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

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Recommended Posts

Putting the cart before the horse again Jason? Yes the star is there and it is a nuclear furnace made up of liquid hydrogen. We aren't arguing whether stars exist or whether their gravitational fields exist. We are arguing over whether we have a sufficient scientific explanation for how stars form in the first place?

34623[/snapback]

 

Yes but why isn't the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium due to ideal gas pressure alone? Why is the thermal pressure caused by gas pressure and radiation pressure? Obviously the Sun exists in a state where gravitational pressure has collapsed the Sun far enough that thermal pressure is holding off gravitational pressure. Are you saying that God created all stars just as they are with thermal pressure and gravitational pressure in equilibrium? Are you saying the Sun is maintained by magic?

 

If your disagreement with star formation had to do with convection currents creating outward pressure - why didn't you say so in the beginning? Why didn't you tell us that what really upsets you about star formation is based on your recollection of advance fluid dynamics? In brief - you are forgetting that cooling happens via convection, conduction, and radiation. These processes do not work independently but with each other. Also, once the convection cells reach the boundary layer they release heat and flow back to the core because of gravity where they heat up once more. Convection is not a problem for Star formation and there is info available in the literature on this very subject.

 

Edit: Once last thing - once the gas blob is dense enough convection can only occur within a certain region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but why isn't the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium due to gas pressure?  Are you saying the Sun is maintained by magic?

34624[/snapback]

As a created item, the Sun is in a gravitational well based on its own mass working perfectly well within known physical/chemical/nuclear laws.

 

You see you're trying to explain away the origin of the sun with naturalistic assumptions but in turn your are also ignoring known physical laws to pretend you can explain where the sun came from by understanding how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a created item the Sun is in a gravitational well based on its own mass working perfectly well withing known physical laws.

 

You see you're trying to explain away the origin of the sun with naturalistic assumptions but in turn your are also ignoring known physical laws to pretend you can explain where the sun came from by understanding how it works.

34625[/snapback]

 

I was elaborating while you were responding - so my post above is different from this quote - just to let you know.

 

Anyway, but those known physical laws involve a system in which the inward gravitational pressure is balanced by outward thermal pressure. It is a state that is already in an extreme tug of war between thermal pressure and gravitational pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was elaborating while you were responding - so my post above is different from this quote - just to let you know.

 

Anyway, but those known physical laws involve a system in which the inward gravitational pressure is balanced by outward thermal pressure.  It is a state that is already in an extreme tug of war between thermal pressure and gravitational pressure.

34626[/snapback]

I agree but the weak force... gravity... is in this case a substantial force because of it's already present super massive state.

 

It's kind of like this. Forces must receive different levels of consideration in say the design of a bridge depending on many factors.

 

How come wind is not a substantial factor in the design of this bridge?...

 

Posted Image

 

...but it was a major factor in this bridge? (well, it should have been :lol: )...

 

j-zczJXSxnw

 

You're basically trying to convince us that the stone bridge is doomed to collapsing with a gust of wind by convincing us that the evidence of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will apply in the same way eventually to the small stone bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but the weak force... gravity... is in this case a substantial force because of it's already present super massive state.

 

It's kind of like this. Forces must receive different levels of consideration in say the design of a bridge depending on many factors.

 

How come wind is not a substantial factor in the design of this bridge?...

 

Posted Image

 

...but it was a major factor in this bridge? (well, it should have been :lol: )...

 

j-zczJXSxnw

 

You're basically trying to convince us that the stone bridge is doomed to collapsing with a gust of wind by convincing us that the evidence of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will apply in the same way eventually to the small stone bridge.

34627[/snapback]

But the blob of gas is also super massive and it is cooling which means its contracting so our super mass is being squeezed into a tighter ball by gravity...

 

Gravity is weak unless mass is large. In the cases we are talking about the mass is very large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the blob of gas is also super massive and it is cooling which means its contracting so our super mass is being squeezed into a tighter ball by gravity...

 

Gravity is weak unless mass is large.  In the cases we are talking about the mass is very large.

34628[/snapback]

Again, you are assuming a dense object (which a gas cloud is not) before it exists based on forces that you can't demonstrate.

