The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Boodysaspie on December 11, 2017, 10:34:49 PM
-
IIRC, one the strongest objections to the then new science of Geology and its claims that the Earth is millions, if not billions, of years old was that no-one could explain how the sun could provide heat and light for such a long time using the fuels of the time.
The discovery of nuclear fusion cleared that one up, and RET now says that
- the sun is 150,000,000km away and 1,400,000km in diameter;
- the "atmospheric pressure" at the centre is high enough to start a fusion reaction of hydrogen into helium;
- The reaction runs at a temperature of 15,000,000K and releases 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy.
FET says the sun is 4,800km away and 50km in diameter. Can anyone explain the rest rationally and possibly cogently?
-
I want to say it's solar powered but the risk of a warning from the frog prevents me..... I do think that the empirical need of the zetetics means that the inner workings of either a FE or RE sun can only be answered with an "not known" reply. I'd be surprised if any FE offers any alternative to this but please do!
From a belief system that has members who have proposed the moon to be a projection or eclipses to be caused by an invisible "shadow" object who knows what answers they have to explain the root of the suns awesome power.
-
Funnily enough, solar was third on my list ;D
I ruled out fossil fuels (don't burn long enough, no smoke, certainly not enough photons) and fission (a whole new meaning to the term "sunburn") so, as Sherlock Holmes once said, " ... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Unless, of course, there's an as-yet-undiscovered type of energy in clear view that no-one has thought to investigate? Maybe the oil companies, not NASA, are behind this.
-
One theory is that the sun is simply a ball of fire that continues to thrive because of available hydrogen gas, which is flammable and provides the essential fuel. It's the result of chemical reaction / combustion. This explanation explains known things about the earth. For example, during combustion, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. We know that the earth's surface is around 70 to 76 % h2o, and it is believed earth's atmosphere had more hydrogen in the past.
-
One theory is that the sun is simply a ball of fire that continues to thrive because of available hydrogen gas, which is flammable and provides the essential fuel. It's the result of chemical reaction / combustion. This explanation explains known things about the earth. For example, during combustion, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. We know that the earth's surface is around 70 to 76 % h2o, and it is believed earth's atmosphere had more hydrogen in the past.
This is what I love about this forum. Ask a reasoned, logical question, and if you're lucky, a "theory" comes back, which gives me a starting point to learn more about the world.
I don't know how to do the maths to prove that a hydrogen sun, 32 miles in diameter, will burn too quickly to heat the Earth for 4.6 billion years.
But there are a couple of other characteristics of burning hydrogen which you should include in your theory:
1) Hydrogen burns with a blue flame which is almost invisible in daylight. Hydrogen "sunlight" isn't light.
2) Hydrogen does not radiate much infra red energy but it does radiate ultra-violet energy. Therefore it isn't hot, but it will cause sunburn. Think about how a sunbed works.
Chemical plant sensors which detect hydrogen fires don't measure heat or light, because a hydrogen flame isn't hot or bright. Instead they use ultra-violet CCTV.
I would seriously be very grateful to anyone who could point me to a noobs guide on hydrogen combustion, or explain for how long a 32-mile diameter ball would burn in oxygen.
-
Boodysaspie, I only mentioned one theory. Regardless, let me respond to some things that you typed:
1) Hydrogen burns with a blue flame which is almost invisible in daylight. Hydrogen "sunlight" isn't light.
In theory. In reality, impurities can cause it to be yellow.
"The flame may appear yellow if there are impurities in the air like dust or sodium" ( https://www.h2tools.org/bestpractices/h2introduction/hazards/flames).
2) Hydrogen does not radiate much infra red energy but it does radiate ultra-violet energy. Therefore it isn't hot, but it will cause sunburn. Think about how a sunbed works.
And...? It doesn't dispute the theory. You still admit some infrared energy is emitted. You simply asked "what is the source of the Sun's energy?". I found this to be ambiguous and wasn't sure whether you were you asking about the Sun's input energy or about its output (radiant) energy. I assumed you were asking about the Sun's input energy, and I offered one theory to explain how the sun can thrive. If you were asking about the output energy / heat of the sun, I would have then possibly answered differently.
-
Boodysaspie,
Let me elaborate on my previous comment. You asked "what is the source of the Sun's energy?". That is not the same as asking "how can the sun produce enough heat to warm the earth?". I answered your question well regardless if you were asking about the Sun's output or input energy (though I assumed you were asking about the input energy). If you were asking how the sun can produce enough output energy to warm the earth, you should have phrased it that way. Because not all flat earth theorists necessarily believe the sun is the only heat source.
