Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 476 477 [478] 479 480 ... 490  Next >
9541
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 08, 2014, 04:01:01 AM »
Tom, you make it sound like we are all astronomers here, and can definitively say that there is no answer in science at this time.  Are you an astronomer?  I am not.  But a very quick search on the intrawebs showed that there are lots and lots of papers on the workings of Brown Dwarfs.  They require payment and this is your bone to pick, so why dont you pony up?  You might find the answer you are not looking for.

Setting that aside and indulging your "argument" hypothetically, you are saying that because there is no answer now that there never will be?  If that is the horse you want to bet on, be my guest, but historically, the odds are against you.

I see. Mystery then.

9542
Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 08, 2014, 03:56:43 AM »
So since Newton won the community over with Principles and clearly define the scientific terms in his day, then R. failed by using sloppy terms. And you still want to listen to this guy? Heck,m he didn't even know that, as according to you, the FE has two poles.

Understandable, as the South Pole was not yet discovered.

Quote
Are you saying that R., who was instrumental in publishing EnaG, did not review and approve the illustrations? If so, then you're impugning every illustration in EnaG as corrupt, right?

As I recall, the old publishing monopolies (and many current ones) wouldn't publish your work unless you give them ownership of it, and accept their terms on residuals. The illustration, editing, marketing, etc, is provided by the publisher.

The extent Rowbotham worked with the publisher is unknown. But when he sent in his work to be published and signed the contract, it was no longer his decision. Even if Rowbotham made corrections or criticism to any part of it, the publisher had ultimate authority on whether it was within budget or time tables.

9543
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 08, 2014, 03:29:58 AM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
So you now want to accept the Foucault Pendulum? Okay then.

Now, tell us why Einstein rejected your theory, Tell us how your theory would apply to more than just the North Pole. Heck, why don't you start by writing down your theory and its supporting experiments? Are you now saying that the Earth and the stars have interactive gravity? Please think through your theories before just stating them. Thanks.

I support the Bi-Polar model, which has two rotating celestial systems over two poles. An identical phenomena is occurring over the South Pole.

The stars have pulled the pendulum via gravitation. I believe in gravitation, not "gravity". Gravitation is a descriptive action, a sensation of attraction, but does not indicate the mechanism involved. Two magnets are said to "gravitate" towards each other. Two lovers are said to "gravitate" to one another. Sam the mail man gravitates to the Chinese restaurant every Friday night. Gravity, on the other hand is a hypothetical mechanism involving invisible puller particles/bending space time, and is yet to be demonstrated.

Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

Hence, with our knowledge that the earth does not rotate, from our readings of ENAG and other historical Flat Earth Literature, the conclusion is demanded that the stars are pulling the pendulum.
Now you want to switch to the bi-polar model, abandoning R.'s model. Okay then . You make the same error. Mach's Principle says you can't determine which is rotating, yet your bi-polar model requires the the sky to rotation violating Mach's Principle.

Just to review R.'s model, he knows that "THE SUN'S MOTION, CONCENTRIC WITH THE POLAR CENTRE." p. 105. Your R. knows that you're wrong about the bi-polar model.

Also in the bi-polar model please explain how a traveler goes due west from (0, 179o W to (0, 179o E) at 1 P.M. local time. Is jumping thousands of miles required.? Please draw the traveller, the FE and the Sun at both the beginning and end of the travel.

Again, why did Einstein discard MP? Are you smarter than Einstein now?

Rowbotham didn't know about the South Pole because it hadn't been discovered yet. Flat Earthers corrected the model in the early 20th Century. The model is used in the early 1900's book "The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Albert Smith, whereupon the FET split into two models. The Bi-Polar model was forgotten over time, but revived in recent years by myself and others.

Quote from: Gulliver
Again, why did Einstein discard MP? Are you smarter than Einstein now?

