Magnetic Stars: Rebuttal to Max Planck Institute (Advanced Draft Release: The Grant Chronicles)

That's fine that Grant questions the universe, that's how we learn. The problem is, he's been shown that his theories aren't quite right but he doesn't want to hear it. To him, ALL theories are incorrect EXCEPT his. Stomping his feet and yelling, "I'm right and you're not!" isn't how science works.

CB you are quiet is this all out of your league? There are many things right with science, this is how I learned. I just don't like new theories on the universe that contradict each other.

"63729, to say we understand the physics of the universe is a great overstatement in the least."

Nobody's saying we fully understand the universe, or have all of the laws that control it mapped out. That's the whole point of doing science - to improve our understanding little by little.

The fact is that Grant doesn't even understand the science he's arguing against, which makes it difficult for him to hold a coherent discussion on it, far less come up with new and improved laws.

"At least Grant has the guts to question some of this *physics*??? Nothing wrong with probing and nudging out the boundries of understanding."

No, that again is the whole point of science. Come up with new ideas, test them out, and see if they're better than the old ones. People are busy doing that every day.

The key phrase in the above is "test them", and that's where Grant's ramblings fall down. His theories fail at every step, as they're eitehr so vague as to be untestable (so can never be proven true or false) or when he does get specific they make predictions which don't match reality.

And if theory and reality differ then it has to be the theory that's wrong. Grant doesn't seem to accept this basic premise, and apparently lives in a fantasy universe run by his own laws.

"CB you are quiet is this all out of your league?"

No. I'm just watching.

"I just don't like new theories on the universe that contradict each other."

The only one saying they contradict each other is you, from what I've seen.

And if theories do make contradictory claims or predictions then they can be tested to see which one is correct. that's how real science is done.

Grant's approach is to just declare that his theory is the right one...

Grant,
have you given up on the discussion?

what was your answer to my question above?

do you agree with my characterization of what you said?

Regards
Krill

PS: 11 days and counting...

repeat for Grant:


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

As I remember it from back then, Grant didn't understand the physics then, and he apparently still doesn't understand it now.

Really AC have you run the numbers on gravity created by a spherical nebula cloud with a radius of .5 lightyears with the mass of 50 suns yet? The answer will surprise you to the point that the force to collapse a cloud is not there.
just in case you forgot the formula G*M/R^2

mass of the Sun 1.989 *10^30 kg.

1 light year = 9.4605284 × 1015 meters

Do you agree with this characterization?
I will look at your question now

The only one saying they contradict each other is you, from what I've seen.
CB you should have no opinion since this is not your area.

your reasoning (which excludes temperature, by the way, but let's agree to ignore that for now)

Only because ther is little difference throughuout the cloud so this can be ignored.

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.

That is correct

"The answer will surprise you to the point that the force to collapse a cloud is not there."

how do you know? What is the temperature and pressure of this cloud?

You can't possibly arrive at the conclusion you're making without knowing that too...

Regards
Krill

PS: 11 days and counting...

I am working on it, but truthfully have put much time into over the weekend and last night.

ok, so you agree with my characterization. Do you agree that what it implies is that, for a given mass of ideal gas, and if we ignore for now temperature and nuclear reactions, there will be some critical radius for the space occupied by the gas such that:

a) above that radius gravity will overwhelm pressure and the mass will collapse in on itself

b) below that radius the pressure will overwhelm the gravity and the mass will expand

do you agree with this?

Regards
Krill

You can't possibly arrive at the conclusion you're making without knowing that too...

Right now you are trying to establish the base gravitational force at the surface of the nebula cloud. To see what is the level of force containing any amount of pressure. Once you do the numbers you will find the gravitational attraction is far less than what is perceived. If it is, then how do you account for collapse? If you think it’s a fluke then reduced the radius by 90% maintaining the mass and look at the surface gravitational force again.

ok, so you agree with my characterization. Do you agree that what it implies is that, for a given mass of ideal gas, and if we ignore for now temperature and nuclear reactions,

I told you temperature is not a factor for a collapsing cloud until pressures mount significantly and nuclear reactions are not a part until the star lights.

a) above that radius gravity will overwhelm pressure and the mass will collapse in on itself

b) below that radius the pressure will overwhelm the gravity and the mass will expand

do you agree with this?

