"In the early Universe, gravity caused gas to flow rapidly into the galaxies, stirring them up and forming lots of new stars," from article

Do authors distinguish the galaxies (a set of stars) and the nebula (set of gas)? Obviously not.
If the oldest galaxies (over 13 b ly) have the highest rate (redshift) how can simultaneously apply Hubble constant (for distance) and Bing Bang (past or old age)? (GN-z11 ≈13.4 b ly; 11.09; +0.08; -0.12 redshift (z); speed 295.050 ± 119.917 km / s. Z8 GND 5296, 13.10 b ly; 7.51 (z); spead 291.622 ± 120 km / s, M58, 62 Mly (68) 0.00506, spead 1517 ± 1 km / s, etc. table in "Where did the blue spectral shift within the universe come from?" http: //www.svemir- ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#4b)

these galaxies were forming stars at a higher rate than other young galaxies

Well, maybe, maybe not.
The real question to ask is where did the first stars in the galaxy come from?

And of course the reason I ask that is simple: From what we know today, it's impossible for stars to "form" all by themselves from clouds of gas without any outside help and miraculous bending of physical laws. So just how did those stars get born, all by themselves? Where is the actual rational, fully coherent and scientifically acceptable explanation for that?

Right now, it just doesn't exist.

hence any storytelling regarding "star formation" is to be taken with truck-loads of salt.

The real question to ask is where did the first stars in the galaxy come from?

Google can answer that for you. From the first link in google "Irregularities in the density of the gas causes a net gravitational force that pulls the gas molecules closer together."

Maybe next time you google first when making arguments that something does not exist.

From what we know today, it's impossible for stars to "form" all by themselves from clouds of gas

Erm...that's from all YOU know. And you don't know diddly squat.

Everyone else knows that this is perfectly well possible.
Books are your friend. Try reading some. It'll expand your mind to no end. (And it will prevent you from hoisting that neon sign over your head that reads: "uneducated and proud of it" every time you post)

Everyone else knows that this is perfectly well possible.
Books are your friend. Try reading some. It'll expand your mind to no end. (And it will prevent you from hoisting that neon sign over your head that reads: "uneducated and proud of it" every time you post)

So now books are all the "proof" that is needed to confirm the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses. Who needs experimental confirmation?

So now books are all the "proof" that is needed to confirm the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses. Who needs experimental confirmation?

How do you experimentally create a star?

How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

Lol. Talk about amateurs! From the 'questions' page:
"Are nuclear reactions on the sun a cause or consequence of the sun shining?"

On the Sun? Try 'inside' the Sun. If it were happening on the surface we'd see the gamma rays from the reactions. And we'd all likely be fried. Probably wouldn't even have evolved. So the answer to the question is - they are the cause. Obviously.
http://www.safireproject.com/science/questions.html

How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

Is that one of those "metal ball in a vacuum" setups CR was always talking about...?

How do you experimentally create a star?

Well, you can't if you rely on the standard theory. It is what is so convenient about the fanciful pontifications of the plasma ignoramuses is that very few of their claims are falsifiable.
However, here is one possible way to create a star in the lab;
http://www.safireproject.com

So your theory requires a metallic ball and a lot of electricity to born a star. Somehow I think that is not found in space. Im more confident with the theory that gas eventually builds up to thicker clumps which can grow even bigger. However, testing that will be difficult.

Don't feed the oxygen thieves. Do you realize what kind of joke you're "debating" with? https://www.mywot...phys.org

Think for a second just what a complete mental case cum retardation you'd have to be to be one of those Thunderbutts. Think how pitiful their lives are that a belief in the most implausible pseudoscience is the only thing that gives their existence meaning. That approval from con men is the only approval they will ever get. And you expect them to give up that defense mechanism, and somehow grow some grey matter because...you made such a persuasive argument over the internet. That's just about as crazy!

Electricity has been tempting the logic challenged since the day it was discovered. We've gone backwards. Serious scientists in the 19th century would.not.speak to someone that stupid. Do you ignore street beggars? What's the diff here?

Not that the article is about that. Moderator! As the review says, a joke on here.

Back on the subject...

This is an important observation because it adds to growing evidence that massive BHs at the center of galaxies didn't have to, and maybe never did, come from stars. Straight gas to BH pathway. https://arstechni...thought/

Now wasn't it nice to read that without having the town drunks singing at the bottom?

Back on the subject...

This is an important observation because it adds to growing evidence that massive BHs at the center of galaxies didn't have to, and maybe never did, come from stars. Straight gas to BH pathway. https://arstechni...thought/

Ok. That was an interesting article, even if a little short on the gas to BH mechanism. I somehow think that forming of a star (and the resultant destruction of it via massive fission, fusion interactions and gravity) is integral to the compaction process that go into forming a BH ...
(which I would prefer to call a gravity hole)