"The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." - Eddington, 1948 "...Eddington's idea a about the collapse of a gaseous mass to form a star constitutes precisely such a violation of the Second Law." - Pierre-Marie Robitaille, 2018 A great time to be alive! Thanks for this, Dr. Robitaille!
By your explanation it is hard to imagine how such a fundamental concept can ignored in astrophysics. I would welcome a description of how this is possible.
@@angelhelp-- Watching the video again probably won't help. Without a sufficiently strong background on this topic (as is the case with essentially all of those who come here to cheer, but never inquire about any of the specifics) it would be essentially impossible to know where this guy goes wrong. That said where does this guy go wrong? Right around the 3:55 mark he noted "a gaseous mass does not constitute a gravitationally bound system." From this, it's apparent that Robitaille doesn't know what the term "gravitationally bound" means. There's no reason to believe that a system of N gas molecules cannot be gravitationally bound in which case the virial theorem does indeed apply. The potential conflict between gravitational collapse and the 2nd law of thermodynamics was, once upon a time, distressing. If you have the mathematical background, Google something like "gravitational collapse and 2nd law of thermodynamics" There's a website written by Professor John Baez of the University of California Riverside. He addresses this topic head on.
Bravo!! 👏 I dont't think I'm exaggerating when I say that your combined lectures here are the single most important set of words spoken in centuries - your name will be in future history books 📚 please stay with us Dr. Robetaille!
"The law the Entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in contradiction to Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
@Protophanes Eddington laughed at Kristian Birkeland when he postulated that it was electric current from the sun that powered the auroras. Eddington didn't even want to bother thinking about the electromagnetic nature of the universe. Fields, resonances, right hand rule . . . too hard for him. He just told himself that electric current can't flow in a vacuum and wrote it off. What a fool.
I think that its easy for detractors to lose sight of and misinterpret Pierre's vids. The common misinterpretation is : " Pierre is saying standard kinetic gas laws don't apply to stars, but we already know that, thats why astronomers have all manner of stellar laws and formula derived specially for gas where gravity force is significant ". That its invalid to derive something that assumes gravity is significant from something that assumes gravity is not significant is lost on many people. You should consider doing a vid addressing this specific flaw of logic. " i'm building my hurricane proof village from house designs that assume there's no hurricanes " " i'm climbing a ladder assuming the ladder stays in place. but while I'm still on the ladder, I'll remove it, and try to place it higher so i can continue climbing " " I've written my shopping list assuming i'm not limited by cash, but actually i have a budget " " I've derived some gravity gas equations based on the equations that assume gravity isn't significant " " i've derived some non surface gas equations based on equations that assume there's some surfaces "
The reason why these physicists need a closed and gravitationally bound system is that they refuse to look at, understand, (and refuse to use) the multiple tensor boson force carriers ... having mass as the needed gravity source. If you use tensor bosons force carriers in their open enclosure gasses and thermodynamic laws - they would solve their issues and not need a box system. These tensor boson force carriers are what create the multiple space-time quark fabrics ... and matter fabrics ... in which their existence of individual gas molecules would attain their As such the Hubble tension/cosmic tension occurs from : graviton tensor boson force carrier electrino tensor boson force carrier electron tensor boson force carrier muon electron tensor boson force carrier (Higgs-2 boson) tau electron tensor boson force carrier (Higgs-1 boson) and the 3 gluon tensor boson force carriers in the quark space-time fabrics Put THAT in your derivatives !!!
Derivatives in physics is comparable to statistics. As someone once said, "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." When you have formulas (with faulty, missing, or pruned datasets) you have wrong hypothesis, postulates, corollaries, ... making assumptions of axioms, laws, constants, and theories. Modern science and physics goes right to stating a theory and reverse engineering the dataset (confirmation bias) to approve the unproven hypothesis that should be the original starting point of thought. Doing all kinds of flippy-flopping of derivative constants that have inherent flaws or illogical relations with other parts of the formula (intensives vs extensives, etc.) you just have word salad derivatives. Just as much as the Dirac Equation of the mass and radius of the cosmos - with unknown dataset of the mass and radius - yet the derivative is accepted as blatant fact, when it is basically writing down a thought concept with symbols.
I do absolutely agree with your point Pierre Marie, there's no way a gaseous mass can self-collapse. However, regardless of this faux-pas on the part of Eddington et al, *if* a chunk of rock (asteroid, planet etc) should stray into the cloud, then a surface is introduced upon which pressure and agglomeration of material can proceed. Eventually, the pressure upon the triggering body becomes so vast that fusion is triggered. I'd like also to put to you my own theory that planets are dead stars- which strengthens your own theory regarding condensed matter being the same material that planets are constructed of and, explaining the perfectly spherical shape of planets (only an entirely molten- or liquid- body can become spherical in space).
It is high time to investigate the impact of the LMH Theory on modern cosmology. I am not even good at amateur astronomy so complex astrophysics is absolutely out of my reach. I have technical degree in chemistry and biology. Nevertheless, I will try to expand the theory on bigger scale in this for sure too long post. Modern cosmology is dawning in strange theories while everything is available to solve the mystery. I looked once again into nebulae pictures and descriptions. Data provided by the most prominent agencies. It is already all there. 1. apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070202.html - please, read the description and keep in mind that in this particular case the nebula is probably made of hydrogen ~99%. So, What is this black void in the center permeable only by infrared? What are black filaments in reddish glowing hydrogen? It is no longer gas, as they are saying it's 'dust'. Really? 2. apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070606.html - black voids again and glowing aureoles on the tops, hmmm? Sulfur, hydrogen an oxygen. Smelly ;) 3. photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01322 - classic Orion Nebula - again sulfur, hydrogen and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. Say what? Hexagonal structure, hmmm? In this one in the very center of the image there is a nursery of stars. No collapse at all! But there is plenty of tiny stars dragging black voids behind them. Polycyclic structure of present molecules give all this colors same as rainbow, my guess. 4. www.eso.org/public/images/eso0202a/ - also classic the Horsehead Nebula - dust material they say with glowing aureoles on tops. Everything in front of ionized hydrogen. Infrared en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula#/media/File:Hubble_Sees_a_Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg, and general view en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula#/media/File:Horse_Head_and_Flame_Nebula_Hydrogen_alpha_384mm_scope_stephan_hamel_wiki.jpg 5. www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9524a/ - Jets from young stars according to present explanation. How gaseous ball can shoot with jets of a gas like that? You can do it yourself. Pick any nebula and you will see presence of same processes. Astronomers have it all in front of their very eyes everyday and they still can't see it. Unbelievable.
Another great video. Would love to know what the astronomy community have to say about your theories. Perhaps you could do a more informal video about how your presentations are received and any headway you are making into changing the view of the establishment. Don’t ever give up, I t’s going to be a long hard slog. Good luck and keep up the amazing work you’re doing. 🙂
This channel deserves more subscriptions. It seems to me a lot of 'scientists' are evading this channel like the 'black plague' for the fear of contracting truth.🙂
@mvdk1971b -- It seems like the majority of those who write positive comments below these videos like the idea of one rogue scientist sticking it to the "mainstream machine." The norm in this comment section is that there's much praise, but hardly any commentary on any of the specifics. And that's because one has to have a sufficiently strong background to correctly use the conventional and technical terminology that is required to speak about the details in a way that others who also have a sufficiently strong background to understand. That said, the original comment brought up the question of what the astronomy community has to say about his theories. They wouldn't say much if anything. Like myself, they'd get to the part where he said (at around 3:55) that "a gaseous mass does not constitute a gravitationally bound system." From this, it's apparent that Robitaille doesn't know what the term "gravitationally bound" means. Professional scientists are more stingy with their time than the average Joe. They'd see that Robitaille has, at best, a superficial understanding of the topic he's trying to debunk and move on. There's no reason to believe that a system of N gas molecules cannot be gravitationally bound in which case the virial Theorem does indeed apply. I'd be glad to elaborate if interested.
What is wrong with the following:. It is true that the second law requires that entropy is always increasing for the universe. However, whether a process occurs is not controlled by entropy but rather Gibbs Free Energy ∆G = ∆H - T∆S. For a process to occur ∆G must be negative. If ∆S is negative then -T∆S is a positive term. For ∆G to be negative then ∆H, the enthalpy, need only be more negative than the -T∆S term is positive.. Thus crystalization and condensation both represent local decreases in entropy but obviously do occur because of the enthalpy term. Why then cannot a large negative enthalpy allow for the gravitational collapse of the large gaseous cloud, resulting in a negative ∆G, especially if the collapse includes a change of state from a gas to a condensed matter state?
In fact, you are criticising James Jeans's theory of gravitational condensation. I agree that there are some conceptual incosistences in the theory. But the one of main ideas is that gravitation depends on mass of the system, not its nature (gas, solid or liquid, or plasma state). Gravity changes thermodynamics of the system. Gravitational systems are shown to have negative heat capacity: the more energy is lost the more denser (and hoter) the system becomes. How would you address this issue? I totally agree with you that laws of thermodynamics have been discovered for closed systems and ideal gases. And the extrapolation of its principles to gravitational systems is a really challenging issue.
Thank you - 3 summers ago - I spent 3 hrs with a Newtonian telescope - I watched the - well - waves - surrounding the sun and flowing in our direction. When I looked again at the Wavelength - Frequency diagram, I started to understand that the pictures we are presented with - are only a snap-shot in time. It does not present the multitude of frequency's. I continue to do the math. The BLACK art - "Thermodynamics" prevails.
Thanks for your great series of videos, Doctor. I would appreciate your thoughts on the often quoted explanation of how a nebulous cloud of gas or dust rotates and collapses and conserves angular momentum to rotate faster “ like an ice skater pulling their arms inwards” . This never made sense to me, as surely only condensed matter has the internal cohesive forces to keep it together and possess angular momentum.
The SG will kick in if any molecule escapes. In this case the molecule might get far how ever if T is not exceeding Escape velocity the molecule will sooner or later return to sphare with reversed momentum but same KE. The effect is the same as having a wall that. In other words no contradictions to the IGL (if v(T) < v(escape)). Thanks
Here is yet another example of astronomers and cosmologists violating the laws of thermodynamics: Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Unruh effect: insight from the laws of thermodynamics, 2018 Annual Meeting of the APS Mid-Atlantic Section, November 9-10, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAS18/Session/B01.18 vixra.org/pdf/1811.0157v1.pdf
A gas that is compressed heats up. This heating increases the entropy by at least the same amount as the entropy decrease due to volume reduction. So the overall outcome is that the entropy never decreases. It follows that gravitational collapse of a gas is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
"A gas that is compressed heats up. This heating increases the entropy by at least the same amount as the entropy decrease due to volume reduction. So the overall outcome is that the entropy never decreases. It follows that gravitational collapse of a gas is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics." Alex de Visscher Well, sounds good. Except that in thermodynamics, in order to compress a gas, work must be done by the surroundings upon the system. Here, you only have the system and like Dr. Robitaille said, a system cannot do work upon itself and raise its own temperature. Cosmologists cannot just replace how the laws of thermodynamics where formulated in order to match their pet ideas. If you want to put heat into a system, you better have surroundings from which to extract that heat, otherwise, you are not doing thermodynamics. The proof of this is the negative capacity of the gas which is undergoing gravitational collapse. Why don't you tell everyone how large a gas must become in order for its heat capacity to change from positive to negative. Also, the temperature of a gaseous star is not intensive and that is a zeroth law violation. The astronomers are talking nonsense.
Bonjour Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Merci pour cette vidéo passionnante... J'ai relayé toutes tes vidéos chez mes amis de France (des dizaines) dont plusieurs scientifiques. Certains de mes amis qui ne connaissent rien à l'anglais voudraient les avoir en français. Est-ce possible?! Encore un grand merci! Christian de Québec
He is correct in saying that the virial theorem is wrong because it applies Newton's G on a galactic level. However, he is wrong in saying that material gas cannot collapse on itself. The problem is that he views things in under the paradigm of thermodynamics which is totally independent of gravity. In reality, the whole visible universe is dependent on gravity which exists in the spacetime layer. That is why gravity rules, and so gases collapse because of gravity. It is only the aethereal part (the aethereal layer which cannot be seen) which is independent of gravity and where thermodynamics applies without gravity.