-
Pickel,
I've decided that it's made out of gold because it's yellow and shiny, and that's good enough for me.
-
THANK YOU.
I am a real and perfect geocentrist.
The Sun god is not a mere star.According to Hindu mythology he is able,noble and visual god.He has many powers or possessing many abilities.He is moving around the earth in a time bound manner.The earth is not only a flat one but also a static one.Therefore the artificial planets can moving around the earth.
Again thanking you.
S.RajasekharanNair
-
I don't know how to do the maths to prove that a hydrogen sun, 32 miles in diameter, will burn too quickly to heat the Earth for 4.6 billion years.
Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy. I posted about this in "The Flat Earth Sun," but here it goes:
Optics proves a tricky thing for FE theorists because it's so easy to just claim "distortion" or "perspective" or "fisheye lens" and dismiss the whole argument without budging from it. They'll claim that the atmosphere refracts the light upward not unlike how a mirage works. Of course, this is a load of garbage because mirages form under special conditions, none of which are present enough to cause the shadow effect.
There's a far easier debunk of the whole damn idea that the Sun is 32 miles in radius (if you're talking about diameter, it obviously gets worse). Doing a basic thermal energy calculation, one finds that the Sun at 32 miles in radius would run out of energy to give out in a cosmic heartbeat. The average kinetic energy of the gas particles in the Sun is capped by the highest temperature - 15 million K. This gives a value of about 3 x 10^-16 J per particle. Now one will quickly find that if gravity doesn't exist, how will the Sun hold itself together? Oh right, one of Tom Bishop's magical (and much weaker) "gravitation" forces. I'll be far more lenient and just assume that it holds itself together. We find that the proposed Sun has a volume of 5.58708453 × 10^14 liters. Now assuming that the proposed Sun has a density of 10 g / cm^3 (to give FE its best shot, we'll let the proposed Sun be denser than iron, although it can't reach this density). We find, then, that the proposed Sun has a mass of 5.58708453 × 10^15 kilograms. This yields 3.364621 × 10^42 hydrogen atoms floating about. So the proposed Sun has at most 1.0093863 x 10^27 J of thermal energy. Unfortunately, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (where we assume that the surface temperature of the proposed Sun is 5000 K), this Sun has to radiate about 1.18 x 10^18 W of power. This means that the proposed Sun would only last at most 1 billion seconds, which a massive... 31 years. Your Sun would be dead in 31 years if it didn't have some way of replenishing its energy. This obviously contradicts the evidence that people have been alive for much longer than that and have seen the Sun (even if you don't buy the Earth is 4 billion years old).
Now that that long and arduous calculation is over, let's talk about what it means. FE theorists now have three choices:
Choice 1: Nuclear fusion powers the Sun so the calculation above is invalid. (This is true, and I'll address this below.)
Choice 2: Stefan-Boltzmann is bullshit (no it isn't, test it), your math is wrong (how?), or I don't understand it (well, I'll explain it to you, but that doesn't make this invalid), or some unquantified variant of "distortion"
Choice 3: Some other magical form of dark energy / quantum woo that I really don't even understand <insert Casimir> / relativity / wormholes / chemical reaction makes the energy inside the Sun. Remember Tom in the Occam's Razor thread, saying how FE theory was simpler than RE theory (hint: with all of the patches, it isn't! Of course if you don't understand basic physics and math and are inclined to believe conspiracies...)? So let me get this straight. You've already invented 3 forces (UA, gravitation #1, gravitation #2) to justify what can obviously be seen as an inability to comprehend scale; spheres locally look flat. You've already proposed physically impossible stuff, like things orbiting in circles above a disk (do you even understand how orbits work?). You've given a map whose distances do not line up with real world travel (direct flights from Sydney to Johannesburg). You've even asserted that the measured distances between cities are inaccurate! And now you're going to make up a new way of generating energy out of seemingly nothing?
Choice 4: Write it in. It probably rejects a ton of tested science.