That's funny, Einstein doesn't seem to have a problem with it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

Quote
In this sense, at least some of Mach principles are related to philosophical holism. Mach's suggestion can be taken as the injunction that gravitation theories should be relational theories. Einstein brought the principle into mainstream physics while working on general relativity. Indeed it was Einstein who first coined the phrase Mach's principle. There is much debate as to whether Mach really intended to suggest a new physical law since he never states it explicitly.

The writing in which Einstein found inspiration from Mach was "The Science of Mechanics", where the philosopher criticized Newton's idea of absolute space, in particular the argument that Newton gave sustaining the existence of an advantaged reference system: what is commonly called "Newton's bucket argument".

...

Einstein—before completing his development of the general theory of relativity—found an effect which he interpreted as being evidence of Mach's principle. We assume a fixed background for conceptual simplicity, construct a large spherical shell of mass, and set it spinning in that background. The reference frame in the interior of this shell will precess with respect to the fixed background. This effect is known as the Lense–Thirring effect. Einstein was so satisfied with this manifestation of Mach's principle that he wrote a letter to Mach expressing this:

    "it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates a heavy shell of matter relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."

9544
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 08, 2014, 03:10:33 AM »
All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.

The answer coming from this thread is that "it's a mystery in Astronomy." Exactly my point. This star cannot be explained by Astronomy, and so some new mystery power source needs to be created to explain it.

It isn't 'powered' by anything.  The core of a giant ball of gas doesn't have to burn fuel to be hot.  See: gas giants.  This is what I was getting at with the Jupiter example on the first page.  This is all perfectly consistent with how modern science describes all the gas giants. 

Jupiter's core is very hot.  Jupiter's surface is very cold.  Convection is happening in between. 

http://www.universetoday.com/11096/jupiters-winds-come-from-inside/
Quote
“Our model suggests convection driven by deep internal heat sources power Jupiter’s surface winds,” said Jonathan Aurnou, UCLA assistant professor of planetary physics. “The model provides a possible answer to why the winds are so stable for centuries. Jupiter’s surface is the tail; the dog is the hot interior of the planet."

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/page/jupiter_saturn
Quote
Heat from the interior of Jupiter causes circulation patterns in the atmosphere, with warm gas rising and cooling, before sinking back into the depths of the planet. This process is called convection, and it causes the different colored bands in Jupiter's atmosphere.

Last I checked Jupiter was not self luminous.

From page 31 of The Outline of Science Vol 1 we read:

    "The interior of Jupiter is very hot, but the planet is not self-luminous. The planets Venus and Jupiter shin very brightly, but they have no light of their own; they reflect sunlight."

9545
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Proposal to communicate via text
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:17:38 AM »
I was under the impression that this was a serious effort.

9546
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:16:06 AM »
... tell us what powers it.
Does this imply that you're finally ready to tell us what powers the FET Sun (and Moon and stars)? We've been waiting for years, centuries even, after all.

Please start a new thread if you would like to go off topic.

9547
Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:14:28 AM »
Yes, some do. But Newton wrote in terms that the scientific community had agreed upon, 200 years before EnaG. Also from context. R. clearly considers the ship motion's as imparting a force just like gravity.

Newton was speaking in the language of his day, just as Rowbotham was.

Quote
So, if you're right about R. just using the term imprecisely, why did he draw straight lines and not arcs in his diagrams?

Rowbotham did not draw anything in the book. They were provided by an illustrator for the publisher. This is indicated on the title page.

9548
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:02:15 AM »
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.

If the star is not burning Deuterium, and "we don't know what's powering it" is an inaccurate statement, then maybe you can do us all a favor and tell us what powers it.

9549
Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 07, 2014, 11:53:39 PM »
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.

Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1:

    "Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"

Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.

Yawn.
So you're arguing the someone else made this mistake, so it's okay that R. did too. You really should choose your "scientist" better. If R. didn't study _Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_(first published in 1687, 196 years before EnaG), then I don't see why you'd rely on his understanding of kinetics in the first place. Oh, and remember you claimed that Newton used "force" incorrectly. We're still waiting on your answer to the challenge to provide evidence of your claim.

