Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jason777

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Recommended Posts

Why do guys keep commenting on each other's posts about the so-called general behavior that I am supposedly exhibiting?  Just stick to the debate and present ideas, critiques of the subject matter presented, and evidence.  There is no need to make posts like this and it is done so frequently - its lame.  Imagine that I made comments under JudyV's or Jason's posts about you guys but as if you weren't around to read them.  Something like:

 

"This is the refuge of the Creationist.  They arrogantly pretend that they understand scientific laws without proper education or training and then presume to argue with authority embarrisingly exposing how little they understand how science is done."

 

Both sides do this, I am probably guilty of it myself, but you guys do it constantly.  It has a name - its called stroking each others egos.

Are you trying to make me feel bad or yourselves feel better?  If you want to talk about the generalized behavior we supposedly exhibit then start a thread about it.

36098[/snapback]

It's a conversation A.Sphere. These are replies to their comments much the same as when someone replies to your comments. Are you attempting now to stifle any conversation we have with each other?

 

Conversations and communications are expressions of thoughts, regardless of whether two or more people agree or disagree with each other. And I doubt you want to discuss “proper education†in scientific fields, as if you can stifle that conversation with a wave of the hand.

 

What is a proper education A.Sphere? Is it limited to certain disciplines, or does the institution’s of higher learning one attends add luster or rust to their opinion in your mind? What scientific degree did Darwin have when he postulated “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life�

 

What’s embarrassing is when someone self-aggrandizes their importance by thinking their “scientific authority†outweighs that of another. And then starts whining on an open forum that people who are agreeing with each other are, are ding so to them feel bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No A.sphere, my points are that both the open and the closed system universe theories are assumptions,

I agree.

 

that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics isn’t dependant on either because entropy is a fact where we are with what we have, that it is fully understandable where we are with what we have.

It can approximate open systems above the thermodynamic limit and it exactly predicts it for idealized isolated systems.

 

I am arguing that in a system that is very open such as a star forming region we do not expect to see entropy curves that are consistent with the 2LoT because so much energy is allowed to flow from outside our region. The 2LoT tells us that as we turn down energy input our entropy curves will increase. But as we turn up our energy input our curves will start to deviate from the predicted curves and once we are under the thermodynamic limit we can even get an increasing curve. The 2LoT isn't violated at all.

 

And, that your attempt to argue them out of our intellectual league is a pipe dream.

I'm sorry that you think that I am trying to do this. This isn't how I see myself coming off.

 

I keep repeating my self because you don’t understand that we can fully understand entropy here, but any postulates concerning where we have not been, are assumptions.

I never said we couldn't understand entropy here. We do understand entropy for simple systems and we have a good idea about its generalized behavior for complex systems. Entropy does not equal the 2LoT. The 2LoT tells us how entropy behaves for the extreme case when there is no energy input into our system - this extreme case allows us to approximate cases that are nearly isolated and is very useful in science and engineering.

 

You said the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is defined for a closed system.

It is. If you look at the mathematical formulation of the 2LoT the E_ext term is equal to zero. When E_ext is different from zero the entropic behavior can still be approximated by the 2LoT and works well to low order.

 

But that is only opinion, not fact.

It is simply in every single thermodynamic and statistical mechanics textbook I have ever seen - but whatever.

 

The fact is the Laws of Entropy, just like the Laws of Mathematics, the Law of Gravity (etc…) preceded us, we didn’t invent them we discovered them.

I think we have two different perspectives here. To me laws of science are developing theories as to repetivive behavior that we observe in the natural world. The behavior can be understood in simple idealized systems very well but becomes quickly complicated as the systems we are considering increase in variables. The behavior was born along with the universe - the human attempt to explain these behaviors are incomplete and those explanations are created by humans.

 

Also,  misusing grammar just because those you wish to emulate do so, is none the less incorrect.

Wow - so you don't use shop talk? You must be a blast to hang out with.

 

Evolution doesn’t predict anything, nor does evolution do anything.

 

  Nature doesn’t predict anything, nor does it do anything.

 

Rivers flow to the sea via the path of least resistance and gravity.

 

Rocks roll down hill via the path of least resistance and gravity.

 

The ToE allows scientists to make predictions about observations that have been made or should be made. In the biz it is common shop talk to say that the ToE predicts. Of course you knew that - as did everyone else. You just brought it up in attempt to chip away at me. But if the ToE is correct at explaining the evolution of species then surely you must admit that the processes involved in evolution certainly do something?

 

I never said nature predicts something. Natural processes certainly do things.

 

When rocks roll down hills the gravitational force from the earth is DOING work on the rock. Do is a verb that expresses existence, action, or occurence. It obviously does not require sentience.

 

The atheist’s god of “evolution†or “nature†are just words that they attempt to breath sentience into by repetitive and rote learning. If you say it loud enough and long enough, someone will believe it I suppose.

Your the one that thinks only sentient beings can DO anything. All action is caused by sentient beings - isn't that what led the greeks to believe that gods made lightning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a conversation A.Sphere. These are replies to their comments much the same as when someone replies to your comments. Are you attempting now to stifle any conversation we have with each other?

 

Conversations and communications are expressions of thoughts, regardless of whether two or more people agree or disagree with each other. And I doubt you want to discuss “proper education†in scientific fields, as if you can stifle that conversation with a wave of the hand.

Well its obviously conversation, its also text, words, and sentences. Its just not conversation that is conducive to the topic about star formation and entropy. Adam makes a decree about evolutionists in general implying that I am immulating this behavior and you proceed to stroke his ego with a comment that agrees and expands on his comment. The he in turn does the same thing. It reminds me of two little kids talking negatively about someone as if they aren't there even though they are. Meanwhile the chain of ego stroking that someone starts has nothing to do with the meat of the argument only how the argument is supposedly presented. What it becomes in practice is a bridge to take the topic way off course as the person being talked about tries to defend their character rather than their argument.

 

What is a proper education A.Sphere?

Real world application. A university education is the easiest way to get the knowledge that one needs to gain that real world experience. A university educations gives you tools. It can definately be achieved without instruction but it is a much more difficult course to take and most people are not succesful when they try. The very few self taught experts are usually anomolous geniuses. Statistically some of you could be but all of you cannot be.

 

Is it limited to certain disciplines, or does the institution’s of higher learning one attends add luster or rust to their opinion in your mind?

Is education limited to certain disciplines? Of course not. University gives you tools. In the case of science you revieve analytic tools. As a student of physics I learned classic theories of electromagnetism, mechanics, thermodynamics, and classical and quantum mechanics. These courses are methods courses. We learn the appropriate language to communicate physical laws and then we are given problems to solve to test how standard and how creative our problem solving abilites are. Then we are given real world research projects that we try to solve with the guidence of an advisor - these problems haven't been solved before. We do not learn about big bang theory unless we take a special topics coursea or take a self study course under the advisement of a professor.

 

What scientific degree did Darwin have when he postulated “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life�

Many succesful scientists didn't have degrees in anything related to what they made their major contribution to. These people are anomolous however. They are usually exceptionally bright and uncommon. Newton solved problems when he was in his early teens. Newton was also exceptionally gifted in intelligence.

 

What’s embarrassing is when someone self-aggrandizes their importance by thinking their “scientific authority†outweighs that of another.

Did I say this ever? I gave an example of an ego stroking quote that I could give that would offend creationists on this forum - and it worked. You are offended. Just as I am offended by the ego stroking comments that you participate in. Talk to me about my behavior - not to each other. I don't disrespect you that way.

 

And then starts whining on an open forum that people who are agreeing with each other are, are ding so to them feel bad.

I am not sure what this sentence means. It does make me feel bad when people I am having a science discussion with start throwing out proclamations about me as if I have nefarious goals - if you think I do then talk to me about it instead of about me with someone else. Its called respect - and I try and show it to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that this thread will probably be closed soon because it is going way off topic.

 

I suggest we should start a couple of threads:

 

1. Evolutionist behavior and common tactics

 

- you guys could talk genuinely in these threads every time you feel the need to do so. You could quote from other threads examples of these behaviors and tactics instead of interrupting discussions.

 

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

3. The Science of Star formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that this thread will probably be closed soon because it is going way off topic. 

 

I suggest we should start a couple of threads:

 

1.  Evolutionist behavior and common tactics

 

- you guys could talk genuinely in these threads every time you feel the need to do so.  You could quote from other threads examples of these behaviors and tactics instead of interrupting discussions.