 

It's just like assuming the effects of wind on the small stone bridge based on the observation of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

 

A.Sphere can you answer this post when you get a chance?

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=34615

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is interesting about this conversation is how linear and simplistic the defense of how gas clouds could collapse is presented. Watch this video of the unusual dynamics of water in zero gravity:

 

ZyTwLAW-Z8c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b00tleg,

 

How do you identify these Giant molecular clouds as other than nova remnants?

 

Edit: Never mind then. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are assuming a dense object (which a gas cloud is not) before it exists based on forces that you can't demonstrate.

 

It's just like assuming the effects of wind on the small stone bridge based on the observation of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

 

A.Sphere can you answer this post when you get a chance?

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=34615

34629[/snapback]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas#Density

Because the molecules are free to move about in a gas, the mass of the gas is normally characterized by its density. Density is the mass per volume of a substance or simply, the inverse of specific volume. For gases, the density can vary over a wide range because the molecules are free to move. Macroscopically, density is a state variable of a gas and the change in density during any process is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Given that there are many particles in completely random motion, for a static gas, the density is the same throughout the entire container. Density is therefore a scalar quantity; it is a simple physical quantity that has a magnitude but no direction associated with it. It can be shown by kinetic theory that the density is proportional to the size of the container in which a fixed mass of gas is confined.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clo...molecular_cloud

Vast assemblages of molecular gas with masses of 104–106 times the mass of the sun are called Giant molecular clouds (GMC). The clouds can reach tens of parsecs in diameter and have an average density of 10²–10³ particles per cubic centimetre (the average density in the solar vicinity is one particle per cubic centimetre). Substructure within these clouds is a complex pattern of filaments, sheets, bubbles, and irregular clumps.[4]

 

The densest parts of the filaments and clumps are called "molecular cores", whilst the densest molecular cores are, unsurprisingly, called "dense molecular cores" and have densities in excess of 104–106 particles per cubic centimeter. Observationally molecular cores are traced with carbon monoxide and dense cores are traced with ammonia. The concentration of dust within molecular cores is normally sufficient to block light from background stars such that they appear in silhouette as dark nebulae.[6]

 

GMCs are so large that "local" ones can cover a significant fraction of a constellation such that they are often referred to by the name of that constellation, e.g. the Orion Molecular Cloud (OMC) or the Taurus Molecular Cloud (TMC). These local GMCs are arrayed in a ring around the sun called the Gould Belt.[7] The most massive collection of molecular clouds in the galaxy, the Sagittarius B2 complex, forms a ring around the galactic centre at a radius of 120 parsec. The Sagittarius region is chemically rich and is often used as an exemplar by astronomers searching for new molecules in interstellar space.[8]

 

Do you still purport that gas can't form dense objects, ir is this information biased naturalistic assumptions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of things here. First, I don't believe that there is no such thing as gravity in a gas only environment.

34614[/snapback]

Well, okay, but given what you've said in other posts I'm not sure what you really mean by this. For example, when in Message 22 Ibex Pop said:

 

Apparently, it is assumed that Boyle's Law overcomes gravity under all circumstances.

You responded in Message 26 like this:

 

This is what the scientific evidence demonstrates, to believe otherwise is speculation.

So when you now say that you accept that there is gravity in a gas only environment, why do you then say this in Message 56:

 

Again, you are assuming a dense object (which a gas cloud is not) before it exists based on forces that you can't demonstrate.

These appear contradictory. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position, so just to be clear, it appears contradictory to me to first say that you understand that gas clouds have gravity, and then to later say that the gas cloud can only react to gravity from a "dense object," and in fact to refer to the gravity that must be present (since every single molecule of gas in the cloud has gravity) as "forces that you can't demonstrate."

 

I'm sure there must be an explanation and that these are only apparent contradictions and not real ones.

 

Something you were discussing with A. Sphere actually makes more sense, and is actually one of the objections raised by AiG. As a gas cloud collapses it will heat up and provide greater resistance to further compression. But the temperature of molecular gas clouds (whose hydrogen is primarily H2, I've learned) is apparently very low compared to their density. There's an article at Wikipedia about the Interstellar Medium, and it gives the temperature of molecular clouds as 10-20 Kelvin (that's 253-263 degrees Celsius below zero), while the density is 10^2-10^6 atoms per cubic centimeter. While less than a million atoms per cubic centimeter might sound very tenuous (and it is compared to the Earth's atmosphere), it is extremely dense compared to "empty" regions with less than a hundred atoms per cubic centimeter.

