Bob_Ham wrote:
Here's what you need to do:
1. Determine the temperature of the collapsing cloud based on the total initial energy of the system.
2. From that temperature, use the Boltzmann distribution and Saha equation to determine how many particles stay in excited or ionized states at this temperature.
3. Determine the evolution of (and distribution of) the temperature of the particles, considering the flux from the sun, but also the thermal emission, bremsstrahlung emission, cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, inverse Compton scattering, etc.
4. Taking all of this into account, determine the characteristic timescale for the disk to collapse down and start to fragment. To do this, you will have to estimate collision rates and consider angular momentum conservation.
5. Do the calculation again, considering only gravitation.
6. Compare the timescales.
Haha...
Rolling over the floor
and laughing..
Ok..
Coming back from the floor.
It seems that Bob is not realizing the major problem with the
"science" that is being done in universities.
In these institutes 100 people are each working on a different aspect of the
model, without looking at the interaction with the other aspects.
This causes that each part of the calculation of the model is done separately
with a huge simplification in each part of the model.
Without the simplification the students (!) can not do the calculations that
are necessary to do the part. Often there is data missing, and the students
have to fill in the gaps with assumptions specific to those calculations.
These assumptions can (and will) conflict with the assumptions that other people made
for other calculations.
The over simplification is what created the problem in the first place.
The plasma interacts much more complex as a whole system, and not
as separate independent systems.
This happens when you combine the mainstream models together:
It does not work.
This is generally a problem with science, not just with astronomy.
But in astronomy there is often not a direct link between laboratory experiments and
the models, and this causes the model to move away from reality much faster.
To determine whether a model is good or not, we can see problems that appear in wrong models:
1) The models becomes more and more complex if we go deeper into details.
2) A model uses invisible, undetectable stuff (like dark matter)
3) Strange interactions are necessary that happen nowhere else (magnetic reconnection).
4) Reality gives totally different outcomes or stays unexplained. (Surprises)
5) Huge differences between real measurements and model (Corona).
The fact that you list so many elements, shows that the model that you are using is (1) overly complex
already.
Depending on what the heck you want to model, more of the above problems are also present.
Related to the sun:
Currently the problem with mainstream models of plasma is that they think that magnetic fields
create lines in plasma that bump into each other (3), that also contain and create huge amounts of energy (5).
The magnetic fields related to those lines do not even have any real sources (2),
so these theories are actually based on nothing.
The electric universe, based on experimental evidence, models many of these lines
in plasma as plasma currents. These are layered currents of ions and electrons.
And indeed do we see layers of currents on the sun, and can ALL structures be
modelled that way much easier.