 

2.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

3.  The Science of Star formation.

36106[/snapback]

We all can “talk genuinely†in any thread. And it’s not “interrupting discussions†when you’re pointing out common fallacies that are being pushed. It’s called adding to the thread by making corrections. That falls under the “honest†and “educational†portions of the rules, and refutes “Clear cases of misrepresentationâ€ÂÂ. Remember, it’s not a waste people’s time to correct mistakes, or refute misinformation.

 

For “Evolutionist behavior and common tacticsâ€ÂÂ, you can check the rules page at http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm and link to http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestboo..._alert_page.htm to see that.

 

 

But here’s the thing A. Sphere. If you’ve never seen a star form, you’re plying a trade of speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron's illustration reveals something about how this conversation has operated. This cutting edge research is done in the most elaborate observatories and done by people with years and years of schooling. There must be something special about their pronouncements and our inability to understand their ideas must demonstrate how brilliant they are rather then the possibility that they could be guilty of arrogantly overstepping their own knowledge to postulate impossibilities.

 

The fact that no ground is given at all in this debate to that which can be demonstrated, as evidence, in favor of the postulations of pointy heads is a demonstration of how the paradigm itself poisons the environment.

36077[/snapback]

Not at all. Although we can get into statistical mechanics, advanced thermodynamics and all kinds of stuff beyond my comprehension, the important part is simple enough. As a gas cools, it exerts less pressure. All objects down to atoms are gravitationally attracted to each other, and gravity will collapse these objects until a repulsive force doesn't permit further collapse The gravitational force in a vacuum will equal out with repulsive pressure, keeping a gaseous object at the same size so long as it is kept at the same temperature. All that is required of a cloud to become a star is that it have great enough density to become opaque and the frictional forces in the cloud core not be able to heat the whole cloud into transparent dissipation but still be able to heat to core to the point of fusion. Given the size of stellar nurseries, this isn't a problem.

 

In fact, Jupiter is a fine example despite being a planet. It is still emitting twice as much heat as it receives, due to its thermal opacity and the fact its gravitational collapse far exceeded its ability to heat up to a uniform repulsive pressure on its outer bounds (its core was raging but its gravity was still piling on more than it could possibly force off, as a result it is still cooling). This is in line with what would be required of a forming star (thermal retention, inability to uniformly heat and thus expand to a density of less significance -- Jupiter's core may still be 43,000 degrees). Now, combine this with the fact that there are apparently younger stars (which consist mostly of interstellar medium instead of fused materials) and older stars (the difference in each revealed by spectrum analysis), and it's a safe bet for any naturalist that stars have been forming since the universe came to exist. Additionally, we've observed what looks like protoplanetary disks and stellar clouds in nebulae that nebular hypothesis fits very well. You want to know the problems with nebular hypothesis? How planetesimals form, how gas giants form, where the angular momentum from the protoplanetary disk is passed to, and just how planets migrate into stable orbits. Stellar formation is understood, and none of the popular creationist websites are willing to suggest that stars cannot form, so this reads like a "yeah, I know this one law that you didn't think of!" where in the case of electrons, the Abraham-Lorentz force would cause an electron to rapidly lose speed and fall into the nucleus. "So how do electrons supposedly orbit a nucleus without all of that funny unproven quantum evolutionist trash?" I'm wondering how much longer this topic will remain, or how much more will be called into doubt because it is science. I have a hard time believing creationists apply the same skepticism to the Bible as they do anything that disagrees with it. "How do you know that? Show me one observation that isn't biased!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all can “talk genuinely†in any thread. And it’s not “interrupting discussions†when you’re pointing out common fallacies that are being pushed. It’s called adding to the thread by making corrections. That falls under the “honest†and “educational† portions of the rules, and refutes “Clear cases of misrepresentationâ€ÂÂ.  Remember, it’s not a waste people’s time to correct mistakes, or refute misinformation.

 

For “Evolutionist behavior and common tacticsâ€ÂÂ, you can check the rules page at http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm  and link to http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestboo..._alert_page.htm to see that.

But here’s the thing A. Sphere. If you’ve never seen a star form, you’re plying a trade of speculation.

