Earth just got 2,000 light-years closer to Milky Way's supermassive black hole

a reply to: djz3ro

Good point. When I was a teen, people in their mid 30's looked much older than people in their mid 30's today. I'm 41 and feel 25, have no wrinkles unless I squint my eyes, etc. Could be healthier eating, could be a faster earth making the years go by faster, but not our age... Who the hark knows.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

IMO gravity is not responsible for a pressure gradient despite wikipedia claiming it would collapse without it accelerating the particles. It doesnt make any sense to me. I'd go further there. IMO there's more that's being overlooked. High and low pressure cells are caused by electro-magnetic forces. Gravity is not a force, is it? If you see it as upward acceleration against the movin space field then it's again done against the surface and Robitaille is right again. I dont see a problem or a reason to be confused and stuck. Check the three vids and the paper he posted. The vids are going deeper and his papers deeper than vids. The Sun producing black body radiation, corona not being so hot and more. It's refreshing. The whole standard model is wrong because they didnt follow scientific procedure. IMO they would rather burn him alive than lose face and admit their life was a lie.

They say the Sun is an ideal gas without a surface made of condensed matter when it's clearly not the case. That's the point. Litlle cheating here and a false equation there and years later everyone is building on a wrong theory. The emperor has no clothes. He used his own mind instead and found better explanations like metallic hydrogen and easily explained the processes in the corona so that it makes sense for instance.
The other guy is just a youtuber. There's nothing in him to build on. A repeater pointing out stuff he found on wikipedia. Antifa

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Arbitrageur

IMO gravity is not responsible for a pressure gradient

Then what is? You don't get this pressure gradient from the Ideal Gas Law that Robitaille is using when he says "gravity is not part of kinetic theory".

Kinetic Molecular Theory

despite wikipedia claiming it would collapse without it accelerating the particles.

That's not what wikipedia says.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Well you didn't even understand that the article said, you would have to understand it before making a valid judgement on whether or not it made sense.

Gravity is not a force, is it? If you see it as upward acceleration against the movin space field then it's again done against the surface and Robitaille is right again.

Gravity is at least a pseudo force, so yes it affects air particles. I don't know what you mean by "upward acceleration", gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface is toward the center of the earth which we refer to as "down". You know, the leaning tower of Pisa story, where theoretically if you let go of some objects they accelerate down, they don't accelerate up.

They say the Sun is an ideal gas without a surface made of condensed matter when it's clearly not the case.

Who the hell is "they"? I never heard an astrophysicst say that. Professor Dave didn't even say that, in fact it was a bone of contention for him that Pierre referred to astrophysicists calling the sun a "gaseous plasma", he said they don't call it that either, it's just "plasma". This "gas" thing sounds like a "straw man" created by Pierre.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

that's exactly what it says

Because they have mass, gravity will accelerate molecules. (If this were not the case then there would be no density gradient in a planet's troposphere and it would collapse to the surface.)

en.wikipedia.org...

Acceleration does work upward. Against the so called spacetime. When you accelerate in a car FORWARD it's like having another G of gravity pulling you backward. You are the particle here.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Arbitrageur

that's exactly what it says

Because they have mass, gravity will accelerate molecules. (If this were not the case then there would be no density gradient in a planet's troposphere and it would collapse to the surface.)

That's not written very well. Wikipedia is a good starting point to look for sources, but then you have to follow the sources to read more reliable information. Sometimes what the wiki article says is not what the source says. The first part of that is saying more or less the same thing as what I posted in an earlier message that "Random thermal motion tends to move gas molecules in all directions equally. In the presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are slightly favored."

I don't know what source wikipedia used for the latter part because I don't see a citation, but I'll bet it would explain it better than that.

In any case that shows Pierre is wrong about gravity not being considered, since you cited the passage mentioning gravity. Just focus on the first part if the second part confuses you.

Acceleration does work upward. Against the so called spacetime. When you accelerate in a car FORWARD it's like having another G of gravity pulling you backward. You are the particle here.

We are talking about gravity acting on air molecules and as stated above "In the presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are slightly favored." Downward motions are favored, because gravitational acceleration is downward, not upward. You could say a rocket accelerated upward, but we are not talking about rockets, or cars. I think you are getting confused between inertia and acceleration. When the car accelerates forward, what pushes you back into the seat is inertia. If you were at rest, you have a tendency to remain at rest, that's Newton's first law.

Now, if you change reference frames you can look at it differently from a different reference frame, but for the pressure gradient of Earth's atmosphere we would normally use an observer stationary relative to the Earth as an observer. In such a reference frame gravity makes things accelerate down. I don't know what other reference frame you would use for the analysis of the pressure gradient in Earth's atmosphere.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's the point. The reference frame is the ground, which is Robitaille's point from the beginning - pressure is generated on the surface.
The molecules dont start falling to the ground. Not even a speck of dust or an insect "accelerates" to some game changing free-fall speed causing pressure and rise of the temperature. Average speed of nitrogen atom in air (at 20°C) has a speed of 500 meters/second. Hydrogen is much faster. They move in straight lines. It's caused by temperature not gravity. Temperature and pressure falls down fast with altitude.
Is gravity responsible for stopping the gases from following entropy and escaping the Earth by curving their path, or it's rather Earth's magnetic field? IMO the effect of magnetic field is much stronger compared to gravity on the scale of an atom. Even the article says it's negligible.
I dont think Robitaille is denying gravity anyway. The other guy tries to shift focus from what's not negligible. The gravitational collapse of gas still defies laws of thermodynamics
Thermodynamics and the Virial Theorem, Gravitational Collapse

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I dont think Robitaille is denying gravity anyway.

