Stellar Fusion is entirely hypothetical. No one has recreated it in a lab.
Stellar Fusion is entirely hypothetical. No one has recreated it in a lab.
Stellar Fusion is entirely hypothetical. No one has recreated it in a lab.
And I suppose your explanation for Stars is: A very small and annoying Man in his back garden with a set of very thick lens spectacles, who probably drives a Peugeot, aiming a projector into the sky? That’s what I heard on one of the other threads from a fellow FE Bible Basher.
Not all types of fusion are Stellar Fusion. There are multiple types and theories. While they may have briefly created a type of fusion in a lab, I do not believe they are of the same type said to be found in the sun -- proton-proton chain reactions.
Also, some of those experiments and articles that have been posted in the past were touting to have to have recreated a star, as in "created the environment of a star", in terms of temperature and pressure, not actual fusion.
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
Stellar Fusion is entirely hypothetical. No one has recreated it in a lab.So why can't I claim that UA "is entirely hypothetical? No one has recreated it in a lab".
Cosmos, Anaximander (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/a/anaximander)
Anaximander of Miletus (c.610-c.545 BC), a pre-Socratic philosopher, was a contemporary of Thales and was one of the first ‘cosmologists’ (i.e. one who attempted to explain the origin and form of the Universe).
Anaximander was quite a productive philosopher as he made maps of the known world, offered explanations for the origin of the Sun, Moon and stars, and even performed simple experiments such as marking the solstices and equinoxes on sundials.
The cosmological model he proposed was a ring of fire surrounding the Earth, that was hidden from view except through vents.
The stars were the light of this fire that could be seen through the openings. This model could also explain the phases of the Moon: its phase depended on how wide or narrow the vent covering was.
(http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/anaximander.jpg)
Anaximander’s model of the Universe. The Sun, the Moon and each of the stars is
actually a transparent ring – or hoop – made of air. Each ring is filled with fire
which we can only see when the hole in that particular ring passes over us.
Anaximander described the Earth as rounded and circular with two plane surfaces (not necessarily a flat disk, more like a cylinder or ‘stone pillar’), which was suspended freely in space. It stays where it is because it is equidistant from everything else in the Universe. Above the Earth were (in order) the other planets, the stars, the Moon and finally the Sun. The components of the Universe were supposed to have formed as rings that were shed from a fiery sphere that once surrounded the Earth.
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
I did not claim that we can or cannot "recreate its processes in the lab". All I claim is that recreating the processes in the lab is quite irrelevant "to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth".Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
I will suggest you re-read the thread. It was claimed that we know how the sun works and can recreate its processes in the lab.
I did not claim that we can or cannot "recreate its processes in the lab". All I claim is that recreating the processes in the lab is quite irrelevant "to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth".Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
I will suggest you re-read the thread. It was claimed that we know how the sun works and can recreate its processes in the lab.
So my question stands.
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.