The french physicist Jean Pierre Petit makes the hypothesis of the presence of mater made of negative masses, located in galactic voids. These masses would push the positive masses, hence helping the gravitational collapse of gas clouds. If we include these négative masses in the isolated system, wouldn't it solve the enthropy issue ?
I would suggest the widely accepted nowadays assertion: the planets and stars on each galaxy were born continuously and indiscriminately wherever there, which of course is totally wrong. Let me explain: First of all if we make one very simple calculation, following this assertion, we need to discovery mass of the clouds and galaxy dust at least equal to the mass of all stars and planets in this host galaxy, which even visually we don’t observe. Moreover in this dust and clouds we must to detect via spectral analysis all heaviest elements until uranium, which of course we don’t observe. And if the stars appear on the periphery of any galaxy as it is asserting now then we must to observe at least one star’s appearance in each one second in definitely galaxy because they are in the galaxy billions as number and life cycle is also billion of seconds! Where is this observation? Nowhere! First of all let see this: Nice video and remarkable effort by the authors of this explanation about our galaxy and the universe itself, but unfortunate with very limited and often incorrectly imaginations, which doesn’t illuminates the real situation! That is provokes by the several mistakes which then leads to the incorrect explanations and finally almost to the stupidity. The first mistake is the accepting of the absolute space existence without any proof. Such space doesn’t exist and it is because of the USM www.kanevuniverse.com The second assertion is that the stars are birth from the gas and clouds within the indiscriminately places in the galaxy itself, which it isn’t truth, because all the stars are born on the center of our galaxy (almost on the center) and that is truth about each galaxy…why? see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com Here I suggest only that it is impossible to dynamically explain how can “begin” the first cloud matter spinning to create the very first beginning image of such star and from where will appear the very first point of gravitational attraction (what will create this first attraction point and why) Only by these two mistakes the reasons go in false direction regarding to the structure of the center of each galaxy and therefore incorrect suppositions about black holes existence, which is improvable and unnecessary because the movement of the central stars have another far more convincing explanation (see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com ) Of course big bang never happen and all about the map of relict radiation has another again far more convincing explanation as it is given in USM. The same is in force about the dark matter which of course exists but not in this quantity and about the kinematic of the galaxy again see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com The objections are large number, but let stop here for now! G.Kanev
I think that IS the question. The EU folks like the Z=pinch concept. Bible believers say...it just was made that way. What is important here is that 'accretion discs' were just made up by some of the influential minds of the day and have remained unchallenged...'til now. Same for the 'nuclear powered sun. Remember. If we believe we have the final answers then there is no room for progress.
@@xkguy Marklund convection will give you all you need to understand how plasma current (Birkeland Current) will cause all the accretion of material needed to form not only stars, but dust, molecular clouds, and planets.
A gaseous nebula that is visible represents a region of IONIC MOLECULES due to the UV and X-ray radiation from the stars illuminating the cloud. All gases and even dust will become electrically active. Like charges do not experience any gravitational interaction. The idea that ions can collapse under gravity is positively insane. Collapse of gas clouds and other elements is due to Marklund Convection. And when you have enough hydrogen squeezed tightly enough by powerful electromagnetic forces, that matter becomes condensed into liquids or solids.
The densest known nebulae still have very low molecule count per 1 cm3. Strong electromagnetic magnetic forces fill the gap in the picture very well as elements are mostly ionized in nebula. EM forces would attract matter in a form of filaments. Temperature and pressure matters. Nebula may consist of many elements while hydrogen is dominating the composition and will be the last one to condensate. There will be a core made of heavier elements shrouded with hydrogen. Once it reaches certain pressure while collecting hydrogen, due to increasing gravity a star is born. Simple physics and chemistry. No collapse just aggregating.
@@pandzban4533 close, but it's not pressure that lites up the star, seeing as how thermonuclear fusion in that sense is impossible. Marklund convection pulles in heavy elements to the center, and if the electrical current causing the convection is strong enough, it Z pinches along it's x axis, and then a star is born.
I would still say that gravity does pull gas molecules together to at least a distance for Beta Plus Decay to kick in. Add another H and never mind, you just get another gas.
I'm sure this comment will get buried, if it appears at all, but the change in entropy formula that you present at 2:22 applies when the gas compresses isothermally which is to say that the gas's temperature remains constant throughout the compression process. However, as you well know, the temperature of the gas increases as it compresses which is why you want to say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violate, which btw is not the case.
"I'm sure this comment will get buried..." That is true of course, if your bicycle pump is doing work on the system to compress it. In this case the system is self-compressing! There is no external agent doing work on the system to raise its temperature! The self-compression of a gas is a first law violation, as Robitaille previously mentioned, if one assumes, like you did, that temperature went up. A system cannot do work upon itself and raise its own temperature! Dr. Robitaille presented isothermal compression for this very reason. The temperature does not change in this case, but the entropy decreases - a violation of the second law as all spontaneous processes in isolated systems must have positive entropy changes.
@@bushmangrizz4367-- After going through the painful process of watching this video for a 2nd time, it is hard to believe that Robitaille applied the entropy formula for the reason that you gave. Maybe I just missed it. But I didn't hear him mention that the formula only applies so long as the temperature of the collapsing gas cloud remains constant. Instead, he merely uses the formula to hastily conclude that the entropy _within_ the collapsing cloud decreases. The only thing he said about temperature, in regards to the entropy formula that he used, is that the formula is valid regardless of the temperature. His issue doesn't appear to do with a lack of an external agent to increase the temperature of a gas cloud. His issue is with the application of the virial theorem to a "gravitationally bound system" of gas molecules. The virial theorem only applies to a gravitationally bound system. And for some mysterious reason, he believes that it's impossible for a gas cloud to be gravitationally bound. I would love to ask, what he thinks it means for a system of particles to be gravitationally bound. If he answers that correctly my next question would be why is it impossible for a system of gas molecules to be gravitationally bound. That said, given a gravitationally bound system of gas molecules, the virial theorem implies that as the net gravitational potential energy decreases (which it does) the net average kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases. At the molecular level, temperature is a measure of the net average kinetic energy. In short, if the Virial theorem applies, the temperature within a gas cloud increases as the volume of the cloud decreases. One can also show that the total energy within the gas cloud decreases. This means that the gas cloud itself does not constitute an isolated system. Hence, the fact that the entropy _within_ the cloud decreases (which it does, but not by the amount that Robitaille obtains by erroneously applying the formula seen in this video) does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
How does a cloud collapse under it's own weight? Even if we look at our very own clouds in the sky, they are being pushed together by the very air that they are in and yet we don't really see them collapse! But out in space, there's no air! What would be the mechanism? I mean we take a gas and compress it into a cylinder under enormous amount of pressure and we still don't end up with a star! We have seen gas in all types of atmospheric conditions and we still can't see any star's being formed... So to suggest that gas can somehow decide to collapse in on itself, there must be some other mechanisms in place that are not understood...
Back when I didn't know any better, I used to tell people that the eventual heat death of the universe was nonsense for two reasons: 1. As everything has a cause, something cannot come from nothing; and so the chain of cause and effect can have no beginning; and if the universe is infinitely old, then if the heat death theory was true, it would have already taken place. 2. As evidence of why entropy doesn't apply to an open system, I cited the birth of stars. I still believe my first reason, but I'm in need of new evidence.
So you believe in a beginning - that something comes from nothing, and that doesn't seem like nonsense to you? Does this mean you're a Creationist, or are you a Big Bang believer?
You are making an assumption that everything has a cause most likely based on inductive knowledge. Induction does not give to philosophical certainty. You also said that something cannot come from nothing. There goes another assumption.
I believe that I've found a flaw in his argument. He says several times that a system cannot do work on itself, referring to a collapsing nebular mass of gas. This assumes that he knows how gravity works, which he doesn't. The standard model still has no explanation for how gravity works. If there is in fact a universal space medium, (often in the past called "ether"), and if this space medium is responsible for gravity, then it's the space medium which is doing work on the collapsing gas, not the gas itself. Best, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics/astronomy enthusiast
The ether is to large to be the sole contributing factor to cause a gas to collapse into itself! If there has to be anything, it has to be more local otherwise we wouldn't see any gasses out in space but instead we would see a lot of star's! The only way as far as I can see for a gas to come together is if an electric charge is passed through it! And for that to work you would need something like those Birklan currents to pass through a body of gas to get it to come together. If the gas cloud is big enough and the charge also big enough, the sole weight of the gas pulling together, if fast enough can cause heat to rise rapidly as the outer layers are being drawn in towards a central point and cause it to ignite which is what we see happens in a nuclear reactor when the cooling water stop's flowing! But that would cause an explosion! And we do see stuff that has exploded in space! But if the gas came together slowly, technically I would like to think that it will come together and begin to glow just like it does in the sapphire project... It has to be the electric charge! I really don't see any other way around it!
I believe in the laws of thermodynamics, but as a layman I tend to ask myself questions like how did the order of a solar system come into existence from the random chaos of space. Why is this not accepted as an observable example of a decrease in entropy and therefore a violation of the 2nd law of TD?
Solar systems form within the confines of a plasma current. Plasma currents form shells naturally. Dust caught up in plasma currents experience something called Marklund Convection. This aggregates matter very quickly as opposed to gravity which is 39 orders of magnitude less potent than electric and magnetic fields. These aggregations of matter form along these filaments and we see filaments everywhere we look in the universe, regardless of scale.
Thank you Dr. Robitaille, is it possible that we are containerlocatie in what we know as the known universe that works like a closed system? Something that slows us from drifting apart like a shell around us or other likewise systems around ours that have a push effect. That may account for low and high density areas in space. I thought of this while watch your great presentation this morning. So in this theory, could the laws of thermodynamics fit? Just play with the thought don’t analyze to deep, your attention may be needed elsewhere. Thanks again Rose
When you are referring to a closed system, I like to think of it as a closed loop system! But it's not just one, there are loops within loops, my thinking behind this is that everything is always coming from somewhere and always going somewhere! Like before fission can be possible, it first had to fuse! Everything has to come together to eventually move apart and be recycled to start all over again! If you look around on earth, you can find loops, the water cycle is one that is widely known but there's a lot more! Then there's the loops in our solar system, the loops in our galaxy and there's probably a loop in the universe that cycles the galaxies? I don't know, I haven't looked into it that far out! But it wouldn't surprise me if someone worked it out! The chances that some parts of us have been here on earth as another animal or plant are possible! But the chance of us being reborn as we are are literally impossible! When we die, we go into the ground, we get eaten by small creatures which probably get eaten by larger creatures and then a bird eats that one and takes it somewhere else, eventually we become food for the plants and trees which humans eat and so the cycle continues, whether or not DNA information is transferred through that path is unknown and possibly never even been thought of... But you really have to wonder why we as humans share a lot of DNA with a lot of animals and plants and trees! It's an interesting concept for sure, if someone was able to tie these things together, we might even find that we might just be a collection of DNA of almost all living things on this planet! Hmmm interesting I just might have to look into this a little deeper and see if the theory has any legs? Strangely enough I always seem to be trying to answer a question and find myself asking more questions! Thanks for that.
'No system can raise its temperature by performing work on itself' Alright so basically all chemical reactions are impossible? How do you think a jar of thermite gets hot, if not by exchanging it's potential energy for kenetic?
The same way a falling ball's potential energy being converted to kinetic energy does not represent the ball doing work on itself - potential energy exists to represent energy already present in the system (in the case of thermite, the potential energy is the difference in oxidation potentials of aluminum oxide and iron oxide). It's always important to keep in mind that releasing stored energy is not the same thing as doing work, even if work can be done with that energy. _Storing_ that energy - i.e. exchanging released energy for potential - would be work, but not the other way around, otherwise you could extract work from an increase in entropy and thereby create perpetual motion machines.