Not the same way flat earhers do exactly, but he's denying the effects of gravity on gases in large gravitational systems. That's one problem of many.

Thermodynamics and the Virial Theorem, Gravitational Collapse

His conclusion says: "It is well-established in the laboratory that gases expand to fill the void."

Everybody apparently agrees with that even Robitaille. So far so good. Let's consider an experiment that could be performed in an airlock on the space station. The astronaut puts on his space suit, and goes into the airlock. The airlock has a hatch leading to the space station interior, and a hatch leading to space. He's in the air lock with both hatches closed, and the airlock is full of air.

Normally I think they would use pumps to pump the air from the airlock into storage or the space station because air is a limited, precious resource, but let's say they have a surplus of air for this experiment, and the astronaut opens the air lock leading to space without doing that.

What happens to all the air inside the air lock? Pretty much what Robitaille says in the part of his paper that everyone agrees with: "It is well-established in the laboratory that gases expand to fill the void." The gases will expand to attempt to fill the void but of course it's a big void so essentially the pressure would drop to whatever tiny value exists at the altitude of the ISS.

Why doesn't the gravity of the ISS hold the air in? Because the ISS doesn't have much mass, so the gravitational attraction of the ISS is negligible.

Not that far below the ISS is the Earth. Why doesn't the Earth's atmosphere get sucked out into space the same way the air got sucked out into space from the aforementioned air lock experiment? If you follow Robitaille's logic in that paper you cited, it would. He is saying gravitational effects should not be considered, and that's one of the many reasons he's a nut. Gravitational effects are what's preventing the Earth's atmosphere from getting sucked out into space. So the continuation of Robitaille's gravity effects denial is really crackpottery that anybody who realizes the atmosphere hasn't got sucked out into space should be able to appreciate:

When dealing with an ideal gas without net translation, all of the energy should be considered as kinetic energy, exclusively. It is not appropriate to add a potential energy term, if the total energy has already been defined as kinetic energy, thereby establishing temperature.

At the same time, the question remains: How do stars form? They do not arise from gravitational collapse.

This is in effect a denial of the effects of gravity. He's not denying gravity exists altogether like flat earthers do but he's denying that gravity affects gases which isn't much better than the flat earthers, gravity does affect gases.

If gravity didn't affect gases, Earth's atmosphere would meet the same fate as the air in that ISS airlock experiment.

When he says "How do stars form? They do not arise from gravitational collapse.", he doesn't seem to realize this process has been observed, he just seems very ignorant of astrophysics. He is after all, not an astrophysicist.

Star Formation

Intergalactic space is filled with clouds of gas (mostly H + He) and dust known as molecular clouds.

These clouds are supported against gravitational collapse by their thermal pressure, but if the clouds get too big massive, gravity wins and they can start to collapse. This is the first step towards star formation.

Once started, how does the collapse form a star and the disk of material surrounding it?...

As a ball of gas collapses, its gravitational potential energy changes. Half of this change is radiated away, the other half heats up the collapsing cloud.

So the very central portions of the cloud are getting denser and hotter. Eventually the density and temperature will become high enough that nuclear reactions will begin to take place. A star is born!

The high central density and temperature also create sufficient pressure (via the ideal gas law) inside the star to halt gravitational collapse. The young star is now in hydrostatic equilibrium.

Q: Nice theory. Does it have anything to do with reality?

Yes! We see these stars and young disks in nearby star forming regions:

The link shows some examples of star formation observed by astronomers, which Robitaille seems to be totally ignorant of when he says what astronomers are seeing (gravitational collapse forming stars) is not happening.

My avatar on ATS (for the last decade) shows part of the Eagle nebula, where we can see stars being formed also.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Observation of molecular clouds is a proof of existence of molecular clouds not a proof of theory of their gravitational collapse forming a star like so and so. Even if they see it happening tomorrow do not call me saying "Look, it's because of gravity". 🙂

He's destroyed every other claim in their theory. That's science in work. Their gas model, no condensed matter, no electromagnetism involved is not even clever.

You seem to like thinking and engaging in wild theories more or less in conflict with established science so here's an interesting vid about gravity just for you.
I enjoyed it. Btw Sky Scholar has a dude disproving spacetime from the view of geometry.
This one explains a lot in terms of observation of the atomic clock.

What I find interesting here is that the whole idea of dark matter can be questioned from this.

This is a form of matter which apparently makes up 80% of the universe, but is completely undetectable. We only know about it because the speed of rotation of the stars about the centre of each galaxy does not fit with the equations of gravity and the amount of mass we calculate in our galaxy, or any other.

Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.[1]

Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

By just announcing that

the center of our galaxy, is actually 25,800 light-years from Earth -- almost 2,000 light-years closer than what we previously believed.

In addition, the new model calculates Earth is moving faster than we believed. Older models clocked Earth's speed at 220 kilometers (136 miles) per second, orbiting around the galaxy's centre. VERA's new model has us moving at 227 kilometers (141 miles) per second.

You have to adjust the equations of circular motion: a = v^2/r

Change in r
2000/27,800 = -0.072r

change in v =
7/227 = -0.03v

Conveniently this only gives a 1.012 change in centripetal acceleration. Which could be a rounding error from the article.

Even so if we couldn't even measure our own distance from the centre accurately. We would also need to measure every other stars radial distance and recalculate the pull of gravity from every star to every other star again, before concluding how much dark matter exists. (Or doesn't exist).

This is much more complicated than the simple circular motion equation I used above, and I'm certainly not going to attempt it for an ATS post. But I've always disliked dark matter as it seems a lot like the "ether" in pre relativity days. Something that we assume exists to make our calculations work, but we can't find any physical experiment to actually detect it.