What is the genesis of a Quasar?

[Van Rijn]

Science does seem to believe in a magical gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter into star ignition. And then, magically, there is a balance between the collapse and thermal pressure.

What do you mean by “magically”? After all, these are massively researched subjects with detailed models developed and tested, the sort of thing we would expect from someone proposing a new hypothesis, like you, but it sounds like you are just dismissing it all as “magic.”

For instance, unlike cold dark matter, we know that baryonic matter easily interacts with itself. There are studies of what can initiate a collapse. A large cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium can collapse because it can lose energy from that interaction (collisions, friction) and self gravity will draw it together. If the right amount (learned through observation and theoretical studies) draws together then it will form a protostar that will slowly shrink until the core gets hot enough for hydrogen fusion to start. It then can achieve balance until the hydrogen in the core runs out. If too much mass collapses in a small enough volume, it will go straight to a black hole.

This has all been studied and modeled. There are detailed star models on which many predictions can be made, and have been. Similarly, there are planet formation models. We can discuss how much mass in what volume makes an object go straight to a black hole, when there is not enough mass to form a star, when and why a white dwarf, neutron star or black dwarf will form. Why we discuss electron degeneracy and neutron degeneracy.

In short, there is a great deal of well developed science behind all of this. It isn’t what I would call “magic.”

The only thing in the natural world that can cause a gravitational collapse is a vortex.

Why? A vortex can certainly form as part of a gravitational collapse, but I see no reason why there must be a vortex or that one is necessary to cause a gravitational collapse.

It's not magic, it's a simple gravity machine.

Well, I would say something isn’t magic if it has been scientifically researched and fits observation. The interaction of gravity and other forces on matter and how it applies to examples of gravitational collapse has been extensively studied. Cold dark matter, incidentally, does not collapse like baryonic matter, because it doesn’t interact in the same way.

To achieve star ignition there has to be more than simple gravity.

Well, yes. Fusible matter must reach conditions that allows fusion to begin. In main sequence stars that is typically when the mostly hydrogen core reaches a sufficient temperature and density for fusion to begin. Gravity is vital to the process, but it isn’t just about gravity.

Incidentally, why are you discussing star formation here? I thought the topic was about quasars, which in mainstream science are understood to be supermassive black holes, not stars or even stellar mass black holes.

It is not magic that creates dynamic equilibrium, it must be some yet to be discovered force of nature.

I agree it isn’t magic, but it is due to forces discovered long ago. Look up “Eddington luminosity”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity

The Eddington luminosity, also referred to as the Eddington limit, is the maximum luminosity a body (such as a star) can achieve when there is balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward. The state of balance is called hydrostatic equilibrium. When a star exceeds the Eddington luminosity, it will initiate a very intense radiation-driven stellar wind from its outer layers. Since most massive stars have luminosities far below the Eddington luminosity, their winds are mostly driven by the less intense line absorption.[1] The Eddington limit is invoked to explain the observed luminosity of accreting black holes such as quasars.

Sorry, but my impression is that you are far too unfamiliar with the existing science to be able to make a good, new hypothesis. I’d suggest a great deal of study is in order, both to understand the current state of the science and to better understand what would be needed to develop a good hypothesis.

[Geo Kaplan]

Science does seem to believe in a magical gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter into star ignition...[rest of nonsense excised]

So, when asked to present the geometrical argument you claimed to have, you instead continue to post more ill-informed nonsense. You've confirmed that you have nothing beyond a set of beliefs based only on a vast ignorance of actual science. Invisible pink unicorns do just as well as your incoherent ideas, but take less space. I prefer IPUs.

I'm out.

[Reality Check]

Science does seem to believe in a magical gravitational collapse...

Irrelevant "magical" stuff. Gravitational collapse is easily understood textbook physics.
We detect clouds of gas in the universe. Gas is made of atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules have mass. Mass causes gravity. There will be gravitational attraction between these atoms and molecules. If nothing else intervenes, a cloud of gas will gravitationally collapse.
We detect that these gas clouds have temperatures so they have thermal pressure (PV=nRT). That is what intervenes to keep some gas clouds stable. When the gas clouds do collapse (the condition for this are in textbooks and Wikipedia) the working laws of physics and observations of the universe says they must get denser and heat up. Dense and hot enough and we get stars with fusion.

Deep ignorance about vortexes, gravity and fusion. Vortexes tend to tear things apart like in a tornado. Gravity always pulls gas atoms and molecules together against any thermal pressure. Fusion will always happen at some point a gas is compressed and heated. That is how tokamak nuclear fusion reactors work. The ignition of stars is gravity doing the confinement that tokamaks use magnetic fields for.

It is well understood and tested physics that creates "dynamic equilibrium" in stars. We have been studying gases and gravity for centuries. Gravity is trying to crush the stars. The thermal pressure of their plasma is trying to expand them. Stable stars must have these forces balancing. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium.

[Noclevername]

It is well understood and tested physics that creates "dynamic equilibrium" in stars. We have been studying gases and gravity for centuries. Gravity is trying to crush the stars. The thermal pressure of their plasma is trying to expand them. Stable stars must have these forces balancing. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium.

Yes. It's fluid finding its level, flowing downhill by ...gravity. And heat expands fluids. Neither principle is in question, both are self balancing. You might as well ask how liquid water miraculously remains in the glass.

This is basic stuff here, graybear13.

[Noclevername]

In cases where the weight/heat do not "balance out", you get a brown dwarf on the low end, and a hypernova leading to black hole formation on the high end. So balanced stars are essentially the result of a selection process.

[tusenfem]

Time's up, thread closed