If h2O gas can condense in our atmosphere into water droplets called rain due to some attractive forces between the molecules, then the same can happen in space with gravity and hydrogen
Yes, gaseous hydrogen in space could undergo a condensation reaction to produce the stars. That's exactly what Dr. Robitaille is advocating, and it is currently not the mainstream accepted standard model.
Gravity is not the unique force. Atoms experience attractive and repulsive forces from other atoms. When bonds are formed, energy is released. The bound system has reduced it's entropy, but the released energy is absorbed some time later, increasing the entropy of the absorbing body. This way you can explain how cold gas clouds in outer space may progressively cluster until gravity becomes strong enough to attract more matter and continue growing. Beyond a critical threshold, released energy gets trapped by the cluster and dynamics may change. Real systems cannot be defined by one single mechanism or equation. Multiple stages must be considered as complexity increases.
Once the energy is released when atoms form a molecule, the energy can't be absorbed again! If it's absorbed again then the molecule break's down back into it's atomic state... So technically as far as I can see it wouldn't work.
Arent vacuum and gravity providing the ideal walls while being a perfect isolant in terms of conduction and convection? Was there no radiation and magnetic work I'd say it's an ideal closed system. Be it any kind of condensed matter. Btw, isnt an ideal gas a condensed matter too? It's a pressure cooker boiling from inside by fusion. Maybe the gas will expand one day as a nova once it loses it's metallic properties holding it together by magnetic field.
The Universe(s) itself(s) are the only engine that breaks all the laws of thermodynamics! You can not make an experiment that big within the universe to measure it. The universe has shown this as it is here!
Please, all the great physicists and cosmologists debunk this . OR relearn what you have believed all this while. Asimov, Sabine, Sagan, Tyson Aksimoto... where are you all knowledgeable lecturers, head my request and come to the aid of the confounded me..😳🙈
I don't think that Sabine would disagree with this! She knows very well that there's a big problem in Science, I have heard her talking about how nothing new has been found since the invention of the transistor, that was around 50 years ago! This video is basically showing you how much is wrong in just one area of science...
No, I don't think so. Dr. Robitaille is saying that the sun is not gaseous throughout... it's not a homogenous gaseous environment. He is saying (in all his videos) that the sun has a liquid metallic core. So, that situation would be consistent with what we think we know about the earth's core... liquid metallic core.
I don't know anything about astrophysics, but couldn't there be some process that increases the entropy in one area of the nebula to decreases entropy to form a star in another area? For example, what if the formation of a gravity well caused some particles to get flung off away from the well so that momentum is transferred from particles in the forming gravitational well to particles in the surrounding gas?
A gravitational well? The only gravitational wells that I know or are right here on earth! We normally refer to them as water wells and if you jump inside, you will feel the gravity in that well! What I'm trying to say is that you need a body of mass for the effect of gravity to exist, I don't know what gravity well you are referring to but if there's no mass, there's nothing there for gravity to exist!
@@PeterMilanovski on large scales, isn't it likely that there will be local variations in particle density, even in a gas? And wouldn't this variation result in a gravitational pull towards the denser areas of the nebula? It sounds like Dr. Robitaille is claiming that the formation of a star in a nebula is an isolated system, and the nebula itself is probably isolated for the most part, but a small part of the nebula is not isolated from the rest of the nebula. So isn't it possible that local variations on particle density randomly form in the nebula, creating a gravitational pull towards the denser areas? Then, isn't it possible that the gas molecules in the denser area transfer their energy to particles in the outer region? I'm not a physicist, so I'm not sure how these gravitational effects might play out, but it seems at least possible to me that a star could form in a nebula by transferring energy from some particles to other particles, thus collapsing a portion of the nebula's mass into a star while ejecting some of its mass into space. Maybe it's audacious of me to question the claims of someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, but it seems like he is going against the consensus of his field, so I feel like I'm at least justified in questioning.
@@jonathanmitchell8698 no no, I think that it's totally okay to question everything! Isn't that what Science is all about? Anyone who stopped you from questioning is selling you their religion... I tend to agree with Dr Pierre but reading what you have to say is definitely interesting! I, myself seem to have different views regarding some Science but what you are saying sounds like it just might be possible! What Dr Pierre say's regarding a gas collapsing onto or into itself still holds true and makes sense to me but what if there's more than one type of gas? I mean, you need different atoms to form molecules, I can somewhat see how it might work! Although I can't be certain! One side of me says that pressure is needed to bring the gas closer together and push out some of their energy to form a bond! But then there's the other side of me that's saying maybe if there's more than one type of gas, due to the different levels of energy associated with the different gasses, there should be an attraction! If the cloud of gas is large enough, there might be enough mass to squeeze the centre which if possible would give off some energy and basically ending up with a liquid center! If this continues, it would be like a chain reaction growing in size and mass till the centre has enough pressure to give off more energy as the liquid turns into a solid! I really don't know if that is even possible but it's definitely an interesting thought experiment for me! I'm no physicist either but I strongly believe that sometimes a fresh mind from somewhere else new to the field is important, it's like the person who doesn't really know will ask a question that they believe will probably sound stupid, but it's usually the one that triggers the path to the correct answer! Thank you for your reply, you really have me thinking about this LoL.
The system will collapse if the KE is less than PE/2. If it is equal to PE/2 nothing much happens and if it is greater than PE/2 it will expand. So your initial assertion is wrong.
You have issues with astronomers understanding of solar collapse.. To help me understand your viewpoint, it is my hope you could do some videos on how supernovae occur and how a star like our sun will become a white dwarf. These two stellar species collapse. How do you believe gravity plays a role in their collapse.
The problem relative to the White Dwarf comes in failing to recognize that stars have lattice structure. Take a diamond. It has essentially the same density as a piece of graphite. Yet, the diamond is optically transparent while the piece of graphite is nearly blackbody. The problem for the Standard model is that the luminosity of the white dwarf is too low. However, the astronomers only have this expression for the luminosity of their gaseous stars: L = 4 pi R^2 sigma T^4. If the luminosity is too low, the only recourse they have is to lower the radius. But in reality, it is simply a question of lattice structure. The white dwarf has a different lattice than the stars on the main sequence and that is why its luminosity is low. It did not gravitationally collapse. As for supernovas, they are produced through exfoliation reactions. Again, a product of underlying lattice structure. That is also why, they are not on the main sequence. Hope this helps!
And what if the 2nd Law of thermodinamics is not valid in some cases? Come on, there's not absolute truth in science, only presupositions not proven wrong at the time being.
While many of your observations and arguments make sense to me, I do, physically, see a point where gravity will overcome pressure from P=NRT/V, given enough volume. While much of what you say makes sense, I do not understand your claims here. This discussion could benefit from very simple and specific examples.
onehit pick, at the 4 minute mark, he states that a gaseous mass is not a gravitationally bound system. You would have to pose a reason why the gas cloud should be a certain size, and no larger because it will collapse due to gravity. If the molecules of the gas can find one another for a collision, they will collide and move apart with respective vector velocities that always add up to the same amount of velocity as they had originally. They will never 'run down'. You have to make the particles coalesce (condense) by some other method than gravity, to prevent these elastic rebounds from occurring for infinity.
Even a mass of gas will start to collapse under gravity if it is big enough. It's part of the reason the earth's atmosphere doesn't just go instantly expanding off into space. Are you saying that if earth's core were not more massive, the atmosphere would not compress more? If so, we are on different paths.
This is great but I think, given your idea that the surface is electrically neutral, you need to respond to the new spiral features found on the sun. Essentially solar hurricanes. Is LMH the issue or the idea that the surface is electrically neutral? Because vortices are electrical.
@Protophanes sunspots are akin to hurricanes. Cyclonic activity in earth's atmosphere is largely electrically driven. The fact that clouds float at all drives that point home like nothing else. I believe Dr. R agrees that the sun does indeed have a surface, one of condensed matter consisting of liquid metallic hydrogen. And it is painfully obvious that the electrical environment around the sun dominates the behavior of the atmosphere. Solar tornadoes are not thermally driven any more than sunspots are. Sunspot strength is gauged on the strength of the magnetic field it possesses, not how hot it is.
@Protophanes but everything IS electromagnetic. What POWERS the sun is what the EU proponents call plasma current. Everywhere we look in the universe we see plasma currents. The entire structure of the galactic cosmos is nothing but plasma currents. What we observe on the surface of the sun is the discharge of plasma currents. There is no plausible explanation for the formation of a stellar mass that does not involve electromagnetism. And once you realize that the gases in space that will eventually form a stellar mass are in the IONIZED condition it gets a lot easier. Ionized matter behaves according to the rules of electrodynamics. Gravity has nothing to do with the initial process. Before those ionized gases can be gathered together into a stellar mass there must be a source of energy that causes the ions to organize into a plasma current in which a process called Marklund Convection takes place and provides the forces necessary to cause hydrogen to become condensed matter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklund_convection But the current that created the stellar mass doesn't just stop flowing. It focuses on the stellar mass due to the magnetic fields induced by the current that accreted the mass in the first place. The sun isn't burning, it's glowing like a tungsten lamp. And on the surface, where the plasma is turbulent, and intense magnetic fields are created, fusion can take place.
@Protophanes plasma exists anywhere there are protons and UV radiation. Anywhere plasma exists by definition you have an electrical circuit. Potential differences and moving charges create a fractal web of forces that manifests as the electromagnetic field. When the right hand rule is added to the "equation" all kinds of interesting self-organizing takes place within an energetic plasma. A galaxy is an intricate web of electrical current flow. The SAFIRE project is riveting. th-cam.com/video/2u7YF4b3VfE/w-d-xo.html
@Protophanes what are you blathering about? What the SAFIRE project is discovering with high energy plasma, seeing new dynamics of plasma interacting at an anode emitting hydrogen, it's new information and directly applicable to understanding stellar observations. So what if they haven't made the connection yet that everything is field. Much better than the luddites looking for the next ridiculous subatomic particle.
I can nerd pretty hard, but not astronomy club hard. To appeal to others in my crowd, you'd have to change the presentation to still be high level, but the setting to be low brow.
Basically, Doc was sayin, "if you think gravity causes a star to form from a cloud of gas in space, then you probably think you can get milk from a boar."
@@DrWhom your willful ignorance is astounding. Get a clue. The link between solar magnetic fields and earthquakes is well established. EU is not only good science, it's producing REAL advancements. th-cam.com/video/OpImPL61R4s/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/m71uQPhwhTk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/oepy1Ig7TdM/w-d-xo.html
@@DrWhom and yet another electromagnetic observation that stunned the Luddites you call "intellectuals." “We simply didn’t take this into account,” admits Reindl. “Ignoring their magnetospheres could mean measurements of other basic properties of white dwarfs are wrong, like their temperatures and masses.” le.ac.uk/news/2018/november/07-stars Imagine that, matter around a star that has NOTHING to do with gravity. Who would have guessed????? Well, I know who, but apparently they are cult members with perfidious agendas. Methinks you do a bit of projection . . . or do I need to explain that to you as well?
@@DrWhom Nothing to say about the continued astonishment of "physicists" at the behavior of new observations? Running out of insults and asides instead of engaging in discussion? Living in darkness is not for me. You go ahead and drink in the nonsense of dark matter, black holes, and a universe that is "expanding" at ever increasing rates. It's a hokey theory that shows a very limited imagination and a lack of rational thought. I studied all the nonsense you think is real but the standard models to explain the observations are ludicrous. The standard model got its start well before all the data was in, and every new observation added another cog to the model. It's Ptolemy all over again. New epicycles like quarks are invented to explain a new behavior. Astrophysics needs another Copernican moment, badly. Gravity as the ultimate force in the universe is just way out of date. Alfven was correct when he said, "gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems."
@@DrWhom You don't even seem to grasp what I mean by a Copernican moment. I've studied the sciences, gotten my degree in Electrical Engineering, used that degree in a long career. I've studied the standard model that you seem to think is serious science despite the continued failure at detecting the 1000th incarnation of dark matter. A model which sees the universe defy it with each new observation is not a model that needs a tune up or a tweak. It's a model that has a 50 year record of predictive failure when it comes to cosmological observations. It's based on theories formulated before the proponents ever knew about this thing called plasma.
It all started when the highly Energy-dense coal and palm oil lubricants have blinded Sadi Carnot in 1824 not comparing the total Energy expended in constructing his reference 'heat engine' of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the sum useful Energy the engine will ever produce before wear and tear forces the engine to degrade and ultimately cease - owing to Entropy internal to matter (see today's junkyards of spent Energy devices all over the world). Instead, Carnot has focused on what fuels the engine with heat, assuming it will run forever as long as the heat-source is present. That overlooked that the Engine's net output-energy remains one-way entangled with the total Energy put into constructing it - never exceeding it - seen today when a 5KW backup power generator will wear and tear and cease well before matching in the sum useful Energy it produces the sum useful energy produced by a 100KW generator of comparable grade, before the bigger generator ceases, too - despite the gravity force is constant and ample amount of fuel is made available for both. Why? The Energy expended in constructing the 5KW is smaller than the Energy put into constructing the 100KW generator. Was Carnot alone? No; That ignorance appeared viral: Adam Smith, Malthus, Marx, Clausius, Einstein, Eddington, Keynes, Hayek, Orwell, Huxley and many others, too. Fossil fuels are so energy dense - 23000 man/hour of useful work in a crude oil barrel - and so cheaply traded on the market under the agency of Economics, they played havoc with humans' understanding of Energy! Still gravity-assisted, capture the Energy from the Sun, past and future, to create a replica Sun. The daughter Sun will be less powerful and shorter-lived than its mother. Why the gravity-assisted, assumed fusion-reactor-Sun has not been powerful-enough to create an exact powerful replica of itself, yet alone several replicas? "No device can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. Energy always and only comes flowing from the past into the future" (The Fifth Law). This is a universal across all energy-producing devices: a waterwheel, the Sun, nuclear, fusion, hydro, solar, wind, AI, quantum computers, IoT - and you name it. A waterwheel will never produce sum useful energy exceeding all the solar the woods burned to forge an axe and the more woods cut by the axe to construct the wheel - were exposed to. The wheel doesn't endure in one-piece to achieve that - due to wear and tear. Not to mention all the solar energy that made the foods and what sustained humans involved and their industrial base, in the process. Humans have to wait until the finite - and hypnotic - fossil fuels age is over to take another look at Energy and what Energy really is. The wait seems not for very long, unfortunately! Thanks Dr. Robitaille.
@@@t00by00zer "No device can produce/transfer/convert/generate/output/CGI sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. Energy always and only comes flowing from the past into the future" (The Fifth Law).
@@sunroad7228 It all depends on how you look at the sum total energy. When you're talking about a machine that transfers energy not being able to transfer more than it takes to make the machine, I am at a loss as to your reasoning. For example, if you're talking about making an electric generator powered by the gravitational potential energy lost by falling water, then you only look at the energy it took to assemble the machine, not the energy it took to create the elements that went into it. Because the initial and final amounts of raw materials is the same. Yet there is little doubt that the total megawatt hours produced by that generator far exceeded the energy that went into its transformation of raw materials into finished product. If it did not do that, it would be called a waste of money.
@@sunroad7228 One more example that seems to violate that "fifth law" might be as simple as a 6" long piece of copper wire. How much energy can that copper wire transfer over its lifetime compared to the energy it took to assemble the atoms into a copper wire?
@@t00by00zer You are not alone fighting tooth and nail to not understand a waterwheel-scale constraints, feeling "I am at a loss as to your reasoning". Many promote humans can make little Suns and leave them at work everywhere they like - concluding "Energy is never an issue, we have the Sun shining every day, wind blows and rivers flow. Open, close, half-close, half-open systems' arguments always come handy"!. This is a fossil fuels-caused fever, though, and it will go away with finite fossil fuels reserves, too.
Actually, the universe and its processes are cyclical in nature, not one way. In part of the process, entropy increases; in the other part of the process, the entropy decreases. There is no net change in entropy overall in the universe, and there will be no "heat death." Study the Reciprocal System and prove it for yourself. www.reciprocalsystem.guru
The magnetic field traps gaseous ions. If there were no magnetic field on the Earth, we would have no atmosphere, as you can see on the Moon, Mars, and other bodies.
A gas cloud in space is almost certainly close to 0 Kelvin. It would have very little kinetic energy to resist gravitational collapse. Now, we are not talking about a baseball sized mass here, rather, something more along the line of a planet sized mass, stretching out over a million kilometers. Each particle would have potential energy proportional to its distance from the collective center of gravity, and it would accelerate towards the cg according to the standard gravitational model. In the end, one would be left with a mass the size of the earth with molecular velocities dictated by the average fall height. This doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics, as far as I can tell. Potential energy is just converted into kinetic energy, with no mass loss, no energy loss, and no work done on the system. What am I missing here? I don't get it! P.S. I watched this twice. Gases do spontaneously collapse in the laboratory, they convert from gas to liquid, with a release of energy. Also, in a collapsing gas cloud, the molecules in the center would be compressed into solid or liquid form, creating the surface to act against the pressure.
@Protophanes - Ah, we meet again, old friend! Why doesn't the Earth's atmosphere expand into the vacuum of space? Why is there a pressure gradient from the surface to space, one that matches old-time models almost perfectly? Is the law of gravity non-existent?
What are Nebulae made of? Condensed matter? Gas? Plasma? Surely gravity has some effect on gas, although are you implying that its mean velocity may (and most likely does) exceed the escape velocity so that it can never collapse into itself without presence of condensed matter?
It's their electrical charge that draws the air together and to the earth. Right now, you are no different to a deep sea diver and your body mass is like the diver's weights that keeps him on the ocean floor! If the air was more dense, you would be floating around! If the air had the density of Mercury, you would be floating around on it's surface at the edge of space. Right now you are wet with air! Just like a fish is wet with water! Just as the fish doesn't think about the water it's in is exactly the same way that you don't think about how you are in the air! Although I can't say if fish have the capacity to think as we do! And just like a fish out of water, this is exactly how you would look like if you were taken out of your atmosphere! Gasping for air like a fish gasping for water! Take note that when we say air, air is made up of many different gasses! Different gasses have different charge characteristics! Some types can carry a higher state of charge while others can't! This is where opposites attract! Higher charged particles are always attracted to lower charged particles! It's easy to see that when you put a metal stake into the ground for an earth connection and then use a helium balloon tied to a copper wire up in the air, you can measure a decent amount of voltage. Humans also carry a charge which also means that the air is also attracted to us! We are born into this atmosphere and we are used to the amount of weight that is apon us day and night 24/7. It's only when you are in space or on another planet when you will realise the effects of our atmosphere on us! I hope that this helps answer your question!
so here we are thousands of years AFTER our ancestors were worshiping the sun and stars as gods ... and ALL of the PhD today still can NOT agree on what makes the sun go tick tock talk clearly the bigger question 'what is consciousness?' is going to take another few thousand years to suss out
I bet that there's someone out there who knows the answer to your question! And it's possible that the answer is so simple that no one will accept it no matter how hard that person tried! You have to realise that while you might have a very solid explanation for something with concrete proof but if your findings are going to make someone else's life work amount to nothing! He's going to fight you like his life depended on it! And you won't be fighting like your life depended on it which is why he will win it regardless of whether it's he's right or wrong! It's sad that this takes place in Science, it has happened before and the person who tried commited suiside only to have someone many years later to discover his work and find that he was way ahead of his time! The equipment to provide proof just wasn't invented yet! There's a lot of bullying in Science! Just look at professor Dave explains, I don't think that there's a bigger bully than him! But I have been wrong before LoL.
You can call me irrational if you want but I don't really buy this argument. Think for a moment about our everyday experience on earth: Think how strong an ant is for it's size in comparison to an elephant. Think about how small waves move in a different way from big waves. Think about the structural integrity of a model plane compared to a jumbo jet. Everything we know behaves differently according to scale. A solar system clump of gas is certainly not the same thing as a minuscule amount of gas contained in a 1 liter bottle. Therefore it is not so big of a stretch of imagination that such gigantic amount of gas, given a little push from the outside will collapse on itself to reach a new equilibrium. In the end equations are just descriptions. But the question is: What is really going on?
Hey P.M., your analysis speaks 'as if all other assumptions of standard physics hold true'. But I would bet a dollar you don't accept all of those assumptions either. Setting aside the EU model for a moment, what if I claimed that 'Entropy' does not hold true? What reaction PM ?
Dear prof. by all respect i think you are NOT right in rejecting Eddington assumption and defining to a selfgravitating gas mass the ideal gas pressure law IGL. Please let me explain short; lets assume we have a large sphere of radius R filled with a gas of certain low density for which IGL applies. We assume the molecules in this shere have the KE that can be seen as temperature T. You hope argree so far no contradictions. Now we take this gas filled sphere to outer space - far from any external gravity - and remove the boundary or the sphere. Will the T and P lose their neaning? I dont think so, because inside the sphere the selfgravity SG is canceled. (1)
Think logically for a second. There is no such thing as potential energy. The force of gravity is constant, even a ball that lies at rest on the ground in the deepest valley is constantly pressured against the ground by this force, it does not have a zero potential energy. A ball which is lifted into the air and suspended likewise constantly experiences this force that the lifting machinery must constantly resist. Like the lines on a graph, it is a convenient shorthand, but in reality, there are no lines, and there is no potential, there is only energy.
You misrepresent, and clearly do not understand, so many scientific concepts that this video is a treasure trove of false answers to even the most basic true/false questions one could come up with for general chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and mathematics. You are not fooling anyone who has even a shred of critical thinking skill. There is a reason no real scientist actually believes what you're saying.
"The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." - Eddington, 1948
"...Eddington's idea a about the collapse of a gaseous mass to form a star constitutes precisely such a violation of the Second Law." - Pierre-Marie Robitaille, 2018
A great time to be alive! Thanks for this, Dr. Robitaille!
By your explanation it is hard to imagine how such a fundamental concept can ignored in astrophysics. I would welcome a description of how this is possible.
This makes not only math sense, but intuitive sense.
@@Simonjose7258 Watch the video again.
@@angelhelp-- Watching the video again probably won't help. Without a sufficiently strong background on this topic (as is the case with essentially all of those who come here to cheer, but never inquire about any of the specifics) it would be essentially impossible to know where this guy goes wrong.
That said where does this guy go wrong? Right around the 3:55 mark he noted
"a gaseous mass does not constitute a gravitationally bound system." From this, it's apparent that Robitaille doesn't know what the term "gravitationally bound" means. There's no reason to believe that a system of N gas molecules cannot be gravitationally bound in which case the virial theorem does indeed apply.
The potential conflict between gravitational collapse and the 2nd law of thermodynamics was, once upon a time, distressing. If you have the mathematical background, Google something like "gravitational collapse and 2nd law of thermodynamics" There's a website written by Professor John Baez of the University of California Riverside. He addresses this topic head on.
Bravo!! 👏 I dont't think I'm exaggerating when I say that your combined lectures here are the single most important set of words spoken in centuries - your name will be in future history books 📚 please stay with us Dr. Robetaille!
Agreed!
"The law the Entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in contradiction to Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
@Protophanes Eddington laughed at Kristian Birkeland when he postulated that it was electric current from the sun that powered the auroras.
Eddington didn't even want to bother thinking about the electromagnetic nature of the universe. Fields, resonances, right hand rule . . . too hard for him. He just told himself that electric current can't flow in a vacuum and wrote it off. What a fool.
@Protophanes No, not Newton.
Excellent explanation! Space is not a box! 😊
I think that its easy for detractors to lose sight of and misinterpret Pierre's vids. The common misinterpretation is : " Pierre is saying standard kinetic gas laws don't apply to stars, but we already know that, thats why astronomers have all manner of stellar laws and formula derived specially for gas where gravity force is significant ". That its invalid to derive something that assumes gravity is significant from something that assumes gravity is not significant is lost on many people. You should consider doing a vid addressing this specific flaw of logic.
" i'm building my hurricane proof village from house designs that assume there's no hurricanes "
" i'm climbing a ladder assuming the ladder stays in place. but while I'm still on the ladder, I'll remove it, and try to place it higher so i can continue climbing "
" I've written my shopping list assuming i'm not limited by cash, but actually i have a budget "
" I've derived some gravity gas equations based on the equations that assume gravity isn't significant "
" i've derived some non surface gas equations based on equations that assume there's some surfaces "
"A system cannot do work on itself and raise its own temperature"
Watch me.
This channel offers valuable and excellent explanations.
Important and appreciated!
Another kick on the face to irrationality! Great job!
Deipatrous you are a dumbtard
@@DrWhom what's wrong? Is this to difficult for you to grasp?
This is a nerd knockout!!
wow ! this actually made some sense ! his explanation destroys the accepted solar model !!!
The reason why these physicists need a closed and gravitationally bound system is that they refuse to look at, understand, (and refuse to use) the multiple tensor boson force carriers ... having mass as the needed gravity source.
If you use tensor bosons force carriers in their open enclosure gasses and thermodynamic laws - they would solve their issues and not need a box system. These tensor boson force carriers are what create the multiple space-time quark fabrics ... and matter fabrics ... in which their existence of individual gas molecules would attain their
As such the Hubble tension/cosmic tension occurs from :
graviton tensor boson force carrier
electrino tensor boson force carrier
electron tensor boson force carrier
muon electron tensor boson force carrier (Higgs-2 boson)
tau electron tensor boson force carrier (Higgs-1 boson)
and the 3 gluon tensor boson force carriers in the quark space-time fabrics
Put THAT in your derivatives !!!
Derivatives in physics is comparable to statistics. As someone once said, "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." When you have formulas (with faulty, missing, or pruned datasets) you have wrong hypothesis, postulates, corollaries, ... making assumptions of axioms, laws, constants, and theories. Modern science and physics goes right to stating a theory and reverse engineering the dataset (confirmation bias) to approve the unproven hypothesis that should be the original starting point of thought. Doing all kinds of flippy-flopping of derivative constants that have inherent flaws or illogical relations with other parts of the formula (intensives vs extensives, etc.) you just have word salad derivatives. Just as much as the Dirac Equation of the mass and radius of the cosmos - with unknown dataset of the mass and radius - yet the derivative is accepted as blatant fact, when it is basically writing down a thought concept with symbols.
I do absolutely agree with your point Pierre Marie, there's no way a gaseous mass can self-collapse. However, regardless of this faux-pas on the part of Eddington et al, *if* a chunk of rock (asteroid, planet etc) should stray into the cloud, then a surface is introduced upon which pressure and agglomeration of material can proceed. Eventually, the pressure upon the triggering body becomes so vast that fusion is triggered.
I'd like also to put to you my own theory that planets are dead stars- which strengthens your own theory regarding condensed matter being the same material that planets are constructed of and, explaining the perfectly spherical shape of planets (only an entirely molten- or liquid- body can become spherical in space).
Nice! Thanks, Doc!
always good to get a new video and a load of mind candy to chew on!! Thanks DR. Robitaille
Great vid Doc. Thank you !!!
It is high time to investigate the impact of the LMH Theory on modern cosmology. I am not even good at amateur astronomy so complex astrophysics is absolutely out of my reach. I have technical degree in chemistry and biology. Nevertheless, I will try to expand the theory on bigger scale in this for sure too long post. Modern cosmology is dawning in strange theories while everything is available to solve the mystery. I looked once again into nebulae pictures and descriptions. Data provided by the most prominent agencies. It is already all there.
1. apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070202.html - please, read the description and keep in mind that in this particular case the nebula is probably made of hydrogen ~99%. So, What is this black void in the center permeable only by infrared? What are black filaments in reddish glowing hydrogen? It is no longer gas, as they are saying it's 'dust'. Really?
2. apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070606.html - black voids again and glowing aureoles on the tops, hmmm? Sulfur, hydrogen an oxygen. Smelly ;)
3. photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01322 - classic Orion Nebula - again sulfur, hydrogen and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. Say what? Hexagonal structure, hmmm? In this one in the very center of the image there is a nursery of stars. No collapse at all! But there is plenty of tiny stars dragging black voids behind them. Polycyclic structure of present molecules give all this colors same as rainbow, my guess.
4. www.eso.org/public/images/eso0202a/ - also classic the Horsehead Nebula - dust material they say with glowing aureoles on tops. Everything in front of ionized hydrogen. Infrared en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula#/media/File:Hubble_Sees_a_Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg, and general view en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula#/media/File:Horse_Head_and_Flame_Nebula_Hydrogen_alpha_384mm_scope_stephan_hamel_wiki.jpg
5. www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9524a/ - Jets from young stars according to present explanation. How gaseous ball can shoot with jets of a gas like that?
You can do it yourself. Pick any nebula and you will see presence of same processes. Astronomers have it all in front of their very eyes everyday and they still can't see it. Unbelievable.
Another great video. Would love to know what the astronomy community have to say about your theories. Perhaps you could do a more informal video about how your presentations are received and any headway you are making into changing the view of the establishment. Don’t ever give up, I t’s going to be a long hard slog. Good luck and keep up the amazing work you’re doing. 🙂
This channel deserves more subscriptions. It seems to me a lot of 'scientists' are evading this channel like the 'black plague' for the fear of contracting truth.🙂
@mvdk1971b -- It seems like the majority of those who write positive comments below these videos like the idea of one rogue scientist sticking it to the "mainstream machine." The norm in this comment section is that there's much praise, but hardly any commentary on any of the specifics. And that's because one has to have a sufficiently strong background to correctly use the conventional and technical terminology that is required to speak about the details in a way that others who also have a sufficiently strong background to understand.
That said, the original comment brought up the question of what the astronomy community has to say about his theories. They wouldn't say much if anything. Like myself, they'd get to the part where he said (at around 3:55) that "a gaseous mass does not constitute a gravitationally bound system." From this, it's apparent that Robitaille doesn't know what the term "gravitationally bound" means. Professional scientists are more stingy with their time than the average Joe. They'd see that Robitaille has, at best, a superficial understanding of the topic he's trying to debunk and move on.
There's no reason to believe that a system of N gas molecules cannot be gravitationally bound in which case the virial Theorem does indeed apply. I'd be glad to elaborate if interested.
What is wrong with the following:. It is true that the second law requires that entropy is always increasing for the universe. However, whether a process occurs is not controlled by entropy but rather Gibbs Free Energy ∆G = ∆H - T∆S. For a process to occur ∆G must be negative. If ∆S is negative then -T∆S is a positive term. For ∆G to be negative then ∆H, the enthalpy, need only be more negative than the -T∆S term is positive.. Thus crystalization and condensation both represent local decreases in entropy but obviously do occur because of the enthalpy term. Why then cannot a large negative enthalpy allow for the gravitational collapse of the large gaseous cloud, resulting in a negative ∆G, especially if the collapse includes a change of state from a gas to a condensed matter state?
In fact, you are criticising James Jeans's theory of gravitational condensation. I agree that there are some conceptual incosistences in the theory. But the one of main ideas is that gravitation depends on mass of the system, not its nature (gas, solid or liquid, or plasma state). Gravity changes thermodynamics of the system. Gravitational systems are shown to have negative heat capacity: the more energy is lost the more denser (and hoter) the system
becomes. How would you address this issue? I totally agree with you that laws of thermodynamics have been discovered for closed systems and ideal gases. And the extrapolation of its principles to gravitational systems is a really challenging issue.
Thank you - 3 summers ago - I spent 3 hrs with a Newtonian telescope - I watched the - well - waves - surrounding the sun and flowing in our direction. When I looked again at the Wavelength - Frequency diagram, I started to understand that the pictures we are presented with - are only a snap-shot in time. It does not present the multitude of frequency's. I continue to do the math. The BLACK art - "Thermodynamics" prevails.
Thanks for your great series of videos, Doctor. I would appreciate your thoughts on the often quoted explanation of how a nebulous cloud of gas or dust rotates and collapses and conserves angular momentum to rotate faster “ like an ice skater pulling their arms inwards” . This never made sense to me, as surely only condensed matter has the internal cohesive forces to keep it together and possess angular momentum.
The SG will kick in if any molecule escapes. In this case the molecule might get far how ever if T is not exceeding Escape velocity the molecule will sooner or later return to sphare with reversed momentum but same KE. The effect is the same as having a wall that. In other words no contradictions to the IGL (if v(T) < v(escape)). Thanks
Here is yet another example of astronomers and cosmologists violating the laws of thermodynamics:
Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Unruh effect: insight from the laws of thermodynamics, 2018 Annual Meeting of the APS Mid-Atlantic Section, November 9-10, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD,
meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAS18/Session/B01.18
vixra.org/pdf/1811.0157v1.pdf
Wow, I understood everything!
Thank you.
A gas that is compressed heats up. This heating increases the entropy by at least the same amount as the entropy decrease due to volume reduction. So the overall outcome is that the entropy never decreases. It follows that gravitational collapse of a gas is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
"A gas that is compressed heats up. This heating increases the entropy by at least the same amount as the entropy decrease due to volume reduction. So the overall outcome is that the entropy never decreases. It follows that gravitational collapse of a gas is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics." Alex de Visscher
Well, sounds good. Except that in thermodynamics, in order to compress a gas, work must be done by the surroundings upon the system. Here, you only have the system and like Dr. Robitaille said, a system cannot do work upon itself and raise its own temperature. Cosmologists cannot just replace how the laws of thermodynamics where formulated in order to match their pet ideas. If you want to put heat into a system, you better have surroundings from which to extract that heat, otherwise, you are not doing thermodynamics. The proof of this is the negative capacity of the gas which is undergoing gravitational collapse. Why don't you tell everyone how large a gas must become in order for its heat capacity to change from positive to negative. Also, the temperature of a gaseous star is not intensive and that is a zeroth law violation. The astronomers are talking nonsense.
This simple formula explains it all:
JCDI4U.
Once you get an understanding of it, all the rest just seems to fall into place.
is it correct to say, the Virial th. only applicable to systems w/o friction or viscousity?
(gases have both, planetary systems neither)
Your points are so obvious that something... profoundly dishonest (not mistaken) must be going on at the top of the science pyramid.
Bonjour Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Merci pour cette vidéo passionnante... J'ai relayé toutes tes vidéos chez mes amis de France (des dizaines) dont plusieurs scientifiques. Certains de mes amis qui ne connaissent rien à l'anglais voudraient les avoir en français. Est-ce possible?! Encore un grand merci! Christian de Québec
He is correct in saying that the virial theorem is wrong because it applies Newton's G on a galactic level.
However, he is wrong in saying that material gas cannot collapse on itself. The problem is that he views things in under the paradigm of thermodynamics which is totally independent of gravity.
In reality, the whole visible universe is dependent on gravity which exists in the spacetime layer. That is why gravity rules, and so gases collapse because of gravity.
It is only the aethereal part (the aethereal layer which cannot be seen) which is independent of gravity and where thermodynamics applies without gravity.
The french physicist Jean Pierre Petit makes the hypothesis of the presence of mater made of negative masses, located in galactic voids. These masses would push the positive masses, hence helping the gravitational collapse of gas clouds. If we include these négative masses in the isolated system, wouldn't it solve the enthropy issue ?
I would suggest the widely accepted nowadays assertion: the planets and stars on each galaxy were born continuously and indiscriminately wherever there, which of course is totally wrong. Let me explain: First of all if we make one very simple calculation, following this assertion, we need to discovery mass of the clouds and galaxy dust at least equal to the mass of all stars and planets in this host galaxy, which even visually we don’t observe. Moreover in this dust and clouds we must to detect via spectral analysis all heaviest elements until uranium, which of course we don’t observe.
And if the stars appear on the periphery of any galaxy as it is asserting now then we must to observe at least one star’s appearance in each one second in definitely galaxy because they are in the galaxy billions as number and life cycle is also billion of seconds! Where is this observation? Nowhere!
First of all let see this: Nice video and remarkable effort by the authors of this explanation about our galaxy and the universe itself, but unfortunate with very limited and often incorrectly imaginations, which doesn’t illuminates the real situation! That is provokes by the several mistakes which then leads to the incorrect explanations and finally almost to the stupidity. The first mistake is the accepting of the absolute space existence without any proof. Such space doesn’t exist and it is because of the USM www.kanevuniverse.com The second assertion is that the stars are birth from the gas and clouds within the indiscriminately places in the galaxy itself, which it isn’t truth, because all the stars are born on the center of our galaxy (almost on the center) and that is truth about each galaxy…why? see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com Here I suggest only that it is impossible to dynamically explain how can “begin” the first cloud matter spinning to create the very first beginning image of such star and from where will appear the very first point of gravitational attraction (what will create this first attraction point and why) Only by these two mistakes the reasons go in false direction regarding to the structure of the center of each galaxy and therefore incorrect suppositions about black holes existence, which is improvable and unnecessary because the movement of the central stars have another far more convincing explanation (see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com ) Of course big bang never happen and all about the map of relict radiation has another again far more convincing explanation as it is given in USM. The same is in force about the dark matter which of course exists but not in this quantity and about the kinematic of the galaxy again see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com The objections are large number, but let stop here for now! G.Kanev
But how do stars form if gravitational collapse or self accretion does not follow the Laws of Thermodynamics?
I think that IS the question. The EU folks like the Z=pinch concept. Bible believers say...it just was made that way. What is important here is that 'accretion discs' were just made up by some of the influential minds of the day and have remained unchallenged...'til now. Same for the 'nuclear powered sun.
Remember. If we believe we have the final answers then there is no room for progress.
@@xkguy Marklund convection will give you all you need to understand how plasma current (Birkeland Current) will cause all the accretion of material needed to form not only stars, but dust, molecular clouds, and planets.
A gaseous nebula that is visible represents a region of IONIC MOLECULES due to the UV and X-ray radiation from the stars illuminating the cloud. All gases and even dust will become electrically active. Like charges do not experience any gravitational interaction. The idea that ions can collapse under gravity is positively insane.
Collapse of gas clouds and other elements is due to Marklund Convection. And when you have enough hydrogen squeezed tightly enough by powerful electromagnetic forces, that matter becomes condensed into liquids or solids.
The densest known nebulae still have very low molecule count per 1 cm3. Strong electromagnetic magnetic forces fill the gap in the picture very well as elements are mostly ionized in nebula. EM forces would attract matter in a form of filaments. Temperature and pressure matters. Nebula may consist of many elements while hydrogen is dominating the composition and will be the last one to condensate. There will be a core made of heavier elements shrouded with hydrogen. Once it reaches certain pressure while collecting hydrogen, due to increasing gravity a star is born. Simple physics and chemistry. No collapse just aggregating.
@@DrWhom you see that face every morning in the mirror.
@@pandzban4533 close, but it's not pressure that lites up the star, seeing as how thermonuclear fusion in that sense is impossible. Marklund convection pulles in heavy elements to the center, and if the electrical current causing the convection is strong enough, it Z pinches along it's x axis, and then a star is born.
@@kandysman86 Wal Thornhill rocks again.
It's also important to remember that thermodynamical laws are electromagnetic laws, because infrared is an electromagnetic wave.
I would still say that gravity does pull gas molecules together to at least a distance for Beta Plus Decay to kick in. Add another H and never mind, you just get another gas.
Yeah so… this guy is actually right. I’ve looked it all up and yep we were all lied to.
I'm sure this comment will get buried, if it appears at all, but the change in entropy formula that you present at 2:22 applies when the gas compresses isothermally which is to say that the gas's temperature remains constant throughout the compression process. However, as you well know, the temperature of the gas increases as it compresses which is why you want to say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violate, which btw is not the case.
"I'm sure this comment will get buried..." That is true of course, if your bicycle pump is doing work on the system to compress it. In this case the system is self-compressing! There is no external agent doing work on the system to raise its temperature! The self-compression of a gas is a first law violation, as Robitaille previously mentioned, if one assumes, like you did, that temperature went up. A system cannot do work upon itself and raise its own temperature! Dr. Robitaille presented isothermal compression for this very reason. The temperature does not change in this case, but the entropy decreases - a violation of the second law as all spontaneous processes in isolated systems must have positive entropy changes.
@@bushmangrizz4367-- After going through the painful process of watching this video for a 2nd time, it is hard to believe that Robitaille applied the entropy formula for the reason that you gave. Maybe I just missed it. But I didn't hear him mention that the formula only applies so long as the temperature of the collapsing gas cloud remains constant. Instead, he merely uses the formula to hastily conclude that the entropy _within_ the collapsing cloud decreases. The only thing he said about temperature, in regards to the entropy formula that he used, is that the formula is valid regardless of the temperature.
His issue doesn't appear to do with a lack of an external agent to increase the temperature of a gas cloud. His issue is with the application of the virial theorem to a "gravitationally bound system" of gas molecules. The virial theorem only applies to a gravitationally bound system. And for some mysterious reason, he believes that it's impossible for a gas cloud to be gravitationally bound. I would love to ask, what he thinks it means for a system of particles to be gravitationally bound. If he answers that correctly my next question would be why is it impossible for a system of gas molecules to be gravitationally bound.
That said, given a gravitationally bound system of gas molecules, the virial theorem implies that as the net gravitational potential energy decreases (which it does) the net average kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases. At the molecular level, temperature is a measure of the net average kinetic energy.
In short, if the Virial theorem applies, the temperature within a gas cloud increases as the volume of the cloud decreases. One can also show that the total energy within the gas cloud decreases. This means that the gas cloud itself does not constitute an isolated system. Hence, the fact that the entropy _within_ the cloud decreases (which it does, but not by the amount that Robitaille obtains by erroneously applying the formula seen in this video) does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2:50
Trying to figure out how
R ln (.5/1) = -0.693R
Please
0.5 = 1/2;
ln(1/2)=ln(1)-ln(2);
ln(1)=0, ln(2)=0.693;
0-0.693=-0.693,
Then R ln(.5/1) =-0.693R.
Good luck
When a star is formed, the collapsing cloud emits a lot of radiation, that solves all problems you mention n the video.
How does a cloud collapse under it's own weight? Even if we look at our very own clouds in the sky, they are being pushed together by the very air that they are in and yet we don't really see them collapse! But out in space, there's no air! What would be the mechanism? I mean we take a gas and compress it into a cylinder under enormous amount of pressure and we still don't end up with a star! We have seen gas in all types of atmospheric conditions and we still can't see any star's being formed... So to suggest that gas can somehow decide to collapse in on itself, there must be some other mechanisms in place that are not understood...
I had that thought when at university. But as the textbooks said gases could be compressor by gear i , I accepted being wrong.
Back when I didn't know any better, I used to tell people that the eventual heat death of the universe was nonsense for two reasons:
1. As everything has a cause, something cannot come from nothing; and so the chain of cause and effect can have no beginning; and if the universe is infinitely old, then if the heat death theory was true, it would have already taken place.
2. As evidence of why entropy doesn't apply to an open system, I cited the birth of stars.
I still believe my first reason, but I'm in need of new evidence.
So you believe in a beginning - that something comes from nothing, and that doesn't seem like nonsense to you? Does this mean you're a Creationist, or are you a Big Bang believer?
Ah! you're a Flat Earther!
Flat Earther = troll
It's not a definition, only an evaluation, sarcastically in the form of a definition, that's obvious to anyone other than a dimwitt.
You are making an assumption that everything has a cause most likely based on inductive knowledge. Induction does not give to philosophical certainty. You also said that something cannot come from nothing. There goes another assumption.
I believe that I've found a flaw in his argument. He says several times that a system cannot do work on itself, referring to a collapsing nebular mass of gas. This assumes that he knows how gravity works, which he doesn't. The standard model still has no explanation for how gravity works. If there is in fact a universal space medium, (often in the past called "ether"), and if this space medium is responsible for gravity, then it's the space medium which is doing work on the collapsing gas, not the gas itself. Best, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics/astronomy enthusiast
The ether is to large to be the sole contributing factor to cause a gas to collapse into itself! If there has to be anything, it has to be more local otherwise we wouldn't see any gasses out in space but instead we would see a lot of star's!
The only way as far as I can see for a gas to come together is if an electric charge is passed through it! And for that to work you would need something like those Birklan currents to pass through a body of gas to get it to come together. If the gas cloud is big enough and the charge also big enough, the sole weight of the gas pulling together, if fast enough can cause heat to rise rapidly as the outer layers are being drawn in towards a central point and cause it to ignite which is what we see happens in a nuclear reactor when the cooling water stop's flowing! But that would cause an explosion! And we do see stuff that has exploded in space! But if the gas came together slowly, technically I would like to think that it will come together and begin to glow just like it does in the sapphire project...
It has to be the electric charge! I really don't see any other way around it!
I believe in the laws of thermodynamics, but as a layman I tend to ask myself questions like how did the order of a solar system come into existence from the random chaos of space. Why is this not accepted as an observable example of a decrease in entropy and therefore a violation of the 2nd law of TD?
Solar systems form within the confines of a plasma current. Plasma currents form shells naturally. Dust caught up in plasma currents experience something called Marklund Convection. This aggregates matter very quickly as opposed to gravity which is 39 orders of magnitude less potent than electric and magnetic fields. These aggregations of matter form along these filaments and we see filaments everywhere we look in the universe, regardless of scale.
Thank you Dr. Robitaille, is it possible that we are containerlocatie in what we know as the known universe that works like a closed system? Something that slows us from drifting apart like a shell around us or other likewise systems around ours that have a push effect. That may account for low and high density areas in space. I thought of this while watch your great presentation this morning. So in this theory, could the laws of thermodynamics fit? Just play with the thought don’t analyze to deep, your attention may be needed elsewhere. Thanks again Rose
When you are referring to a closed system, I like to think of it as a closed loop system! But it's not just one, there are loops within loops, my thinking behind this is that everything is always coming from somewhere and always going somewhere! Like before fission can be possible, it first had to fuse! Everything has to come together to eventually move apart and be recycled to start all over again! If you look around on earth, you can find loops, the water cycle is one that is widely known but there's a lot more! Then there's the loops in our solar system, the loops in our galaxy and there's probably a loop in the universe that cycles the galaxies? I don't know, I haven't looked into it that far out! But it wouldn't surprise me if someone worked it out!
The chances that some parts of us have been here on earth as another animal or plant are possible! But the chance of us being reborn as we are are literally impossible! When we die, we go into the ground, we get eaten by small creatures which probably get eaten by larger creatures and then a bird eats that one and takes it somewhere else, eventually we become food for the plants and trees which humans eat and so the cycle continues, whether or not DNA information is transferred through that path is unknown and possibly never even been thought of... But you really have to wonder why we as humans share a lot of DNA with a lot of animals and plants and trees!
It's an interesting concept for sure, if someone was able to tie these things together, we might even find that we might just be a collection of DNA of almost all living things on this planet! Hmmm interesting I just might have to look into this a little deeper and see if the theory has any legs?
Strangely enough I always seem to be trying to answer a question and find myself asking more questions!
Thanks for that.
'No system can raise its temperature by performing work on itself'
Alright so basically all chemical reactions are impossible? How do you think a jar of thermite gets hot, if not by exchanging it's potential energy for kenetic?
The same way a falling ball's potential energy being converted to kinetic energy does not represent the ball doing work on itself - potential energy exists to represent energy already present in the system (in the case of thermite, the potential energy is the difference in oxidation potentials of aluminum oxide and iron oxide).
It's always important to keep in mind that releasing stored energy is not the same thing as doing work, even if work can be done with that energy. _Storing_ that energy - i.e. exchanging released energy for potential - would be work, but not the other way around, otherwise you could extract work from an increase in entropy and thereby create perpetual motion machines.
If h2O gas can condense in our atmosphere into water droplets called rain due to some attractive forces between the molecules, then the same can happen in space with gravity and hydrogen
Yes, gaseous hydrogen in space could undergo a condensation reaction to produce the stars. That's exactly what Dr. Robitaille is advocating, and it is currently not the mainstream accepted standard model.
hmmm...so farts don't compress to a gravitationally collapsed point?....no wonder people at the party were looking at me funny.
Gravity is not the unique force. Atoms experience attractive and repulsive forces from other atoms. When bonds are formed, energy is released. The bound system has reduced it's entropy, but the released energy is absorbed some time later, increasing the entropy of the absorbing body. This way you can explain how cold gas clouds in outer space may progressively cluster until gravity becomes strong enough to attract more matter and continue growing. Beyond a critical threshold, released energy gets trapped by the cluster and dynamics may change. Real systems cannot be defined by one single mechanism or equation. Multiple stages must be considered as complexity increases.
Once the energy is released when atoms form a molecule, the energy can't be absorbed again! If it's absorbed again then the molecule break's down back into it's atomic state... So technically as far as I can see it wouldn't work.
Amazing how such simple ideas are still in need of revisitation!! :0
Arent vacuum and gravity providing the ideal walls while being a perfect isolant in terms of conduction and convection? Was there no radiation and magnetic work I'd say it's an ideal closed system. Be it any kind of condensed matter. Btw, isnt an ideal gas a condensed matter too?
It's a pressure cooker boiling from inside by fusion. Maybe the gas will expand one day as a nova once it loses it's metallic properties holding it together by magnetic field.
The Universe(s) itself(s) are the only engine that breaks all the laws of thermodynamics! You can not make an experiment that big within the universe to measure it. The universe has shown this as it is here!
Please, all the great physicists and cosmologists debunk this . OR relearn what you have believed all this while. Asimov, Sabine, Sagan, Tyson Aksimoto... where are you all knowledgeable lecturers, head my request and come to the aid of the confounded me..😳🙈
I don't think that Sabine would disagree with this! She knows very well that there's a big problem in Science, I have heard her talking about how nothing new has been found since the invention of the transistor, that was around 50 years ago! This video is basically showing you how much is wrong in just one area of science...
Following your reasoning the earth’s atmosphere would expand into space. However, it is gravitationally bound .
No, I don't think so. Dr. Robitaille is saying that the sun is not gaseous throughout... it's not a homogenous gaseous environment. He is saying (in all his videos) that the sun has a liquid metallic core. So, that situation would be consistent with what we think we know about the earth's core... liquid metallic core.
I don't know anything about astrophysics, but couldn't there be some process that increases the entropy in one area of the nebula to decreases entropy to form a star in another area? For example, what if the formation of a gravity well caused some particles to get flung off away from the well so that momentum is transferred from particles in the forming gravitational well to particles in the surrounding gas?
A gravitational well? The only gravitational wells that I know or are right here on earth! We normally refer to them as water wells and if you jump inside, you will feel the gravity in that well!
What I'm trying to say is that you need a body of mass for the effect of gravity to exist, I don't know what gravity well you are referring to but if there's no mass, there's nothing there for gravity to exist!
@@PeterMilanovski on large scales, isn't it likely that there will be local variations in particle density, even in a gas? And wouldn't this variation result in a gravitational pull towards the denser areas of the nebula? It sounds like Dr. Robitaille is claiming that the formation of a star in a nebula is an isolated system, and the nebula itself is probably isolated for the most part, but a small part of the nebula is not isolated from the rest of the nebula.
So isn't it possible that local variations on particle density randomly form in the nebula, creating a gravitational pull towards the denser areas? Then, isn't it possible that the gas molecules in the denser area transfer their energy to particles in the outer region?
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not sure how these gravitational effects might play out, but it seems at least possible to me that a star could form in a nebula by transferring energy from some particles to other particles, thus collapsing a portion of the nebula's mass into a star while ejecting some of its mass into space.
Maybe it's audacious of me to question the claims of someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, but it seems like he is going against the consensus of his field, so I feel like I'm at least justified in questioning.
@@jonathanmitchell8698 no no, I think that it's totally okay to question everything! Isn't that what Science is all about? Anyone who stopped you from questioning is selling you their religion...
I tend to agree with Dr Pierre but reading what you have to say is definitely interesting!
I, myself seem to have different views regarding some Science but what you are saying sounds like it just might be possible!
What Dr Pierre say's regarding a gas collapsing onto or into itself still holds true and makes sense to me but what if there's more than one type of gas? I mean, you need different atoms to form molecules, I can somewhat see how it might work! Although I can't be certain! One side of me says that pressure is needed to bring the gas closer together and push out some of their energy to form a bond! But then there's the other side of me that's saying maybe if there's more than one type of gas, due to the different levels of energy associated with the different gasses, there should be an attraction! If the cloud of gas is large enough, there might be enough mass to squeeze the centre which if possible would give off some energy and basically ending up with a liquid center! If this continues, it would be like a chain reaction growing in size and mass till the centre has enough pressure to give off more energy as the liquid turns into a solid!
I really don't know if that is even possible but it's definitely an interesting thought experiment for me!
I'm no physicist either but I strongly believe that sometimes a fresh mind from somewhere else new to the field is important, it's like the person who doesn't really know will ask a question that they believe will probably sound stupid, but it's usually the one that triggers the path to the correct answer!
Thank you for your reply, you really have me thinking about this LoL.
The system will collapse if the KE is less than PE/2. If it is equal to PE/2 nothing much happens and if it is greater than PE/2 it will expand. So your initial assertion is wrong.
fascinating, To an observer on a neutron star an average star would look like a gas cloud, if the observer looked through a Santilli telescope...
Good
You have issues with astronomers understanding of solar collapse.. To help me understand your viewpoint, it is my hope you could do some videos on how supernovae occur and how a star like our sun will become a white dwarf. These two stellar species collapse. How do you believe gravity plays a role in their collapse.
The problem relative to the White Dwarf comes in failing to recognize
that stars have lattice structure. Take a diamond. It has essentially
the same density as a piece of graphite. Yet, the diamond is optically
transparent while the piece of graphite is nearly blackbody. The
problem for the Standard model is that the luminosity of the white dwarf
is too low. However, the astronomers only have this expression for the
luminosity of their gaseous stars: L = 4 pi R^2 sigma T^4. If the
luminosity is too low, the only recourse they have is to lower the
radius. But in reality, it is simply a question of lattice structure.
The white dwarf has a different lattice than the stars on the main
sequence and that is why its luminosity is low. It did not
gravitationally collapse. As for supernovas, they are produced through
exfoliation reactions. Again, a product of underlying lattice
structure. That is also why, they are not on the main sequence. Hope
this helps!
@@DrWhom sound science . . . like dark matter searches?
And what if the 2nd Law of thermodinamics is not valid in some cases? Come on, there's not absolute truth in science, only presupositions not proven wrong at the time being.
While many of your observations and arguments make sense to me, I do, physically, see a point where gravity will overcome pressure from P=NRT/V, given enough volume. While much of what you say makes sense, I do not understand your claims here. This discussion could benefit from very simple and specific examples.
onehit pick, at the 4 minute mark, he states that a gaseous mass is not a gravitationally bound system. You would have to pose a reason why the gas cloud should be a certain size, and no larger because it will collapse due to gravity. If the molecules of the gas can find one another for a collision, they will collide and move apart with respective vector velocities that always add up to the same amount of velocity as they had originally. They will never 'run down'. You have to make the particles coalesce (condense) by some other method than gravity, to prevent these elastic rebounds from occurring for infinity.
Even a mass of gas will start to collapse under gravity if it is big enough. It's part of the reason the earth's atmosphere doesn't just go instantly expanding off into space. Are you saying that if earth's core were not more massive, the atmosphere would not compress more? If so, we are on different paths.
This is great but I think, given your idea that the surface is electrically neutral, you need to respond to the new spiral features found on the sun. Essentially solar hurricanes.
Is LMH the issue or the idea that the surface is electrically neutral? Because vortices are electrical.
@Protophanes sunspots are akin to hurricanes. Cyclonic activity in earth's atmosphere is largely electrically driven. The fact that clouds float at all drives that point home like nothing else.
I believe Dr. R agrees that the sun does indeed have a surface, one of condensed matter consisting of liquid metallic hydrogen. And it is painfully obvious that the electrical environment around the sun dominates the behavior of the atmosphere. Solar tornadoes are not thermally driven any more than sunspots are. Sunspot strength is gauged on the strength of the magnetic field it possesses, not how hot it is.
@Protophanes but everything IS electromagnetic.
What POWERS the sun is what the EU proponents call plasma current. Everywhere we look in the universe we see plasma currents. The entire structure of the galactic cosmos is nothing but plasma currents. What we observe on the surface of the sun is the discharge of plasma currents.
There is no plausible explanation for the formation of a stellar mass that does not involve electromagnetism. And once you realize that the gases in space that will eventually form a stellar mass are in the IONIZED condition it gets a lot easier. Ionized matter behaves according to the rules of electrodynamics. Gravity has nothing to do with the initial process. Before those ionized gases can be gathered together into a stellar mass there must be a source of energy that causes the ions to organize into a plasma current in which a process called Marklund Convection takes place and provides the forces necessary to cause hydrogen to become condensed matter.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marklund_convection
But the current that created the stellar mass doesn't just stop flowing. It focuses on the stellar mass due to the magnetic fields induced by the current that accreted the mass in the first place. The sun isn't burning, it's glowing like a tungsten lamp. And on the surface, where the plasma is turbulent, and intense magnetic fields are created, fusion can take place.
@Protophanes plasma exists anywhere there are protons and UV radiation. Anywhere plasma exists by definition you have an electrical circuit. Potential differences and moving charges create a fractal web of forces that manifests as the electromagnetic field. When the right hand rule is added to the "equation" all kinds of interesting self-organizing takes place within an energetic plasma. A galaxy is an intricate web of electrical current flow.
The SAFIRE project is riveting.
th-cam.com/video/2u7YF4b3VfE/w-d-xo.html
@Protophanes what are you blathering about? What the SAFIRE project is discovering with high energy plasma, seeing new dynamics of plasma interacting at an anode emitting hydrogen, it's new information and directly applicable to understanding stellar observations. So what if they haven't made the connection yet that everything is field. Much better than the luddites looking for the next ridiculous subatomic particle.
@Protophanes you are way off base, you need to check your assumptions.
Astrophysics needs an overhaul -there are no longer any excuses.
And real physicists who are doing that overhaul. Only shitheads pretend that they their ONE paper "overthrows" all accumulated physics knowledge.
I can nerd pretty hard, but not astronomy club hard. To appeal to others in my crowd, you'd have to change the presentation to still be high level, but the setting to be low brow.
Basically, Doc was sayin, "if you think gravity causes a star to form from a cloud of gas in space, then you probably think you can get milk from a boar."
@@DrWhom your willful ignorance is astounding.
Get a clue.
The link between solar magnetic fields and earthquakes is well established. EU is not only good science, it's producing REAL advancements.
th-cam.com/video/OpImPL61R4s/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/m71uQPhwhTk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/oepy1Ig7TdM/w-d-xo.html
@@DrWhom and yet another electromagnetic observation that stunned the Luddites you call "intellectuals."
