Star clusters and binary stars spin around and the stars get farther and farther every year. Too close and too fast to be billions and millions? I'd think so.

Then I guess these star clusters must not be very old. Stars are born every minute. I don't understand the problem here. Star formation is an ongoing process that hasn't stopped since the big bang.

Stars are not born every minute. No one's proven that. And if the big bang was true we should not have binary stars and star clusters at all.

OK, maybe not every minute, but it is still quite common. Given that we can only see a small area of the universe, and in that small area we see star formation, it is pure hubris to think that star formation is not common.



How so? It would seem to me that, due to gravity, gasses would tend to congregate which would produce fusion and spin.

1. Stars are not born at all. Even if a star was born from the death of another star it wouldnever happen at equal value of the previous star. Just because you see a new light it does not mean a new star. Could be stars merging or aligning, a supernova, dust clearing to reveal stars, ect.

2. The big bang theory would have a bunch of matter blasted out all over frictionless space, never giving time to stop. Since everything would be heated and microscopic there would be no gravitational pull seeing as heated gases expand and since there would be no friction no stars, planets or galaies would form. Much less binary stars which can spin either way, contradicting a one-spin universe/big bang. So in essence how would anything form at all? Much less start spining around each othjer for no reason.

Or it could be the formation of a new star. Why are you throwing out that explanation?



First of all, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it is an expansion of space that is still ongoing.

Secondly, as those gasses cool they do congregate through gravity. Stars, galaxies, and nebulae did not form right after the Big Bang, and as I said earlier, they are still forming. As those gasses and materials congregate a difference of mass creates uneven distribution. This causes angular momentum, otherwise known as spin. Each star that forms does so independently of other stars so there is no requirement for all stars, all galaxies, or even all planets to spin in the same direction. This is a fallacy that h*vind has been spreading for years and it is no truer today than the first day he said it. In fact, you can watch the formation of a spinning gasses by studying meteorology. It happens with clouds all of the time.

1. We have never observed stars forming. I think they don't and there's some alternatvies to unexplained lights.

2. If it was just an expansion then why did they cool down? I thought it wasn't an explosion.

What are you talking about? iI fact, almost all you're comments seem to show a distinct lack of undetanding of the subject.

Binary stars would not fling apart. Their gravitaional pull matches the centripedal force at a particular point, like a person swinging a tyre on a rope, with the tyre representing gravity. They rotate around a 'centre of gravity'.

And how does the ebig bang prevent binary stars and star clusters from existing? If this were so why would so many intellectual people know otherwise?



Yes we have. We've observed stars in every stage of their life cycle. From clouds of hydrogen gas, to dense clouds of hydrogen gas, to proto-stars, to young stars, right through to novae and supernovae.

I have a distinct lack of understanding? Everything you just said is complete, empty rhetoric. We have not observed this at all. And gravity is non-material and does not work as a rope. The moon itself slowly moves away from the earth. Yet not nearly as fast as binary stars circle each other and come apart.

The Debatinator binary and multiple star systems come in all combinations from almost touching and orbiting each other in a matter of hours to widely spaced an orbiting in thousands of years (our nearest star system (a triple star), Proxima Centauri). Stars are currently being born in stellar nurseries like the Eagle Nebular, there proximity to other stars determines if they become a binary system.

This statement shows that you do have a lack of understanding. Gravity acts like a rope. Another way to think of the effects of gravity is that the two stars are connected by an invisible rope and that they rotate around each other--never changing distance. Gravity never changes it never lets go. It lasts for as long as the object you are attracted to lasts.


We have a distinct understanding of how stars form. We have telescopes pointed at stellar nurseries, observing them and their characteristics every year. There is no one moment where one can say, "A star is born." It's a process that takes millions of years. Think of our understanding of star's life cycles like this:

Take a picture of ten thousand people from all walks of life and all races once a day over the course of a month or two. From those pictures, construct the life cycle of a human. It's exactly the same process, except we're a lot farther away from our subjects.

Who are you to say he has a lack of understanding????

They are correct in saying that they have observed stars in every form, but they have not observed one star all the way through, but I dont think that just because theres a new light in the sky, that there is a new star thats light is finally reaching earth. I think its rather rare that stars are born. Just out of curiousity, do you have any recent articles recording a new star "being born?"

The Big-Bang is just a theory with problems we don't need to debate here.

But your second and final statement demonstrate your lack of understanding of some issues as well.

Clouds are not gaseous, they are visible water droplets.
Cloud Formation Experiment


Thus, clouds cannot form without intrusion of foreign material...
Space Clouds


As temperature decreases, gases contract and become more dense. This change in density here on earth causes cloud formations to be able to form closer to earth (Fog). It has more to do with temperature and density.

Gravity is not a rope. Ropes don't lose their ability to "keep" an object in it's clutches as distance increases as a rope does not budge, it only breaks.

Gravity (as we know it) diminishes over distance. With this in mind, your rope concept just won't hold.

Seriously though, some of the equations ceoncerning gravity are laws, but the mechanics of gravity are still not well understood.

Firstly, I was using clouds to demonstrate that spinning masses of gas can be created outside of the Big Bang.

Secondly, what are those water droplets suspended in? A mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases. When we see a swirling cloud pattern it is the air that is moving those droplets of water. This swirling is caused by differences in density. Those same differences in density can also create spinning within a cloud of interstellar debris. Do you agree?

I agree. But clouds have never collapsed in onto themselves causing a giant rain drop.

Instead, it took external forces to drive the smaller drops high into the atmosphere where they then froze. Once frozen they continued to collect more moisture (condensation) and begin to get havier due to an increase in mass. Eventually, the mass of the raindrop overcomes the upward force of wind that drove it into the upper portion of the cloud. This raindrop eventually falls to earth as rain, or in some cases as it's origional form of hail. Ever consider the upward forces required to sustain softball sized hail?

Since space is not a void as we once thought (but instead just a lower density/pressure atmosphere), why would we expect gravitational forces which we don't observe in clouds here to take place in space?

Given the NASA link in one of my posts above, it took dust particles for the wate rmolecules to freeze as ice onto.

My own hypthesis regarding "gravity" is simply fluid dynamics at work. Atoms are seeking their own density level. We observe this daily in our own atmosphere, and even in our own sun. let me explain...

Since a brick is more dense than air, when dropped it will fall onto your foot. It does this because it is seeking it's own density. Conversely, a helium ballon rises in the air (as if to defy gravity), again seeking it's own density level. What we experience as gravity is simply the attractive "force" we feel because of the difference in density of our body compared to the atmosphere around us. Why does NASA use water tanks as training grounds for space walks? Because they simulate the same gravitational effects, but do not simulate the same densities.

Then what is keeping Jupiter together? Or the Sun? Or Saturn? These are all balls of gas that seem to stay together because of gravity.

You misunderstand what I write. I did not say Gravity IS a rope. I said gravity is LIKE a rope. Gravity is a stable field, and is a property of mass. It will last as long as the mass lasts, just LIKE a object tied to a rope and swung about your head will continue to orbit the same distance about your head as long as you keep swing at the same rate and speed.

I guess we should have stickers on physics textbooks saying the Gravity is only a theory and that all alternatives should be taught as well as the theory of gravity, too, eh?

Someone who has spent a third of his life in study of such things.

It all depends on one's definition of "being born", don't you think? Is the moment of birth when the condensing cloud of gas and dust begins heating up? Is it the moment when the protostar begins burning hydrogen? Is it the moment when we see the star begin to appear from the rapidly evaporating gas nebula that formed it? We see stars in the midst of all of those stages, but when the process that creates a star takes longer than the human race has ever been in existence, and certainly MUCH longer than we've been able closely examine such things, well, we've got a lot of looking ahead of us before we see stars transition between those steps.

I think one place where science education fails in the US is explaining, at the high school level especially, of what astronomy is all about. It's not about pretty pictures. The pretty pictures may get all of the press, and get funding for the Next Generation of telescopes, but the information one gets from the detectors goes FAR beyond simple images. We get information on the temperature of the object, the composition of the object, density of the object, mass, size, all from light, all from light, and the application of common physics that we have learned from lab experiments right here on earth. It's really impressive, the methods used to extract information once you've studied them.

It's interesting that you say that... What temperature emits X-rays?

Making X-rays
Physics of X-ray production

(red shift explanation?)
electrons and photons (Xrays)

Seems Xray are easily produced by electron bombardment, yet you want them to be produced in space via heat?

So, what is an Xray signature from a star? Is it a heat sugnature, or an electon bombardment signature?

I seem to recall one source of X-rays can be produced in the accretion disc as matter being pulled into a black hole.

X-rays are produced in the centre of the sun but are converted to visible light by the time they reach the surface (not sure if any make it to the the surface however).

In a Xrays are produced in regions of gas (plasma, actually) where the temperature reaches upwards of a million or so degrees kelvin. In our sun, for example, like chance says, the Proton-Proton reaction in stars creates gamma rays (not xrays) 4 per reaction. However, it takes a energy created by one photon photon reaction uptwards of a million years to reach the surface of the star, and by that time it's not 4 gamma ray photons, but many many more visible light photons of all sorts of wavelengths that we see with our eyes, and feel on our skin each day. If you want, there is a great demo that is available online here that really talks about this in detail.

However, the environment around the sun does produce X-rays in its own right, and the first time anyone pointed an Xray detector, they we very surprised to see Xrays around the sun. Like you say, they shouldn't be there and no one is quite sure why the observed temperature is 6000 degrees at the surface of the sun, but is a few million degrees kelvin right above the solar surface, in a region called the corona. Outside of stars, Xrays can be created by events called shocks, where a wave of energy (say from a nearby exploding supernova) passing through a dust cloud compresses the gas in a way that makes it emit Xrays.


To answer your question: Xrays seen in astrophysics are usually caused recombination of electrons and atoms, like Iron, or by Compton Scattering. Some are caused by synchrotron radiation. Each case leaves a very specific spectral indication which allows you to determine what you are seeing, in the case of recombination, it is a heat signaure, but in the other cases, it doesn't have much to do with heat, but is an indicatore of things like the magnetic field of the object, or other indicators.

I think the general misconception here is that because the moon is going further away quite quickly, then other binary systems must do it also. And the faster they orbit the quicker this happens.

What is an orbit?

Basically an object in orbit is seemingly perpetually falling towards an object. 'Freefall' as the call it. Imagine firing a cannon off, what happens? The ball moves in two directions. One is horizontal, making it travel away from the cannon. The other is vertical, making it travel towards the ground. The two motions combine so the path looks a like a curve. Imagine getting a bigger cannon that fired the ball faster. The curve would be more gentle, the ball would go further. Imagine now, getting a cannon so big that it fires the ball so hard that this curve is so gentle that it matches the curve of the earth. It would be constantly falling towards the earth but it would never get there (if we conveniently ignore friction and hazards for a moment).

So why does the Moon seem to be getting further away from the Earth?

When the moon orbits us, its gravitational influence, causes the Earth to be attracted to it. This has a tidal effect on the earth. The tidal effect attempts to slow the moon down. Slowing the moon down is hard work. This work transfers energy from the Earth to the Moon, causing the moon's orbit to increase.

Binary stars
Imagine a binary system composed of two identical objects. There would be no energy transfer like from the Earth to Moon, or rather if there were such a transfer it would be equal, so the net energy transfer is 0. Thus, the orbits don't increase.

Voila! Astronomy is fun.

As for the question: how do stars form, clouds don't collapse in on themselves!

Gravity and mass go hand in hand. If we have a huge cloud of gas the mass of Jupiter, that cloud of gas has gravity. Each gas molecule exerts a little bit of gravitational influence building up to one big one. The mass of Jupiter (Which is woefully small compared to our sun), is 1.8987 × 10^27 kilograms. Thats a lot of gravity.

Imagine being a mole of hydrogen (mass = 2gram) near (about 1600 metres (a mile) away) from this massive cloud. In order to not be 'sucked in' it would need the following amount of force:

6.67 x 10^-11 * 1.89*10^27 * 0.02
.......................----------------------
...................................1600^2


984,867,187.5 Newtons. Its unlikely that our nearby mole of hydrogen will have that amount of Force applied to it, so it gets sucked in. All the moles of gas in the nearby area have the same problem and eventually they form into a sphere. We call these spheres, gas giants. The gravity is keeping the gas together. Imagine, if the mass of our gas giant was so great, that the gravity was so immense, that nuclear fusion took place in it. We now, amazingly, have a star. Is it possible that this happens today? There is no law, or reason to think otherwise.