Yes

"CB you should have no opinion since this is not your area."

That sounds funny coming from a person who doesn't have a complete grasp of the subject.

What's with coward nothing better to say???

"a) above that radius gravity will overwhelm pressure and the mass will collapse in on itself

b) below that radius the pressure will overwhelm the gravity and the mass will expand

do you agree with this?

Yes"

okay... so this radius is that at which the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, and all we have to do is figure out what that radius is.

Consider a mass about that of the Sun, or some small multiple thereof.

If the radius is small (say a few million miles, that means that a cloud of gas of that mass half a light year across will collapse under the force of gravity (see point a)). If it turns out to be a very large number (like, say, 10 light years), that means is won't - it will instead expand due to the pressure (see point b)).

Do you agree?

Regards
Krill

okay... so this radius is that at which the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, and all we have to do is figure out what that radius is.

Consider a mass about that of the Sun, or some small multiple thereof.

If the radius is small (say a few million miles, that means that a cloud of gas of that mass half a light year across will collapse under the force of gravity (see point a)). If it turns out to be a very large number (like, say, 10 light years), that means is won't - it will instead expand due to the pressure (see point b)).

Do you agree?


Before you go here please do the numbers

"Before you go here please do the numbers"

no.

You don't need the numbers to decide whether you agree with this. Why do you want to see the numbers before you decide whether you agree or not? Are you perhaps suspicious that the numbers won't show the answer you want?

Regards
Krill

You don't need the numbers to decide whether you agree with this. Why do you want to see the numbers before you decide whether you agree or not? Are you perhaps suspicious that the numbers won't show the answer you want?

I have done an estimate since I don't have my calculator. Humor me do the numbers it will take less than 8 minutes of your time.

"I have done an estimate since I don't have my calculator. Humor me do the numbers it will take less than 8 minutes of your time."

no.

You don't need the numbers to decide whether the proposition is accurate. What say you?

by the way, I'd be fascinated to know how you manage to solve a set of differential equations with seven variables on a calculator.

Regards
Krill

So I see you don't want to do the numbers, then I will release them later after I get home with a response to your question. And the gravitation force shown will affect the essence of your question, but you already know that.

Grant,
I personally don't have the resources to compute the result, and neither do you. That you think it is possible to solve a set of differential equations in seven variables in 8 minutes with a pocket calculator indicates how little grasp of the problem you have.

I can sure as hell find answers, though, and in fact I already have several sets of data.

You still haven't answered the question, though. Do you agree with the proposition at the end of the last page? Yes or no? Do you want me to re-post it on this page? What are you scared of?

Regards
Krill

I told you I will answer you tonight when I have all my resources. When respond to you I want to make sure I am fine with the response instead changing my answer while fending off AC's

repost of my question just to make sure it's on the same page (I know how much you like that...):



"a) above that radius gravity will overwhelm pressure and the mass will collapse in on itself

b) below that radius the pressure will overwhelm the gravity and the mass will expand

do you agree with this?

Yes"

okay... so this radius is that at which the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, and all we have to do is figure out what that radius is.

Consider a mass about that of the Sun, or some small multiple thereof.

If the radius is small (say a few million miles, that means that a cloud of gas of that mass half a light year across will collapse under the force of gravity (see point a)). If it turns out to be a very large number (like, say, 10 light years), that means is won't - it will instead expand due to the pressure (see point b)).

Do you agree?

Regards
Krill

"I have done an estimate since I don't have my calculator. Humor me do the numbers it will take less than 8 minutes of your time."

Read that again. Grant apparently did this as an "estimate" without using his calculator, and in just 8 minutes. I presume he's also got the values of several fundamental physical constants memorised to several significant digits.

He must be one of those idiot savants that can do really difficult calculations in his head. Or maybe he's just the "idiot" part...



Grant, you open yourself up to ridicule all the time with stuff like this. Why do you keep doing it?