 

The higher ranges of this density are sufficient for the molecular cloud to begin collapsing under the force of it's own gravity, and this collapse can apparently get a boost from nearby supernova or from tidal forces during galactic collisions, and there are other causes, too. The issue you're raising is whether the density of the molecular cloud has sufficient gravity to overcome the increased pressure that accompanies increasing temperature caused by increasing density (which isn't Boyle's law, of course, since Boyle's law requires a constant temperature).

 

I'm not familiar with the math necessary to answer this question definitively for you, maybe someone else here can provide it, but the models for star formation are based upon hard data. Astronomers have been observing star nurseries for over a century. The most well known are the Pleides and the Orion Nebula. While the timescale for the formation of a single star is too long for us to observe, because there are so many observable star nurseries out there with so many stars that it is a simple matter to gather detailed observations of star formation at any particular stage. This would be analogous to a medical student being able to study how people grow and change from infant to adult to old age not by studying a single person over 70 years, but by studying people from all age groups at the same time.

 

Your common refrain is that it is all just speculation, yet during the course of this discussion you have encountered many things you did not previously know. I've also learned much that I did not know. But my point is that you don't really possess enough knowledge about the subject to have any idea of the degree of scientific support.

 

--Percy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are assuming a dense object (which a gas cloud is not) before it exists based on forces that you can't demonstrate.

 

It's just like assuming the effects of wind on the small stone bridge based on the observation of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

34629[/snapback]

 

If you study the ISM you will find that the dense regions contain what are called molecular clouds. Molecular clouds are regions of high density and low temperatures. Because the density is so high the amount of mass in the volume occupied is massive relative to the gas pressure that matches the temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Percy, but anyone who takes a close look at what I've been saying will see that I'm not contradicting myself. My stance is this. Gravity is the week force compared to Boyle's law. When I say Boyle's Gas law overcomes gravity, I'm not saying that Boyle's law makes gravity disappear. Gravity is a law that interacts with other forces, right?

 

Maybe if they changed the theory of the big bang to say that it simply spit out planet size objects with the hydrogen and helium it produced, to seed the stars, it could be a little more believable. I mean the big bang itself violates every law of physics so why not? :lol:

 

Percy, could you put this post on you priority list? I would like to have it answered:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=34583

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your common refrain is that it is all just speculation, yet during the course of this discussion you have encountered many things you did not previously know.  I've also learned much that I did not know.  But my point is that you don't really possess enough knowledge about the subject to have any idea of the degree of scientific support.

34635[/snapback]

I appreciate the concern Percy but we have an astronomer on board here and we can use him to provide the best accepted answers and then we can use our own intellects to determine what is generating these responses. A.Sphere is a great person to have here because he will tow the astronomical status quo for us patiently as he has.

 

If we're going to be good scientists ourselves, we should poke as many holes in what he says as possible regardless of our worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you study the ISM you will find that the dense regions contain what are called molecular clouds.  Molecular clouds are regions of high density and low temperatures.  Because the density is so high the amount of mass in the volume occupied is massive relative to the gas pressure that matches the temperature.

34636[/snapback]

What best explains these molecular clouds?

 

a. gravity operating on free gas?

 

b. the leftover reaction to matter being spewed out of a star that went nova?

 

Every nebulae that I've ever seen looks like it is the result of a violent occurrence other then gas laws and gravity. Judging from your previous answers you'll agree that molecular clouds are themselves nova remnants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the concern Percy but we have an astronomer on board here and we can use him to provide the best accepted answers and then we can use our own intellects to determine what is generating these responses. A.Sphere is a great person to have here because he will tow the astronomical status quo for us patiently as he has.

 

If we're going to be good scientists ourselves, we should poke as many holes in what he says as possible regardless of our worldview.

