PDA

View Full Version : Infall towards protostars



rwatts
02-17-2014, 12:03 PM
Or "How natural processes make stars from stuff (which is not the same as stars coming from nothing)"




Gidday folk,


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

In a broad scope, a theory has been around for over a hundred years, namely that stars are born via a process of gravitational collapse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability) And for a long time there has been some evidence to support the idea.

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

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

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

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

Waterfalls around protostars: Infall motions towards Class 0/I envelopes as probed by water (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5119v3.pdf)

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

Some points are:-

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Warning

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

Outis
02-17-2014, 03:17 PM
Or "How natural processes make stars from stuff (which is not the same as stars coming from nothing)"

Interesting. Yes, quite a slog, but observations on the process (especially the bit about inflow exceeding outflow by a magnitude of three) makes a considerable amount of sense.

Jorge
02-20-2014, 03:29 AM
Warning

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

Wonder who that may be? :huh:

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

Jorge

oxmixmudd
02-20-2014, 05:45 AM
Wonder who that may be? :huh:

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

Jorge

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jim

Jorge
02-20-2014, 07:05 AM
Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'

Ah ... one of the most active individuals guilty of continuously misrepresenting my position makes a cameo appearance. Tell me, Jim, do you know the difference between actually "observing" something and "extrapolating an observation"?

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


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

Do you even listen to yourself? "On the verge of fusion" ... and you know that, HOW??? Once again, you are merely e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-i-n-g what you observe via a model and worldview that you have assumed.



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


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

You are mixing the issues involving planets with that of stars.
These aren't the same issues nor do I regard them as such.


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

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


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

Jim

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

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

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

Jorge

oxmixmudd
02-20-2014, 08:37 AM
Ah ... one of the most active individuals guilty of continuously misrepresenting my position makes a cameo appearance. Tell me, Jim, do you know the difference between actually "observing" something and "extrapolating an observation"?

Prove I have ever 'misrepresented' your position. Case in point. You say below you don't think stars can form naturally. I think that is stupid. We can observed it happening. We can't observe a redwood grow from seeding to 300ft tall giant either, but no one in his right mind doubts they did, or that they do.



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

To bad you can't read. I said that in my post. The point is, we CAN observe in the local cosmos all the extant phases of star formation, from collapsing cloud to mature star. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest.




Do you even listen to yourself? "On the verge of fusion" ... and you know that, HOW??? Once again, you are merely e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-i-n-g what you observe via a model and worldview that you have assumed.

By observing the spectra and other characteristics of the protostar. Fusion ignition occurs at certain temperatures and pressures. If we observe a hot ball of gas where those temperatures and pressures don't yet exist in its core, then we can know it's not there yet - up to a point of course. The problem for you is that you set absurd standards of proof and then hide behind them because your world view collapses if the universe is really billions of years old.




DITTO



You are mixing the issues involving planets with that of stars.
These aren't the same issues nor do I regard them as such.

Planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars form from. It's all a singular process Jorge. We observe that process at all possible stages across the sky. In fact, we can see most stages in a single place - the Orion Nebula, 1500 light years hence.




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



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

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

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

Jorge

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




Jim

rwatts
02-20-2014, 12:24 PM
... it's all handwaving and just-so stories ...Let me get this straight:-

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

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

?



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

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

So just how much do you actually believe the Bible Jorge?

robrecht
02-20-2014, 12:44 PM
When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.

Outis
02-20-2014, 01:05 PM
When did extrapolation become a bad thing?

When it provides evidentiary support for a view that Mr. Fernandez rejects ab initio.

rwatts
02-20-2014, 01:24 PM
When did extrapolation become a bad thing? It is not in and of itself 'fact' but it is based on facts.Well yes.

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

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

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


(I know it's a bit more complex that this. But this is the gist of it, IMHO).

Roy
02-20-2014, 02:55 PM
Observing large gas clouds in the process of collapse is not a 'just so story'

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

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

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

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

Roy

Jorge
02-21-2014, 07:42 AM
Prove I have ever 'misrepresented' your position. Case in point. You say below you don't think stars can form naturally. I think that is stupid. We can observed it happening. We can't observe a redwood grow from seeding to 300ft tall giant either, but no one in his right mind doubts they did, or that they do.

Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.

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



To bad you can't read. I said that in my post. The point is, we CAN observe in the local cosmos all the extant phases of star formation, from collapsing cloud to mature star. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest.

Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.




By observing the spectra and other characteristics of the protostar. Fusion ignition occurs at certain temperatures and pressures. If we observe a hot ball of gas where those temperatures and pressures don't yet exist in its core, then we can know it's not there yet - up to a point of course. The problem for you is that you set absurd standards of proof and then hide behind them because your world view collapses if the universe is really billions of years old.

Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted. I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.




Planets form out of the same gas clouds that stars form from. It's all a singular process Jorge. We observe that process at all possible stages across the sky. In fact, we can see most stages in a single place - the Orion Nebula, 1500 light years hence.

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

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





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

Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-21-2014, 01:16 PM
All you're doing here is parroting the Materialistic Mantra. Try studying the subject WITHOUT those heavily-shaded Spectacles of Materialism and maybe you'll finally start to see.

Jorge

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

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

rwatts
02-21-2014, 01:21 PM
Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

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

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

Roy
02-21-2014, 03:01 PM
But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

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

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

Roy

Jorge
02-22-2014, 04:50 AM
I know you've been asked this a dozen times before but how do you do science without relying on materialism?

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

I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.

If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

Jorge

Jorge
02-22-2014, 04:51 AM
But you cannot address Jim's point here, right Jorge? You can see that it undercuts your argument about not being able to see stars form, and so you offer a wee rant before you run off as opposed to addressing the actual point Jim makes.

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

Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
02-22-2014, 05:59 AM
I do not suffer from a lack of courage, Mr. Beagle.

The empirical evidence says otherwise. :shrug:


If I thought, or even just imagined, that you knew what you were talking about, I might be more inclined to discuss the matter with you. But the sad fact is that you have already more-than-amply demonstrated that you are so deeply immersed into your Materialistic worldview as to be blinded from all else including logic and reason. The very question (with the tone) that you ask --- " how do you do science without relying on materialism? " (bold not mine) --- is indicative of both your ignorance and your fanaticism. So, no thanks, not today.

Jorge

OK, we'll mark down yet another day when you couldn't muster up the courage to back up your claim. :no:

One thing I will say though - when it comes to fleeing questions you are consistent.

rwatts
02-22-2014, 12:00 PM
Apply my last post to yourself. Thanks JorgeYour reply to me is not the same thing as you addressing Jim's point, Jorge. That you are unable to understand simple points like this, is always mind blowing.

So when did you or anyone actually observe a giant redwood tree grow from seed to maturity?

oxmixmudd
02-25-2014, 12:04 PM
Yeah, right ... you want me to "prove" that you have misrepresented me NUMEROUS times when you know darn well that said proof went POOF with the old TWeb. Very clever and less-than-honest, O-Mudd.

Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?



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

We do observe it happening, in the very same way we observe Giant Redwoods growing. We observe multiple instances of the same process at different stages of developments. If I can look at gas cloud A and B, and the only difference is that A is a little denser and a little hotter than B, and so on for 100 different stages of stellar evolution, all in accord with the laws of physics , it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are watching the stepwise development of a star in much the same way we derive the life cycle of a tree that lives 4000+ years by observing different trees in the same forest at differing stages of development.

As I said, you are demanding (for stars, but not for trees) that we be able to observe the entire process in a single instance before you will admit it is possible as a natural event. And that is an absurd standard which you apply much like a game of "Calvin ball".





Sorry but you are wrong and I proved my case on this many times but you just REFUSE TO ACCEPT anything that goes against your chosen ideology. I cannot help you with that, O-Mudd - you and only you must decide on being intellectually honest.

Claiming to have proven something is easy. Actually doing it is hard. Oh but wait - could I not accuse you of 'conveniently' relying on the disappearance of TWEB if I so desired? :lol:





Don't try to move the goalposts on me - it won't work. You claim that we can observe stars forming - that is where the goalpost is deeply planted.

Oh Brother. What I said above. I'm not moving the goal posts. I just don't use the Jorge Dictionary of Random Yet Personally Convenient Meanings. (i.e. Calvin Ball).


I say NO WE DO NOT and CANNOT. For starters, as per your own theories, the time frames involved are far too long to actually observe this process. Next, much of the physics that you and I would agree on also flies against natural star formation. We've been through all this before but, again, you REFUSE TO ACCEPT due to ideology, not science.

The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.






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

Planets differentiate for obvious reasons Jorge. The rocky planets are closer in because it's hotter closer in and things like methane ices and so forth can't survive there. The vapor pressures of the gases are higher and the individual nucleation bodies are smaller because most of the material is falling into the star. The gas giants form farther out and then in many cases may migrate in. But again, we can see the process in action. And the more we learn about the systems (as we observe them, again, in various stages of formation) the more we will learn about how they form. And indeed, how common or rare our particular system is. We have found over 1000 systems out there Jorge, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. We can SEE in the Orion Nebula star after star forming, and almost all of them have dust disks around them with more than sufficient material to build a solar system. Planets and Stars forming naturally right before our eyes ... for those that can stomach it any way.



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

Nice straw man, O-Mudd. If you can't beat them fairly then you resort to ridicule, nonsense, misdirection and misrepresentation. Yup ... same ol' O-Mudd!

Jorge

Yada Yada. If you can't deal with the ideas or the arguments, try to discredit the person. Right Jorge?


Jim

Roy
02-25-2014, 03:37 PM
The physics shows that that a collapsing cloud of Gas and dust will get Hotter and Hotter, and that if the gas cloud is of sufficient size, thermonuclear fusion will be the eventual result. You dance around saying no-one has fully solved the problem of how to initiate collapse and claim that means this is not science. Bull. We can observe clouds in a state of collapse (the OP), so clearly it can and does happen naturally. Get over it. All your random belly aching means not a thing, except that you can join the ranks of those whose calculations showed man could never fly, or break the sound barrier, and on and on and on.:no: :no: :no:

Jorge could never aspire to such heights. He doesn't do calculations.

Roy