Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Infall towards protostars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Infall towards protostars

    Or "How natural processes make stars from stuff (which is not the same as stars coming from nothing)"




    Gidday folk,


    It’s been an ongoing problem scientists have been wanting to solve. Just as natural processes make clouds, snow, and rain, so how do similar kinds of processes make stars?

    In a broad scope, a theory has been around for over a hundred years, namely that stars are born via a process of gravitational collapse. And for a long time there has been some evidence to support the idea.

    Over the past decades, thanks to ever sophisticated instrumentation and data processing abilities, scientists have been able to address questions regarding the nitty-gritty of the process. However, one observation has always been somewhat elusive, namely the infall of material from the surrounding gas and dust cloud, toward the protostar itself.

    For a while now, and somewhat to everyone's surprise, paradoxical outflows from collapsing stars have been observed. Inflows have been another matter altogether. There has been evidence of these processes but it has never been conclusive.

    Now, thanks to even better technology, particularly satellite instrumentation, the situation is beginning to change.

    The following paper reports on some key observations regarding this:-

    Waterfalls around protostars: Infall motions towards Class 0/I envelopes as probed by water

    The paper is technical and hence a slog, but enough of it is understandable by a layperson such as myself to get something from it. For those of you who have a better understanding of physics, particularly of the physics as it relates to this kind of study, well hopefully you will get even more from it.

    Some points are:-

    1) To go from the interstellar medium to a gas cloud, the density must increase from around 0.001 ions (atoms) per cc to around 10,000 ions per cc. To go from the gas cloud to a very dense clumps within a cloud, the density must increase form around 10,000 ions per cc to 1,000,000 ions per cc. But to get from the dense clump to the star, the density has to go from 1,000,000 ions per cc to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ions per cc. Ouch!!!


    2) The formation of the protostar by gravitational collapse is what is thought to bring about this massive increase in density.


    3)A gas cloud is rotating and as matter moves in towards the central dense globule (the future star), it picks up rotational velocity and eventually enough of this gas forms a flattened disk which orbits the star. It is thought that gas then falls from this disk into the future star. This disk may be stable or it may be unstable.


    4) So, in general, there are three major components - a large external enveloping cloud from which matter falls onto a flat accretion disk which orbits a central dense globule which later becomes the star. Matter falls from this accretion disk onto the globule and when the globules density is high enough, it becomes hot enough to be a star.


    5) Another component, already mentioned, is an outflow - a strong beam of material escaping as a jet from each pole of the cocooned protostar.


    6) Various molecules are used to follow the motions of gas within the cocoon that encloses the protostar. With respect to infall, the molecules are CS, HCO+, N2H+ etc.


    7) Infall gives a specific kind of signature called an “asymmetric line profile” which has a bit more blue than red shifted light in the profile. The signature can be modified by foreground gas clouds and by outflow from the protostar itself.


    8) However, infall has, unlike outflow, been hard to verify. (I suspect because infall occurs inside the cocoon, while outflow actually breaks out of and moves well beyond the protostar cocoon).


    9) The authors of this study decided that H2O (water) would make a better tracer.


    10) Because of the particular water spectral line being examined, they had to use satellite observations, owing to the fact that the earth’s atmosphere absorbed that particular wavelength, making earth bound observations impractical.


    11) The observations covered a region from 1,000 AU out to 11,000 AU from the central protostar. (1AU = 93,000,000 miles).


    12) Data from a model of protostar formation was matched against observations. The best fit model was for infall over the whole of the gas shell surrounding the protostar and its accretion disk.


    13) They discuss the case of IRAS4A using it as their representative model.


    14) Infall exceeded outflow by one to three orders of magnitude.


    15) Infall seemed to be slowing at the accretion disk, suggesting that the accretion disk was increasing in mass and would therefore become unstable.


    Anyway, the paper might make something of an interesting read for those with appropriate knowledge. Otherwise it can be an informative paper just to scan over, while paying attention to the introductory sections and the conclusion.


    Warning

    For those who are as afraid of stars being able to form naturally as they are afraid of extra solar planets, best not to open this at all.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-17-2014, 03:05 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Or "How natural processes make stars from stuff (which is not the same as stars coming from nothing)"
    Interesting. Yes, quite a slog, but observations on the process (especially the bit about inflow exceeding outflow by a magnitude of three) makes a considerable amount of sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      Warning

      For those who are as afraid of stars being able to form naturally as they are afraid of extra solar planets, best not to open this at all.
      Wonder who that may be?

      I personally have never been "afraid" of the possibility that stars may form naturally or that extrasolar planets may exist. Almost invariably here on TWeb, my position on those matters was misrepresented time and time again. For the record my position is this: I do NOT believe that the first stars could have formed naturally - no way at all. I do NOT believe that subsequent stars form naturally but I do not rule out the possibility. If (IF!) it is possible, I have not yet encountered any mechanism that stands up to scrutiny - it's all handwaving and just-so stories (coincidentally, just like Evolution). Of course, to Materialists and their ideological allies, natural star formation is an ideological prerequisite. Regarding extrasolar planets, pretty much the same thing. 'Nuff said.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Wonder who that may be?

        I personally have never been "afraid" of the possibility that stars may form naturally or that extrasolar planets may exist. Almost invariably here on TWeb, my position on those matters was misrepresented time and time again. For the record my position is this: I do NOT believe that the first stars could have formed naturally - no way at all. I do NOT believe that subsequent stars form naturally but I do not rule out the possibility. If (IF!) it is possible, I have not yet encountered any mechanism that stands up to scrutiny - it's all handwaving and just-so stories (coincidentally, just like Evolution). Of course, to Materialists and their ideological allies, natural star formation is an ideological prerequisite. Regarding extrasolar planets, pretty much the same thing. 'Nuff said.

        Jorge
        Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'

        Observing very hot balls of gas in the center of large gas clouds on the verge of fusion ignition is not a 'just so story'

        Observing stars which match the theoretical characteristics of what would be a recently formed star surrounded by dense circumstellar dust disks is not a 'just so story'

        Observing stars surrounded by circumstellar rings of similar dust where the inner sections has been cleaned and where planets can be observed is not a 'just so story'.

        Filling in the gaps between these observations with the rather obvious consequences of continued progression of the same processes we observe in action is not a 'just so story'.

        We observe across the galaxy and across the universe all possible phases of what theory would tell us is the process of natural star formation. We simply don't have enough observation time to have observed the process on a single object from start to finish. There is little difference between this and composing the life cycle of a redwood tree by observing the various phases of its growth in a forest. We don't have enough direct observing time to observe a single instance from seedling to full height there either. But the physics and chemistry that govern the processes is sufficiently understood to fill in the gaps in observation.


        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-20-2014, 08:52 AM.
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'
          Ah ... one of the most active individuals guilty of continuously misrepresenting my position makes a cameo appearance. Tell me, Jim, do you know the difference between actually "observing" something and "extrapolating an observation"?

          Let me tell you why no one has ever OBSERVED a star collapsing: because it takes to darn long, that's why! Using the very models that you place your faith in, the process would take many, many thousands of years - far longer than what we humans have ever observed.

          Observing very hot balls of gas in the center of large gas clouds on the verge of fusion ignition is not a 'just so story'
          Do you even listen to yourself? "On the verge of fusion" ... and you know that, HOW??? Once again, you are merely e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-i-n-g what you observe via a model and worldview that you have assumed.


          Observing stars which match the theoretical characteristics of what would be a recently formed star surrounded by dense circumstellar dust disks is not a 'just so story'
          DITTO

          Observing stars surrounded by circumstellar rings of similar dust where the inner sections has been cleaned and where planets can be observed is not a 'just so story'.
          You are mixing the issues involving planets with that of stars.
          These aren't the same issues nor do I regard them as such.

          Filling in the gaps between these observations with the rather obvious consequences of continued progression of the same processes we observe in action is not a 'just so story'.
          "Filling in the gaps ..." -- boy, is that EVER a loaded phrase!!!