36115[/snapback]

 

You aren't correcting a mistake. You responded to Adam's post with:

 

The pronouncements as so special that when you show mistakes at the very base of their postulations, they defend those postulations with the majority rules stances of “common place†mistaken axioms and “you can google it†as if googling can lend credence to a mistake.

 

They will use grandiose language to cover for basic fallacies, and then tell you that you cannot understand what you yourself can prove to be true. And all of this skullduggery just to keep from having to look at their own mistaken ideas.

 

You are implying that this is what I am doing instead of specifically attacking my argument. You suggest that I am using "grandoise language" to cover for basic fallacies but you never specifically say when I did this nor do you explain the basic fallacy. You implied that I am being devious by participating in skullduggery without specifically saying how. To me this is an attack on my character rather than my argument and it absolutely takes away from the conversation. It might be allowed but that doesn't mean its necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notions of what you perceive as order aside, the body would be heated and gain the capacity for thermodynamic work.  Now, what that work would amount to would be precious little, seeing as how the support system for all the cells and the complex molecular pathways would have been destroyed, the cells long since having destroyed themselves.

 

So, you agree with Sphere that outsource energy is not enough, a mechanism for turning energy into work is necessary.

 

  Early life does not require a complex support system,

 

If it is complex or not is irrelevant.The question is if only an outsource or energy for decreasing entropy is enough.

 

but asking whether a body will decay in sunlight, which that body cannot do much work with (it couldn't do much with it while it was alive, either)

 

Why ?

 

, while it is surrounded and covered in functional micro-organisms hardly demonstrates a problem with the second law of thermodynamics, but a lack of understanding on the part of the person asking the question.

 

Of course the problem is not with second law, it will decay following the second law.The problem is with the assertion that adding an outsource of energy into a local system is enough for decreasing entropy in that system.

 

  Our notions of order aren't even valid when placed up against the actual law, as a body at 9000 degrees has a very high work potential but it does not function as a human.

 

So, you disagree with Sphere.A dead body receiving energy from the sun will decrease entropy.

 

  We consist of many areas of lesser and greater energy (and it is not all thermal energy, and thermal energy applied directly back to our body will not regenerate the electrical or chemical activity) and entropy, it is how we function, consuming food for energy, burning phosphorous to keep warm, using oxygen to catalyze sugar into adenosine triphosphate, and a billion other small details.  Just heating a human body isn't going to regenerate cell walls or immune systems, the body would not come alive again even if its order increased.  Hypothetically, we could turn it into a diamond, which possesses a great deal of order, but it would not be a living human being again.  We could turn a diamond into a human, at the cost of order but at a massive gain in complexity.   Popular notions of order and entropy are best left to simple domains where complexity is not required.  Trying to apply your impression of what an ordered human is against a dead simulacrum possessing a high heat gradient is just silly.

36197[/snapback]

A dead body is full of complex chemicals, proteins , enzymes , DNA , RNA. Why when they receive energy from the sun they do not start to build more complex chemicals and self-replicating pepitides ? Instead of that they fall apart following the second law ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

A dead body is full of complex chemicals, proteins , enzymes , DNA , RNA. Why when they receive energy from the sun they do not start to build more complex chemicals and self-replicating pepitides ? Instead of that they fall apart following the second law ?

36248[/snapback]

Someone needs to take a physics class. A living human has everything you mentioned above, and if they stand in the sun the same thing will happen to them that happens to a dead person. A human is an open system only if they eat(though the sun provides this energy indirectly). If you don't eat, you become essentially a closed system. You burn your energy reserves and your entropy increases.

 

Are you asking what process led to molecules organizing themselves into more complex structures??? I'll be the 1st to say I don't know the answer to that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a gas cloud will slowly fall together if it is big enough (?) and/or dense enough (?). As it falls together it will generate heat which will keep it from completely collapsing on itself until that heat is radiated out into space, whereupon it will collapse some more and generate more heat. Then, when it get's to a critical point, having radiated enough heat into space, the gravity will be stronger than the motion of the heated particles and the gases will collapse on themselves and ignite fusion (if the gas was hydrogen). Does that about sum it up?

 

It would seem to me this could be modeled. One need not track every particle, but merely every region. And I know there would be a lot of regions, but computers these days are fast enough to solve this one.