Words change meaning over time.

Quote
From a grade-school level text: A straight line inside a shape that goes from one corner to another (but not an edge).

One can move in a diagonal direction, or diagonally, without necessarily traveling in a straight line.

The prases 'moving diagionally', 'diagonal', and 'diagionally' != 'diagonal line'

For example, we have an empty chess board. If we place a rook on it, and use its L shaped moves to travel from one corner of the board to the other, it can be said to be moving diagonally across the chess board.

These arguments are incredibly weak. I would suggest coming up with something stronger, lest it further besmirch your character.

9550
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 10:10:22 PM »
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

9551
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 09:24:54 PM »
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

9552
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 08:09:54 PM »
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

Quote from: Rama
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,
and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 MJ, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

9553
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 07:40:42 PM »
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?
When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

Quote from: Rama
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

Quote from: Rama
Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible?  Hardly.

I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.

Quote from: Gary
No, I mentioned that in my first post.  Hot matter leaves the core.  It cools as it expands.  After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues.  It's like a big circle.  That's what convection is.  Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium. 

Heat transfer takes time.  Stars are huge.  The end.

Not instant, but the systems are attempting to equalize at all levels.

The primary cooling comes from radiation loss, not "cooling as it expands". If there were no radiation loss, there would be no convection. This is a ball of gas. Heat rises to the top. Gas cooled by radiation loss at the surface falls to the core via convection, just as the cold air in a heated room falls to the floor, where it is recycled into the heater and brought up anew.

The argument that in an environment like that, a difference of a million degrees can be maintained in an equalizing, convective body, is simply absurd. Heat is constantly being moved to the top. It's nothing like earth.

9554
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 07, 2014, 07:20:24 PM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
So you now want to accept the Foucault Pendulum? Okay then.

Now, tell us why Einstein rejected your theory, Tell us how your theory would apply to more than just the North Pole. Heck, why don't you start by writing down your theory and its supporting experiments? Are you now saying that the Earth and the stars have interactive gravity? Please think through your theories before just stating them. Thanks.

I support the Bi-Polar model, which has two rotating celestial systems over two poles. An identical phenomena is occurring over the South Pole.

The stars have pulled the pendulum via gravitation. I believe in gravitation, not "gravity". Gravitation is a descriptive action, a sensation of attraction, but does not indicate the mechanism involved. Two magnets are said to "gravitate" towards each other. Two lovers are said to "gravitate" to one another. Sam the mail man gravitates to the Chinese restaurant every Friday night. Gravity, on the other hand is a hypothetical mechanism involving invisible puller particles/bending space time, and is yet to be demonstrated.

Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

Hence, with our knowledge that the earth does not rotate, from our readings of ENAG and other historical Flat Earth Literature, the conclusion is demanded that the stars are pulling the pendulum.

9555
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:54:11 AM »
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?

9556
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:48:32 AM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.

9557
Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:29:25 AM »
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.

Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1:

    "Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"

Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.

Yawn.

9558
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:14:44 AM »
Quote
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
Great! You concede that point. Thanks!

This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

    "Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."

Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.

Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.

9559
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 03:51:26 AM »
The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).

Why can't a star have the same property?

Nothing like the earth. Stars are clouds of gas, and the outer layers are recycled into the core via convection.

I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core?  The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes?  Which means a decrease in temperature?  And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?

Am I getting those relationships right?

You forgot the part about the outer layers being recycled into the core.

9560
Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 03:48:19 AM »
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.

According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium, the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K

    "Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."

10^6 K = 999727 Celsius

Uh oh...

Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 MJ to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:

WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.

I noticed that as well. If this star is under 13 Jupiter Masses, and the calculations demand a 13 Jupiter Mass minimum, it is just further evidence to show that the calculations in astronomy are unreliable. It's another nail in the coffin. I'm not aware of any theories exist speculating of self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space.

Quote
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 476 477 [478] 479 480 ... 490  Next >