34638[/snapback]

I wouldn't say I am a conventional astronomer. I work with gravitational waves and just so happen to work with an observatory that is looking for them. I much more a budding physicist than an astrophysicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Percy, but anyone who takes a close look at what I've been saying will see that I'm not contradicting myself. My stance is this. Gravity is the week force compared to Boyle's law. When I say Boyle's Gas law overcomes gravity, I'm not saying that Boyle's law makes gravity disappear. Gravity is a law that interacts with other forces, right?

 

Maybe if they changed the theory of the big bang to say that it simply spit out planet size objects with the hydrogen and helium it produced, to seed the stars, it could be a little more believable. I mean the big bang itself violates every law of physics so why not? :lol:

34637[/snapback]

Correct me here if I'm wrong. But is your objection about gas clouds coalescing about the density of the cloud? You'd be happy about gas clouds collapsing to form stars if they collapsed around something with the gravity of your average planet?

 

The gas clouds that we are talking about are massive and cold. The vast majority of the atoms that make up these gas clouds simply don't have the kinetic energy to escape the combined gravitational pull of the entire cloud.

 

These clouds have much more combined gravity than your average planet. You're right about gravity being a weak force, but these are clouds that can be measured in solar masses. Lots of mass means lots of gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What best explains these molecular clouds?

 

a. gravity operating on free gas?

 

b. the leftover reaction to matter being spewed out of a star that went nova?

 

Every nebulae that I've ever seen looks like it is the result of a violent occurrence other then gas laws and gravity. Judging from your previous answers you'll agree that molecular clouds are themselves nova remnants.

34639[/snapback]

Does this look like the result of a star that went nova to you?

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this look like the result of a star that went nova to you?

34643[/snapback]

What do we know about this unusual feature? What is it? Is this an unenhanced image? How for away is it? What else is around it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

That looks like a cluster of stars with a hole in the middle. What is inferred from this observation and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity is the week force compared to Boyle's law. When I say Boyle's Gas law overcomes gravity, I'm not saying that Boyle's law makes gravity disappear. Gravity is a law that interacts with other forces, right?

Why do you keep referring to Boyle's law? The temperature in the system we are talking about is not constant. Boyle's law requires a constant temperature in a closed system. If you are going to use the wrong gas law please use the Ideal Gas law because it is much more appropriate. I agree with you that thermal pressure (from gas pressure and radiation pressure) eventually halts gravitational collapse - its called a star.

 

What you are saying is that:

 

P_grav > P_gas

 

is impossible? The only condition that must be met is that:

 

M > sqroot[ n*T*r]

 

If the number of molecules in our volume times the temperature of the substance in our volume divided by the radius of our volume is less than the Mass of the substance in the volume gravitational pressure will be stronger than gas pressure. Once this equation reads:

 

M = sqroot[nTr]

 

we have equilibrium and a protostar. In molecular clouds T is extremely low, n is high but only relative to empty space, and r is roughly the radius of the molecular cloud. And it isn't the whole molecular cloud that collapses - just small regions within the cloud. Which part of this analysis is it that you take issue with? Please be specific.

 

Edit: My equality is not really quite right because I ignored radiation thermal pressure. Also, I dropped the constants for simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I found a link and I appreciate how it describes that picture of the Dark Molecular cloud. An honest answer is we don't know how it formed.

 

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirr...e/ap030202.html

 

and I don't either. It's a mysterious place out there isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I found a link and I appreciate how it describes that picture of the Dark Molecular cloud. An honest answer is we don't know how it formed.

 

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirr...e/ap030202.html

 

and I don't either. It's a mysterious place out there isn't it?

34647[/snapback]

 

We aren't talking about how molecular clouds form - we are talking about how stars inside molecular clouds form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that thermal pressure (from gas pressure and radiation pressure) eventually halts gravitational collapse - its called a star.

34646[/snapback]

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the evidence shows, through the laws of gasses (how's that :lol: ) that star formation would not be possible based on currently observable phenomena. Now you can disagree with me because your worldview demands that the answer is naturalistic and since there are stars it must have happened but that's not science, it's a belief.

 

You can tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about mine. :D

 

Edit: It is just like the philosophy of evolution. It's not that the science demands that it's true, it's the fact that the philosophy limits the option to evolution or something like it.

 

I believe in special creation and nothing has been discovered to compel otherwise.

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

Our Terms