 

BTW, where does background radiation sit in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a gas cloud will slowly fall together if it is big enough (?) and/or dense enough (?). As it falls together it will generate heat which will keep it from completely collapsing on itself until that heat is radiated out into space, whereupon it will collapse some more and generate more heat. Then, when it get's to a critical point, having radiated enough heat into space, the gravity will be stronger than the motion of the heated particles and the gases will collapse on themselves and ignite fusion (if the gas was hydrogen). Does that about sum it up?

 

It would seem to me this could be modeled. One need not track every particle, but merely every region. And I know there would be a lot of regions, but computers these days are fast enough to solve this one.

 

BTW, where does background radiation sit in this situation?

36356[/snapback]

Actually one can readily model it out on paper, if one knows the right tricks.

 

Trick 1: temporarily shut off or ignore gas pressure.

Trick 2: model things as if the entire mass of the cloud were concentrated at a single point.

Trick 3: Omit conservation of rotational momentum & other "details".

 

Without tricks, building realistic models, they'll never come close. "Computer simulations" need to be examined closely for tricks, and also honest-to-goodness mistakes.

 

Trick 2 is one to watch out for in these discussions. Common classical physics formulas for gravity tend to approximate things as if the entire mass of an object resides in a mathematical point. Of course if the sun's mass actually were condensed to a mathematical point, it wouldn't shine - it'd be a black hole! Students of classical physics are aware that approximations are approximations, so abuse like this targets the uninformed exclusively. It is also likely to be repeated by uninformed evopushers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a gas cloud will slowly fall together if it is big enough (?) and/or dense enough (?). As it falls together it will generate heat which will keep it from completely collapsing on itself until that heat is radiated out into space, whereupon it will collapse some more and generate more heat. Then, when it get's to a critical point, having radiated enough heat into space, the gravity will be stronger than the motion of the heated particles and the gases will collapse on themselves and ignite fusion (if the gas was hydrogen). Does that about sum it up?

 

It would seem to me this could be modeled. One need not track every particle, but merely every region. And I know there would be a lot of regions, but computers these days are fast enough to solve this one.

 

BTW, where does background radiation sit in this situation?

36356[/snapback]

Well, a gas cloud will inevitably fall together if its cooling capacity and density aren't overtaken by the expansion of space between them, and if there are no objects that gravitationally overcome the cloud (since all the molecules and atoms in the cloud are otherwise bound to each other), and if it is not in stasis (where it is constantly heated to a level beyond collapse but below gravitational disassociation). For making a star, however, the cloud must just have enough fuseable mass in a density capable of collapse. As it falls together it will generate heat preventing more immediate compression, but the density will eventually generate a runaway gravitational collapse in the less-dense surroundings, greatly heating the core as it also becomes opaque. What you said is a pretty accurate summary and it could be modeled and is modeled in Jean's Mass, which will tell you accurately, though not precisely, what clouds can and cannot collapse. Now, since CTD responded, I'll go ahead and address his post: Gravity is not calculated as proceeding from an infinitely dense point, he's trying to confuse the issue. The direction of attraction is always to the center of mass of an object(s), and other matter will fall toward this, without approximation. Gas pressure is not an explicit variable in the case of Jean's Mass because it accounts for gas temperature and density (mass and volume), which makes it capable of deriving the pressure of the system, anyway, but is not used because it would have to be split back down into the variables that are actually used: what is relevant on the molecular level is whether gravity would cause a molecule to fall further than it had energy to rebound in the same time it took to fall. This is literally what it means for gravity to overcome pressure. As to rotation, it is only relevant to rotating systems but it can be accounted for with an additional variable, and is largely irrelevant to whether stars can form in the first place but is important in having an accurate model (and scientists have created far more detailed models, like this and this). Finally, magnetism actually serves a breaking effect against the rotational forces of a collapse (moving charges generate magnetic fields that reduce speed, as it is the actual kinetic energy being converted into the magnetic field), and I couldn't find anymore "hidden" variables that CTD alludes to. If there is anything else, I daresay it is insignificant to the possibility of star formation and only relevant to an exacting model.

 

Oh, and new stars, which are new according to spectrum analysis, absolute magnitude, and solar mass, always appear in nebulae. And dense gas bubbles (gravitationally contracted) appear in nebulae. And many new stars can be seen with halos of dust around them. Go figure. It's because stellar synthesis happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to gas.....

 

There's an interesting subject relating to this discussion that I'd like to get people's perspectives on.

 

To me, simulations of the formation of the first generations of stars or other processes involving gravitational collapse of gas are pretty convincing, because they are based on known laws of physics. (For me the caveat on them is that they make assumptions about dark matter).

 

Any simulation that builds in the conclusions upfront by special choice of starting conditions or selective use of some physical laws but not all the relevant ones would be useless in terms of increasing understanding. I don't believe that physicists would do that - what would they gain? Even if they did, sooner or later, someone would challenge their results.

 

What is it about these simulations that others find unconvincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, since CTD responded, I'll go ahead and address his post:  Gravity is not calculated as proceeding from an infinitely dense point, he's trying to confuse the issue.

36362[/snapback]

I confuse nothing. Every time this issue comes up, we get the same tricks. You talk as if you have experience, but you need to demonstrate some. You're welcome to badmouth me 'til the cows come home for exposing the childish mistakes; I don't plan on stopping.

 

Oh, and new stars, which are new according to spectrum analysis, absolute magnitude, and solar mass, always appear in nebulae.  And dense gas bubbles (gravitationally contracted) appear in nebulae.  And many new stars can be seen with halos of dust around them.  Go figure.  It's because stellar synthesis happens.

36362[/snapback]

You overpropagandize. A gas bubble in space is a nebula. :) And designating a star "new" doesn't reduce its age by a single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Universe, by definition, IS a closed system. Any outside influence would be chalked up as supernatural in both of our books. The only difference is that we acknowledge supernatural markers and naturalists ignore them and/or equivocate about them.

34524[/snapback]

Can I briefly summarize here, as I am following the debate.

The basic question is:

How could stars have formed from loose gas clouds in the universe?

 

Materialistic Hypothesis:

Stars form by themselves from natural gravitation in the gas cloud.

 

Counterarguments:

a) There is no gravitation worth mentioning present in gas clouds .

:( Compression of the gas cloud would lead to increase in pressure/temperature

c) Increase in temperature/pressure would lead to extension of the volume again.

 

The last two arguments would be derived from the gas laws.

Two form a star from a gas cloud would require the work of directed forces to compress the gas cloud to a concentrated mass that has got it's own gravity to keep it together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterarguments:

a) There is no gravitation worth mentioning present in gas clouds .

b.) Compression of the gas cloud would lead to increase in pressure/temperature

c) Increase in temperature/pressure would lead to extension of the volume again.

 

Counter-counterarguments

 

a.) No, the gravitational force present in gas clouds is worth mentioning. You could just as easily state that the gas pressure isn't worth mentioning, as both are extremely small. There is a marked difference between a small force and a non-existent force, and in this case it plays a vital role maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium in gas clouds. One could for instance make the simple observation that in the absence of any force opposing the diffusion of the high pressure system represented by the gas cloud into the low pressure system represented by the vacuum of space, the gas clouds would have since dissipated, moreover, more condensed particular agglomerations such as Bok globules (I will discuss these later) would not be observed.

 

b/c.) Yes, but this process eventually reaches an equilibrium point, where the gas pressure balances the internal gravitational force. This point is described in gas mechanics by the virial theorem ( 2<T>=n(Vtot), where n is some power of the inter-particle distance). A more pertinent equation which describes the system is given by the differential equation;

dp/dr=-Gp®M®/(r^2)

where G is the gravitational constant and p® and M® represent functions of pressure and mass in terms of radius respectively. For equilibrium, this must be zero. If however the mass is increased, as a consequence of a collision with another cloud, galactic collisions, local aberrations etc. the cloud reaches its Jeans mass, a quantity specific to the radius, mass, temp of a given cloud. It begins a process of runaway collapse - smaller agglomerations of mass and turbulence within the cloud fragment it, creating individual stars (and as such multiple stars can be born from the one cloud).

 

As an aside, Bok globules are significantly smaller than interstellar gas clouds, (though operate on the same mechanism i have outlined above) and consist primarily of gas and dust. The have a radius of about 1 light year, and a mass ranging from 2-50 solar masses. Infrared telescopes have observed stellar formation within such clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will fall together until it reaches equilibrium in its pressure against its gravity.

Why is it not already at equilibrium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms