Star formation

Strong Nuclear Force binding energy No, the initial expansion of the Universe (the Big Bang) is responsible for that. No, it involves gravity and Jeans Instability.Edited by cavediver, : What's the String Nuclear Force???

If you can swap matter to mass, I'll agree with this.The idea that *matter* cannot be created or destroyed is easily refuted by simple pair creation/annihilation. I have an electron and a positron (matter), and a moment later I just have a pair of photons (radiation). But the energy (or mass) remains the same.

Nope - matter (which posses energy/mass) can be changed into radiation (which posses energy/mass)e=mc² merely expresses the mass/energy equivalence: 10¹⁷J of binding energy has a gravitational mass of ~1kg. If you released 10¹⁶J of this binding energy as radiation, then the initial mass would drop by 100g (of course, if you total in the mass of the radiation as well, then there would be no loss, but you would be summing over a much larger volume)

Actually, it was discovering that all of this is actually a lie that made me realise that after 20 years, my own Christian salvation was built upon pure falsehood and that is why I am now an atheist (of sorts.) But this is not for a thread on Star Formation. So please go to other threads to discuss prophecy, archaeology, the creation or otherwise of mankind, etc. It was a few more than several generations. A quick guestimate leads to me to suggest perhaps a trillion (10^12) generations...And man as we recognise him formed at around a million generations ago - in other words, around one millionth of the generations that preceeded man.Are you starting to appreciate the scale here?And sexual reproduction developed hundreds of millions of years before man turned up, and would have been in creatures that can reproduce both asexually and sexually - just as we see creatures today with this ability - so there would have been zero problem with males and females having to magically appear together.Need I say that this is all for a biological thread?And so to star formation:From the initial stages of stellar formation to the brith ofa new star, we are talking a period of time measured in hundreds of millions of years. So if your demand is for an observation of soups-to-nuts stellar birth, you are going to be laughed out of town. But of course we have observations of every stage of this process, as we have so many hundreds of thousands of stars being born to observe. And no, we do not just assume that the different stages run sequentially, and are not simply examples of a hundred thousand different objects. We have detailed and complex physical models of the process of stellar birth. These models make predictions about what we should see at different stages, and observations confirm these predictions. This is how evidence based science proceeds.If you want detailed knowledge of our theories, models, predictions and observations of stellar birth, I suggest you start on an undergraduate astrophysics course - as you can probably now imagine, the subject is too vast and complex to discuss over a few posts on a discussion forum. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning