to your problem. |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 10:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Just for fun calculate the force of gravity at the edge of the cloud using a sphere 1 lightyear in diameter with the mass of 50 suns (mass kg. 1.989e+30), now reduce the volume of space by 50 % and calculate the force of gravity on the edge, at half the new radius, then a quarter then ask yourself is this enough to contain the mounting pressure and will be enough to continue. This is a better resolution to your problem." well, no, it doesn't get you any closer to a solution, because you have no idea what the actual numerical values of gravity and pressure are relative to each other to begin with. Look at it this way: your reasoning (which excludes temperature, by the way, but let's agree to ignore that for now) says that as the spherical volume of a particular mass increases, the pressure, and gravity at the surface, both decrease, but the pressure decreases more quickly than the gravity, yes? Regards Krill |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 10:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | well, no, it doesn't get you any closer to a solution, because you have no idea what the actual numerical values of gravity and pressure are relative to each other to begin with. That's why you can use their model to establish a reference point. |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 11:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "That's why you can use their model to establish a reference point." I don't know who the "they" is... but do you agree with my characterization of what you're saying in the final paragraph of my previous post? Regards Krill |
Grant NLI User ID: 18760 United States 01/16/2006 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stay focused this is not about expansion of nebula clouds |
Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138 United States 01/16/2006 11:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "your reasoning (which excludes temperature, by the way, but let's agree to ignore that for now) says that as the spherical volume of a particular mass increases, the pressure, and gravity at the surface, both decrease, but the pressure decreases more quickly than the gravity, yes? Stay focused this is not about expansion of nebula clouds" I wasn't talking about expansion of nebula clouds. Allow me to reverse the sense of the above (without changing its meaning): your reasoning (which excludes temperature, by the way, but let's agree to ignore that for now) says that as the spherical volume of a particular mass decreases, the pressure, and gravity at the surface, both increase, but the pressure increases more quickly than the gravity. Do you agree with this characterization? Regards Krill |
Your Evil Twin, Skippy User ID: 31297 Australia 01/16/2006 11:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "OK sorry for the assumption there are many cowards here that pop in all the time hard to tell them apart." Apology accepted. Of course, this doesn't address the fact that anonymity alone does not invalidate what anyone is saying. Looking back through this thread you have also told established posters to butt out becuase they "aren't part of this conversation". If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you should address objections and questions on an all comers basis, and to base your answers on facts and reasoning rather than ad hominem attacks. To exclude people who are not being abusive doesn't do you any favours, particularly if you are abusive in return. I notice you haven't answered my question, too. Do you maintian that the Magellanic clouds are part of our galaxy simply becuase they are gratiationally attracted? The ANdromeda galaxy is gravitationally attracted to the Milky Way and will collide with it in a couple of billion years. Is Andromeda part of the Milky Way? An additional question: Given that the difference between wave and medium has been brought up more than once, can you admit that gravity, while it *may* carry wave, is not a wave itself, in the way that water may carry a wave but is not a wave? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 63729 United Kingdom 01/17/2006 12:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Haven't we been through a long debate about gravitation, pressure and equilibrium before when Grant put up his "gravity theory"? As I remember it from back then, Grant didn't understand the physics then, and he apparently still doesn't understand it now. |
User # 78/68
User ID: 63757 Canada 01/17/2006 01:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 63729, to say we understand the physics of the universe is a great overstatement in the least. At least Grant has the guts to question some of this *physics*??? Nothing wrong with probing and nudging out the boundries of understanding. |