“We simply didn’t take this into account,” admits Reindl. “Ignoring
their magnetospheres could mean measurements of other basic properties
of white dwarfs are wrong, like their temperatures and masses.”
le.ac.uk/news/2018/november/07-stars
Imagine that, matter around a star that has NOTHING to do with gravity. Who would have guessed?????
Well, I know who, but apparently they are cult members with perfidious agendas.
Methinks you do a bit of projection . . . or do I need to explain that to you as well?
@@DrWhom Nothing to say about the continued astonishment of "physicists" at the behavior of new observations? Running out of insults and asides instead of engaging in discussion?
Living in darkness is not for me. You go ahead and drink in the nonsense of dark matter, black holes, and a universe that is "expanding" at ever increasing rates. It's a hokey theory that shows a very limited imagination and a lack of rational thought. I studied all the nonsense you think is real but the standard models to explain the observations are ludicrous.
The standard model got its start well before all the data was in, and every new observation added another cog to the model. It's Ptolemy all over again. New epicycles like quarks are invented to explain a new behavior. Astrophysics needs another Copernican moment, badly.
Gravity as the ultimate force in the universe is just way out of date. Alfven was correct when he said, "gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems."
@@DrWhom You don't even seem to grasp what I mean by a Copernican moment.
I've studied the sciences, gotten my degree in Electrical Engineering, used that degree in a long career. I've studied the standard model that you seem to think is serious science despite the continued failure at detecting the 1000th incarnation of dark matter. A model which sees the universe defy it with each new observation is not a model that needs a tune up or a tweak. It's a model that has a 50 year record of predictive failure when it comes to cosmological observations. It's based on theories formulated before the proponents ever knew about this thing called plasma.
Standard Model = Tofu
both … it can't stand up and stinks
It all started when the highly Energy-dense coal and palm oil lubricants have blinded Sadi Carnot in 1824 not comparing the total Energy expended in constructing his reference 'heat engine' of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the sum useful Energy the engine will ever produce before wear and tear forces the engine to degrade and ultimately cease - owing to Entropy internal to matter (see today's junkyards of spent Energy devices all over the world).
Instead, Carnot has focused on what fuels the engine with heat, assuming it will run forever as long as the heat-source is present.
That overlooked that the Engine's net output-energy remains one-way entangled with the total Energy put into constructing it - never exceeding it - seen today when a 5KW backup power generator will wear and tear and cease well before matching in the sum useful Energy it produces the sum useful energy produced by a 100KW generator of comparable grade, before the bigger generator ceases, too - despite the gravity force is constant and ample amount of fuel is made available for both.
Why? The Energy expended in constructing the 5KW is smaller than the Energy put into constructing the 100KW generator.
Was Carnot alone? No;
That ignorance appeared viral: Adam Smith, Malthus, Marx, Clausius, Einstein, Eddington, Keynes, Hayek, Orwell, Huxley and many others, too.
Fossil fuels are so energy dense - 23000 man/hour of useful work in a crude oil barrel - and so cheaply traded on the market under the agency of Economics, they played havoc with humans' understanding of Energy!
Still gravity-assisted, capture the Energy from the Sun, past and future, to create a replica Sun. The daughter Sun will be less powerful and shorter-lived than its mother. Why the gravity-assisted, assumed fusion-reactor-Sun has not been powerful-enough to create an exact powerful replica of itself, yet alone several replicas?
"No device can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. Energy always and only comes flowing from the past into the future" (The Fifth Law).
This is a universal across all energy-producing devices: a waterwheel, the Sun, nuclear, fusion, hydro, solar, wind, AI, quantum computers, IoT - and you name it.
A waterwheel will never produce sum useful energy exceeding all the solar the woods burned to forge an axe and the more woods cut by the axe to construct the wheel - were exposed to. The wheel doesn't endure in one-piece to achieve that - due to wear and tear.
Not to mention all the solar energy that made the foods and what sustained humans involved and their industrial base, in the process.
Humans have to wait until the finite - and hypnotic - fossil fuels age is over to take another look at Energy and what Energy really is. The wait seems not for very long, unfortunately!
Thanks Dr. Robitaille.
No device produces energy. They only convert energy from one form to another.
@@@t00by00zer "No device can produce/transfer/convert/generate/output/CGI sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. Energy always and only comes flowing from the past into the future" (The Fifth Law).
@@sunroad7228 It all depends on how you look at the sum total energy. When you're talking about a machine that transfers energy not being able to transfer more than it takes to make the machine, I am at a loss as to your reasoning.
For example, if you're talking about making an electric generator powered by the gravitational potential energy lost by falling water, then you only look at the energy it took to assemble the machine, not the energy it took to create the elements that went into it. Because the initial and final amounts of raw materials is the same. Yet there is little doubt that the total megawatt hours produced by that generator far exceeded the energy that went into its transformation of raw materials into finished product.
If it did not do that, it would be called a waste of money.
@@sunroad7228 One more example that seems to violate that "fifth law" might be as simple as a 6" long piece of copper wire. How much energy can that copper wire transfer over its lifetime compared to the energy it took to assemble the atoms into a copper wire?
@@t00by00zer You are not alone fighting tooth and nail to not understand a waterwheel-scale constraints, feeling "I am at a loss as to your reasoning".
Many promote humans can make little Suns and leave them at work everywhere they like - concluding "Energy is never an issue, we have the Sun shining every day, wind blows and rivers flow. Open, close, half-close, half-open systems' arguments always come handy"!.
This is a fossil fuels-caused fever, though, and it will go away with finite fossil fuels reserves, too.
So how exactly your crazy theory that the stars are condensed hydrogen does not violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Actually, the universe and its processes are cyclical in nature, not one way. In part of the process, entropy increases; in the other part of the process, the entropy decreases. There is no net change in entropy overall in the universe, and there will be no "heat death." Study the Reciprocal System and prove it for yourself. www.reciprocalsystem.guru
Mic drop.
A gaseous mass isn't gravitationally bound? So how the hell is there an Atmosphere on earth?
The magnetic field traps gaseous ions. If there were no magnetic field on the Earth, we would have no atmosphere, as you can see on the Moon, Mars, and other bodies.
A gas cloud in space is almost certainly close to 0 Kelvin. It would have very little kinetic energy to resist gravitational collapse. Now, we are not talking about a baseball sized mass here, rather, something more along the line of a planet sized mass, stretching out over a million kilometers. Each particle would have potential energy proportional to its distance from the collective center of gravity, and it would accelerate towards the cg according to the standard gravitational model. In the end, one would be left with a mass the size of the earth with molecular velocities dictated by the average fall height. This doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics, as far as I can tell. Potential energy is just converted into kinetic energy, with no mass loss, no energy loss, and no work done on the system.
What am I missing here? I don't get it!
P.S. I watched this twice. Gases do spontaneously collapse in the laboratory, they convert from gas to liquid, with a release of energy. Also, in a collapsing gas cloud, the molecules in the center would be compressed into solid or liquid form, creating the surface to act against the pressure.
@Protophanes - Ah, we meet again, old friend!
Why doesn't the Earth's atmosphere expand into the vacuum of space? Why is there a pressure gradient from the surface to space, one that matches old-time models almost perfectly? Is the law of gravity non-existent?
You are correct. This video is wrong.
Barely understood half of it, but it was still worth it.
What are Nebulae made of? Condensed matter? Gas? Plasma? Surely gravity has some effect on gas, although are you implying that its mean velocity may (and most likely does) exceed the escape velocity so that it can never collapse into itself without presence of condensed matter?
What pulls the air to the earth? Gravity?
It's their electrical charge that draws the air together and to the earth. Right now, you are no different to a deep sea diver and your body mass is like the diver's weights that keeps him on the ocean floor! If the air was more dense, you would be floating around! If the air had the density of Mercury, you would be floating around on it's surface at the edge of space. Right now you are wet with air! Just like a fish is wet with water! Just as the fish doesn't think about the water it's in is exactly the same way that you don't think about how you are in the air! Although I can't say if fish have the capacity to think as we do! And just like a fish out of water, this is exactly how you would look like if you were taken out of your atmosphere! Gasping for air like a fish gasping for water!
Take note that when we say air, air is made up of many different gasses! Different gasses have different charge characteristics! Some types can carry a higher state of charge while others can't! This is where opposites attract! Higher charged particles are always attracted to lower charged particles! It's easy to see that when you put a metal stake into the ground for an earth connection and then use a helium balloon tied to a copper wire up in the air, you can measure a decent amount of voltage. Humans also carry a charge which also means that the air is also attracted to us!
We are born into this atmosphere and we are used to the amount of weight that is apon us day and night 24/7. It's only when you are in space or on another planet when you will realise the effects of our atmosphere on us!
I hope that this helps answer your question!
Ignore peter, it's definately fucking gravity.
so here we are thousands of years AFTER our ancestors were worshiping the sun and stars as gods ... and ALL of the PhD today still can NOT agree on what makes the sun go tick tock talk
clearly the bigger question 'what is consciousness?' is going to take another few thousand years to suss out
I bet that there's someone out there who knows the answer to your question! And it's possible that the answer is so simple that no one will accept it no matter how hard that person tried!
You have to realise that while you might have a very solid explanation for something with concrete proof but if your findings are going to make someone else's life work amount to nothing! He's going to fight you like his life depended on it! And you won't be fighting like your life depended on it which is why he will win it regardless of whether it's he's right or wrong! It's sad that this takes place in Science, it has happened before and the person who tried commited suiside only to have someone many years later to discover his work and find that he was way ahead of his time! The equipment to provide proof just wasn't invented yet! There's a lot of bullying in Science! Just look at professor Dave explains, I don't think that there's a bigger bully than him! But I have been wrong before LoL.
You can call me irrational if you want but I don't really buy this argument. Think for a moment about our everyday experience on earth: Think how strong an ant is for it's size in comparison to an elephant. Think about how small waves move in a different way from big waves. Think about the structural integrity of a model plane compared to a jumbo jet. Everything we know behaves differently according to scale. A solar system clump of gas is certainly not the same thing as a minuscule amount of gas contained in a 1 liter bottle. Therefore it is not so big of a stretch of imagination that such gigantic amount of gas, given a little push from the outside will collapse on itself to reach a new equilibrium. In the end equations are just descriptions. But the question is: What is really going on?
I thought it was just the singularity
Hey P.M., your analysis speaks 'as if all other assumptions of standard physics hold true'. But I would bet a dollar you don't accept all of those assumptions either. Setting aside the EU model for a moment, what if I claimed that 'Entropy' does not hold true? What reaction PM ?
Dear prof. by all respect i think you are NOT right in rejecting Eddington assumption and defining to a selfgravitating gas mass the ideal gas pressure law IGL. Please let me explain short; lets assume we have a large sphere of radius R filled with a gas of certain low density for which IGL applies. We assume the molecules in this shere have the KE that can be seen as temperature T. You hope argree so far no contradictions. Now we take this gas filled sphere to outer space - far from any external gravity - and remove the boundary or the sphere. Will the T and P lose their neaning? I dont think so, because inside the sphere the selfgravity SG is canceled. (1)
Pressure will lose any meaning because without walls you cannot define pressure of a gas
Think logically for a second. There is no such thing as potential energy. The force of gravity is constant, even a ball that lies at rest on the ground in the deepest valley is constantly pressured against the ground by this force, it does not have a zero potential energy. A ball which is lifted into the air and suspended likewise constantly experiences this force that the lifting machinery must constantly resist. Like the lines on a graph, it is a convenient shorthand, but in reality, there are no lines, and there is no potential, there is only energy.
@@DrWhom Well said.
You misrepresent, and clearly do not understand, so many scientific concepts that this video is a treasure trove of false answers to even the most basic true/false questions one could come up with for general chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and mathematics.
You are not fooling anyone who has even a shred of critical thinking skill. There is a reason no real scientist actually believes what you're saying.