the greatest story ever told!

Examining the Solar Model: Physics or Metaphysics

You will recall the string of discoveries that were worked out by different scientists from Boyle, to Charles, to Avogadro, to Gay-Lussac, to Clapeyron, to Kronig, and the great mind of Rudolf Clausius. In this way, the gas law is unlike some, of the other major discoveries in the history of science, where the largest step forward was accomplished by one person. No, the Ideal Gas Law is a mish mash of many independent discoveries all accumulating into one overall law. This all led to the Ideal Gas Law as written in equation form below for your convenience:

pV = nRT

Where p, V and T are pressure, volume and temperature; n represents the amount of gas in question; and R is the "ideal gas constant."

The reason we learned about the Ideal Gas Law and its historical development earlier, was for the purpose of having the knowledge base to be able to examine the claims of Big Bang cosmology against the experimentally well established laws of Physics! In this section we take a look at how the Standard Solar Model stacks up against the Ideal Gas Law. The Standard Solar Model's theory about how the gas from the hot Big Bang turned into first generation stars and such stars turned into everything else we see is called "Gravitational Collapse." In the following quote, Robitaille defines both the Ideal Gas Law and Gravitational Collapse and briefly compares them:

The reasoning is simple and the logic clear, since it is based on what we know about how gases behave. Among all three states of matter, gases have the least attraction and the highest energy. This high energy and low attraction between atoms results in outward expansion to fill the void. That is the experimental evidence. Yet, once again, Big Bang theory flies in the face of all evidence to claim the opposite occurs. It claims gases in open space collapse instead of expand! But if that were true then the ideal gas law would be wrong. Let us see how by testing the Big Bang and it's gravitational collapse against the laws we already "know!" "Gravitational Collapse" deals with two concepts: gravity, and the collapse of a gas cloud. We will deal with both, starting with the collapse of an isolated gas cloud in Space.

Gravitational Collapse is the Height of Metaphysics

Does it Pass the IDEAL GAS LAW Test? The Pressure/Volume Relationship

Part of the Ideal Gas Law is the work by Robert Boyle that established the empirical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas. Boyle's law is stated as:

In formula form it is: P & 1/v That is, pressure is inversely proportional to volume.

Inversely proportional, just means when one goes up the other goes down. You can work that out for yourself from the Ideal Gas Law formula, again that is:

pV = nRT

Now we ask: what does the fact that pressure and volume are beside each other on the left side of the equation mean? It means pressure multiplied by volume equals whatever is on the right. Thus, if we were to isolate either of those variables, we would have to divide both sides by the second variable. For instance, if we wanted to isolate pressure p we would divide both sides by the volume V. That would equal:

p = nRT/V

Immediately, we see that volume is now in the denominator, just like in the relationship established by Boyle's Law. So that is simple. But, what does it mean regarding the Big Bang Theory's claims about star formation? How would you apply pressure? For instance, please use you right hand to apply pressure on the palm of left hand. Let's try another example: use your weight to apply some pressure to the closest solid table around you. Finally, let us try a third example: please go outside and apply pressure to the wind. In which of three examples where you successful? The answer is the first two. Why couldn't you apply pressure to the wind outside? Because the wind had an escape route. You were successful in applying pressure to the closest table because you were pressing it against the ground. Even when you applied pressure to your left, you had to unconsciously stiffen your left arm, so that your left hand wouldn't move to the left as you applied pressure to it with your right hand. That stiffening of your left arm was unconscious, because you understand intuitively what is required in the process of increasing or applying pressure - two surfaces pressing against each other. Outside with the wind, you only had one of those variables: you had the contact, but no opposing surface pressure. In other words if you tried to apply pressure to the wind with your palm, the wind didn't push back! Hence, your hand was in contact with the wind, but there was no increase in pressure.