          We observe across the galaxy and across the universe all possible phases of what theory would tell us is the process of natural star formation. We simply don't have enough observation time to have observed the process on a single object from start to finish. There is little difference between this and composing the life cycle of a redwood tree by observing the various phases of its growth in a forest. We don't have enough direct observing time to observe a single instance from seedling to full height there either. But the physics and chemistry that govern the processes is sufficiently understood to fill in the gaps in observation.

          Jim
          The loaded phrase "fill in the gaps" is used here again plus you're performing unrestrained extrapolation based on a model, a worldview and lots of assumptions. To top it off, you say that "... the physics and chemistry that govern the processes is sufficiently understood" I nearly fell off my chair after that one. Let me school you - other than conjecture, no one has a C-L-U-E as to how stars may form naturally. In addition, much of the solid physics that we DO know argues against it ever happening.

          "But it must happen since the stars are there and they must have formed naturally."

          You just can't stop yourself from being an ally to Materialists, can you, Jim?

          Jorge
          Last edited by Jorge; 02-20-2014, 10:08 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Ah ... one of the most active individuals guilty of continuously misrepresenting my position makes a cameo appearance. Tell me, Jim, do you know the difference between actually "observing" something and "extrapolating an observation"?
            Prove I have ever 'misrepresented' your position. Case in point. You say below you don't think stars can form naturally. I think that is stupid. We can observed it happening. We can't observe a redwood grow from seeding to 300ft tall giant either, but no one in his right mind doubts they did, or that they do.

            Let me tell you why no one has ever OBSERVED a star collapsing: because it takes to darn long, that's why! Using the very models that you place your faith in, the process would take many, many thousands of years - far longer than what we humans have ever observed.
            To bad you can't read. I said that in my post. The point is, we CAN observe in the local cosmos all the extant phases of star formation, from collapsing cloud to mature star. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest.


            Do you even listen to yourself? "On the verge of fusion" ... and you know that, HOW??? Once again, you are merely e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-i-n-g what you observe via a model and worldview that you have assumed.
            By observing the spectra and other characteristics of the protostar. Fusion ignition occurs at certain temperatures and pressures. If we observe a hot ball of gas where those temperatures and pressures don't yet exist in its core, then we can know it's not there yet - up to a point of course. The problem for you is that you set absurd standards of proof and then hide behind them because your world view collapses if the universe is really billions of years old.


            DITTO



            You are mixing the issues involving planets with that of stars.
            These aren't the same issues nor do I regard them as such.
            Planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars form from. It's all a singular process Jorge. We observe that process at all possible stages across the sky. In fact, we can see most stages in a single place - the Orion Nebula, 1500 light years hence.


            "Filling in the gaps ..." -- boy, is that EVER a loaded phrase!!!



            The loaded phrase "fill in the gaps" is used here again plus you're performing unrestrained extrapolation based on a model, a worldview and lots of assumptions. To top it off, you say that "... the physics and chemistry that govern the processes is sufficiently understood" I nearly fell off my chair after that one. Let me school you - other than conjecture, no one has a C-L-U-E as to how stars may form naturally. In addition, much of the solid physics that we DO know argues against it ever happening.

            "But it must happen since the stars are there and they must have formed naturally."

            You just can't stop yourself from being an ally to Materialists, can you, Jim?

            Jorge
            Silly Jorge. I guess you don't believe the big tall redwoods grew up on their own either. God had to make the really tall ones, but the little ones we see growing today, they came from the seeds because we can observe that process from its beginning to its present state. But we would be foolish to assume that just because we can extrapolate that if they continue growing one of these little guys can grow into one of the big fellas they actually did. Right?




            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-20-2014, 11:42 AM.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post

              ... it's all handwaving and just-so stories ...
              Let me get this straight:-

              1) Evidence for outflow is "fact, Fact, FACT"?

              2) Evidence for inflow is "just so story"?

              ?


              Originally posted by Jorge
              Of course, to Materialists and their ideological allies, natural star formation is an ideological prerequisite.
              Well we do believe that nature exists and that natural processes can cause things to happen. Such as, rain forming and falling from clouds. So, its natural to think that maybe natural processes can cause gravitational collapse, in part because we also believe that gravity is real.

              The Bible does not say that natural processes cannot cause stars to form. On the other hand, the Bible does not say that natural processes cause rain to fall. But is does state that rain falls because God tells it to.

              So just how much do you actually believe the Bible Jorge?
              Last edited by rwatts; 02-20-2014, 03:30 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  When did extrapolation become a bad thing?
                  When it provides evidentiary support for a view that Mr. Fernandez rejects ab initio.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.
                    Well yes.

                    About the only facts we do have in science are the data we observe. We observe data (via lab experiments or observations in the field) to test our ideas.

                    Those data become evidence in support of the ideas we accept. They become evidence in support of our rejecting other ideas.

                    If the ideas (the theories) were observable, then we wouldn't need to test them. We could always go out and see them, directly.


                    (I know it's a bit more complex that this. But this is the gist of it, IMHO).
                    Last edited by rwatts; 02-20-2014, 04:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'

                      Observing very hot balls of gas in the center of large gas clouds on the verge of fusion ignition is not a 'just so story'

                      Observing stars which match the theoretical characteristics of what would be a recently formed star surrounded by dense circumstellar dust disks is not a 'just so story'

                      Observing stars surrounded by circumstellar rings of similar dust where the inner sections has been cleaned and where planets can be observed is not a 'just so story'.
                      Wasn't there an example of a star being found where previously there had just been a hot cloud on the old Tweb? In the "Birth of a new star" thread. If so, you can add:

                      Observing a star where there was no star before is not a 'just so story'.

                      Roy
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Prove I have ever 'misrepresented' your position. Case in point. You say below you don't think stars can form naturally. I think that is stupid. We can observed it happening. We can't observe a redwood grow from seeding to 300ft tall giant either, but no one in his right mind doubts they did, or that they do.
                        Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.

                        As for your continued claim that "We can observe it happening", apparently your reading comprehension disability worsened over the last year. I distinctly addressed the "we can observe it" point in my last post. Still the same ol' O-Mudd ... that's too bad!


                        To bad you can't read. I said that in my post. The point is, we CAN observe in the local cosmos all the extant phases of star formation, from collapsing cloud to mature star. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest.
                        Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.



                        By observing the spectra and other characteristics of the protostar. Fusion ignition occurs at certain temperatures and pressures. If we observe a hot ball of gas where those temperatures and pressures don't yet exist in its core, then we can know it's not there yet - up to a point of course. The problem for you is that you set absurd standards of proof and then hide behind them because your world view collapses if the universe is really billions of years old.
                        Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted. I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.



                        Planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars form from. It's all a singular process Jorge. We observe that process at all possible stages across the sky. In fact, we can see most stages in a single place - the Orion Nebula, 1500 light years hence.
                        All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see. For instance, have you stopped to consider the number of problems with the model that you believe in (the "Gas Model")? Let's just take one: if, as you say, "planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars came from", then you have to explain why their individual composition is so radically different (e.g., compare Earth vs. Sun vs. Moon vs. Mars vs. Saturn vs. Jupiter vs. Venus and so on). Yes, there are plenty of conjectures about why this is so (and I've already stated that) but no one really knows. The conjectures are just-so stories with a sprinkling of science (to make them believable and publishable) ... there is no consensus on ANY conjecture.

                        Try to get a hold of yourself ... use sound logic and science, not pseudo-logic/science as you are now.




                        Silly Jorge. I guess you don't believe the big tall redwoods grew up on their own either. God had to make the really tall ones, but the little ones we see growing today, they came from the seeds because we can observe that process from its beginning to its present state. But we would be foolish to assume that just because we can extrapolate that if they continue growing one of these little guys can grow into one of the big fellas they actually did. Right?
                        Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see.

                          Jorge
                          I know you've been asked this a dozen times before but how do you do science without relying on materialism?

                          Maybe once you'll finally muster up the courage to answer.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

                            Jorge
                            But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

                            You could always address Jim's point, then run off.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                              But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

                              You could always address Jim's point, then run off.
                              SInging:

                              See the run away
                              From the questions that you pose
                              Ask for evidence
                              And then see how fast he goes...


                              Roy
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              212 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X