Having understood that, we now think about the scenario in the Big Bang. There is an isolated nebulae, or gas cloud in Space. This cloud is then said to shrink in volume, which according to our empirically established Boyle's Law tells us the pressure must increase. But what surface were the gas particles - the atoms - pressing against for the pressure to increase. See the problem? The clever part of false Science - which we call Scientism - is the fact that it used statistical models to divorce itself from reality. The whole point of statistical models is that while some things are statistically improbable - everything is statistically possible. This allows for true physics to be corrupted by metaphysics - since nothing, no matter how improbable is impossible in such a world! Thus statistical models are the power behind the statisticians who wield them to fool people who are deathly scared of mathematics and thus never question the validity of the models. I am not an Intellectual, and I hate everything they stand for, but you have to admit that is clever! To use mathematics as your security guard against anyone breaking in to your house of lies. I remind you of the Dunnigan's accurate quote:

Magicians used pretty assistants to distract everyone from the workings of their tricks. Big Bang Theorists use your fear of mathematics to focus your attention away from their "foregone conclusions" - we don't believe in fiat, there must be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation - that in turn give rise to extrapolations of "unwarranted assumptions" - everything came from a hot Big Bang. But we now understand that why cosmology must be a branch of metaphysics: because that is the only way for it to make wild non-experience based claims about the nature of reality! Remember the definition of metaphysics is:

And "a priori" means:

So cosmology is the art, not science, but the art of speculating "without appeal to particular experience" about questions which you aim to be "unanswerable to scientific observations, analysis, or experiment." As the magician keeping up this act, your only job is to keep people's attention focused on the mathematics, and away from reason and logic. So, what the answer for normal people wanting to know the truth? If the magic is done with smokes and mirrors, clear the room of the smoke and break all the mirrors, and you'll left looking at a sad small man who was claiming to be the Wizard of Oz! Scientifically speaking, that means we must "appeal to experience" and use "scientific observation, analysis, or experiment" to answer our questions! IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

Back to our scenario. What was your experience with our three tests of applying pressure? You cannot apply pressure without a boundary surface. Have you ever hear the expression: "between a rock and a hard place?" That's the definition of pressure. It's telling you that person has no way out - hence the pressure. Pressure requires a container. No container. No pressure! Now in the Big Bang, this collapsing cloud of gas was doing so while the volume of Space was expanding. Remember? It was the expanding Space that was responsible for the gas cooling. Now kinetic energy via heat is the fuel of gas atoms, but does their cooling, i.e., loss of heat, mean they stop flying apart outwards and start collapsing in on themselves? No. When your car runs out of petrol does it start driving in reverse? As it relates to all baryonic matter, we remember Lord Kelvin's third law of thermodynamics about absolute zero - no baryonic entity can ever reach absolute zero, or zero energy. So for gas atoms, it doesn't meaning stopping all together, it just means they will fly apart at a slower rate than before. For the volume of gas to collapse in on itself, that is, decrease, there would have to be a simultaneous increase in pressure, according to the Ideal Gas Law. But the Big Bang does not have a pressure mechanism - a container within which the air is pressurized. When you blow up a balloon and then tie it closed, it has a certain pressure due to the gas particles hitting against the inner surface of the balloon. What do you think would happen if you were to take away the balloon, would those air molecules stay in the balloon shape? Would they collapse into a smaller balloon shape? Or would they expand to fill the new space? We all now know, that the third option is the answer according to the Ideal Gas Law as illustrated by Robitaille at the beginning of this section. Would that answer change with the passage of time? No, it would still be the same answer if you observed the air molecules for 100 years, 100 million years or 100 billion years.

THE BIG BANG'S METAPHYSICAL THEORY OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE HAS NO PRESSURE MECHANISM TO CONTAIN THE GAS PARTICLES - A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ATTENDANT INCREASE IN PRESSURE WHICH WOULD ACCOMPANY A DECREASE IN THE VOLUME OF A COLLAPSING GAS CLOUD

THE LAWS OF NATURE DO NOT CHANGE OVER TIME. SINCE THE PASSAGE OF TIME DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF NATURE - THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR - NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED

Does it Pass the IDEAL GAS LAW Test? What is Needed for Gravity?

Do you know why the gaseous state is the one where free floating atoms move apart from each other, to equally fill the container they are in? Because gases are the phase of matter where the atoms are in the least attracting to other atoms and they have the highest energy - due to being in the heated gaseous state. Therefore, since they have broken the degrees of freedom of the solid and liquid states, are now invested with a lot of heat energy in the form of kinetic motion, they move fast and seek to spread out as much as possible.

What we now want to know is: "how does gravity affect such a solitary gas system?" is gravity a bigger force in how gas particles behave than their kinetic energy and relative lack of degrees of freedom? Let's consider Newton's definition of gravity to refresh our minds:

Some examples will clarify the fancy wording. Two objects 5 meters apart, have a certain force of gravity between them. How much will it be reduced by if you move them to being 10 meters apart? Since 10 meters is twice the original distance, we will take 2 and square it, giving us 4. But the relationship says it is the inverse of the square of the distance which means we must say the new force of gravity between the objects is 1 over 4, or a quarter of what it was originally. In formula form it looks like:

Fg = 1/d2 Where Fg is the force of gravity, and d is the distance between the centers of the objects. Plugging in our numbers we get,

Fg = 1/22 = 1/4

Now, we want to see if this formula applies between the individual atoms of a gas. Because that is what the Big Bang theory says causes the gas to collapse in on itself - gravity. Hence, the names "gravitational collapse." The first thing to note is the relative strength of gravity to the other fundamental forces of nature. Wikipedia has a chart comparing gravity to the weak and nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force, that you will find at this link*. In it, gravity and electromagnetism, i.e, light are listed as having infinite range, whereas the other two forces have a very limited range. But, that's not the interesting part. That has to do with the relative strengths. Gravity is 1036 weaker than the electromagnetic force. It is 1025 times weaker than the weak nuclear force; and 1038 times weaker than the strong nuclear force. Gravity is not 38 times weaker than the strong force, it is 1 followed by 38 zeros times, weaker than the strong force - or put another way, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times weaker! As Wikipedia says,

But weak as that is, that's only the first part of why heated gas particles don't gravitate towards each other. Gravity is a force between two bodies or systems, not between the atoms within a system. Robitaille explains:

The equation Robitaille has just described looks like this:

Ut = K.E. + P.E. Where Ut is the total energy of the system; K.E. is the kinetic energy, the energy of the particles in motion; and P.E is the potential energy of the gas.

His point is that gases do not have internal potential gravitational energy, since they are made up of individual microscopic particles on the quantum atomic scale. The force of gravity only starts to dominate on classical macroscopic scales that are larger than the atomic one. Think of an a single ice cube. When you heat it up you will soon get an equivalent amount of water, perhaps in a small cup. What happens if you heat it up until you get vapourized water molecules? Will the single entity that was the ice cube now have turned into million of different items, simply because it's in gaseous form? No, the gas particles would still constitute one system. Which brings us to a defining feature of universal potential gravitation - it require two or more objects to work! Take another lesson from the Flipping Physics YouTube channel,

You can tell as much from looking at the formula:

Ug = Gm1m2 /r2 Where m1 is the mass of the first object; and m2 is the mass of the second object! We do not need to concern ourselves with the rest of the details. Only with the fact that two masses are needed to calculate the total gravitational potential energy. The gas cloud is a system that constitutes one object, but in the Big Bang scenarios that are isolate in outer Space with no other forces acting upon them, hence there is no second object in for them to gravitate to. Further if there was, it would have to be at the center of the gas cloud for the gas particles to gravitate inward toward it. In which case whatever formed would not be solely made of a gas, as the collapsed cloud would have a second object at its center. Countering the narrative that body of stars are made from compressed gas. Thus the Big Bang's Solar Model lacks the required second object needed for a gas cloud system to gain potential gravitational energy.

THE SECOND PILLAR OF THE THEORY OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE - THAT ISOLATED GAS SYSTEMS HAVE POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY IS ALSO FALSE. AN ISOLATED GAS CLOUD IS DEFINED AS A SINGLE SYSTEM. "A SINGLE OBJECT BY ITSELF CANNOT HAVE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY!"

GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE CONTRADICTS THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS. IT IS A METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION THAT IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE BY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS & EXPERIMENT

THE BIG BANG'S METAPHYSICAL THEORY OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE HAS NO PRESSURE MECHANISM TO CONTAIN THE GAS PARTICLES - A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ATTENDANT INCREASE IN PRESSURE WHICH WOULD ACCOMPANY A DECREASE IN THE VOLUME OF A COLLAPSING GAS CLOUD

THE LAWS OF NATURE DO NOT CHANGE OVER TIME. SINCE THE PASSAGE OF TIME DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF NATURE - THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR - NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED

THE SECOND PILLAR OF THE THEORY OF GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE - THAT ISOLATED GAS SYSTEMS HAVE POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY IS ALSO FALSE. AN ISOLATED GAS CLOUD IS DEFINED AS A SINGLE SYSTEM. "A SINGLE OBJECT BY ITSELF CANNOT HAVE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY!"

GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE CONTRADICTS THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS. IT IS A METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION THAT IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE BY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION, ANALYSIS & EXPERIMENT