So the only reasonable choice is #1 (or maybe I made a mistake, but 31 years is pretty hard to get to 4 billion years just by correcting mistakes). But this doesn't work. Nuclear fusion cannot occur with a star that is only 32 miles wide; it would have to be about twice the size of Jupiter to have a chance. The pressures and resulting temperatures just wouldn't be enough. We have tested and verified that the conditions for nuclear fusion are as high as we believe they are. These are the fundamental principles behind thermonuclear weapons, and also behind much of the fusion research (and hobbyism) today. People have built homemade nuclear fusion machines. These have demonstrated that nuclear fusion requires high temperatures. As I've said a thousand times before, if the pressure of the "gravitation" (and Tom Bishop implies this is far weaker than normal gravity) of the proposed Sun were enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion, I could build weapons of mass destruction in my backyard with some high explosive and tap water. Sorry, FE theorists, but asserting the Sun is 32 miles in radius is living in fantasy-land.
Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis). But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.
-
THANK YOU.
I am a real and perfect geocentrist.
The Sun god is not a mere star.According to Hindu mythology he is able,noble and visual god.He has many powers or possessing many abilities.He is moving around the earth in a time bound manner.The earth is not only a flat one but also a static one.Therefore the artificial planets can moving around the earth.
Again thanking you.
S.RajasekharanNair
Highlighted the word which is the slight chink in the armour of that argument. Hope that helps.
-
JohnAdams1145,
Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.
Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?
Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).
Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?
But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.
Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?
-
Pickel,
I've decided that it's made out of gold because it's yellow and shiny, and that's good enough for me.
You're using the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy. Why? Because youcant dispute what I have typed as a plausible flat earth model of the Sun.
-
JohnAdams1145,
Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.
Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?
Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).
Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?
But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.
Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?
So in your complete lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, you're going to throw out the law of conservation of energy? That law has been proven millions of times over because it applies in virtually everything we have today, from heat management to power distribution, etc. Electrolysis of H2O requires more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen and oxygen. You really can't be much of a genius if you don't even know that basic fact, proven in labs everywhere and industrial electrolysis. Otherwise I could create energy for free by setting up a loop (oh wait, that's your scheme here; I bet you don't know how nuclear fusion gets its energy).
Again, I'll say that the chemical energy is not anything compared to the thermal energy. You should study some basic chemistry before invoking terms like "electrolysis" which you clearly don't understand on even a basic level, and I've only taken introductory physics (although at quite a respectable institution). The enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is -286 kJ / mol. The thermal energy of the hydrogen at 27 million K is 180664 kJ / mol. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when you invoke electrolysis.
You also have no idea what spectral analysis is if you think only space agencies can conduct it. You must be suffering from some extreme Dunning-Kruger right here. Literally anyone can do spectral analysis just by looking at the light spectrum. If you have no idea how to do this, you can do it with a CD (for ordinary light sources; I don't know if this particular technique works with the Sun): https://petapixel.com/2015/10/30/you-can-use-a-cd-to-view-the-color-spectrum-of-your-light-sources/. In any case, you should be careful about eye damage. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines to see how we determine the elements in the Sun using dark lines in the spectrum (the frequency of the light is related to the emission/absorption of light through electron energy levels).
-
JohnAdams1145,
Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.
Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?
Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).
Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?
But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.
Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?
So in your complete lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, you're going to throw out the law of conservation of energy? That law has been proven millions of times over because it applies in virtually everything we have today, from heat management to power distribution, etc. Electrolysis of H2O requires more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen and oxygen. You really can't be much of a genius if you don't even know that basic fact, proven in labs everywhere and industrial electrolysis. Otherwise I could create energy for free by setting up a loop (oh wait, that's your scheme here; I bet you don't know how nuclear fusion gets its energy).
Again, I'll say that the chemical energy is not anything compared to the thermal energy. You should study some basic chemistry before invoking terms like "electrolysis" which you clearly don't understand on even a basic level, and I've only taken introductory physics (although at quite a respectable institution). The enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is -286 kJ / mol. The thermal energy of the hydrogen at 27 million K is 180664 kJ / mol. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when you invoke electrolysis.
You also have no idea what spectral analysis is if you think only space agencies can conduct it. You must be suffering from some extreme Dunning-Kruger right here. Literally anyone can do spectral analysis just by looking at the light spectrum. If you have no idea how to do this, you can do it with a CD (for ordinary light sources; I don't know if this particular technique works with the Sun): https://petapixel.com/2015/10/30/you-can-use-a-cd-to-view-the-color-spectrum-of-your-light-sources/. In any case, you should be careful about eye damage. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines to see how we determine the elements in the Sun using dark lines in the spectrum (the frequency of the light is related to the emission/absorption of light through electron energy levels).
What is it that you're trying to convey exactly? Are you asserting that not enough thermal energy of the Sun (if the Sun is oxyhydrogen combustion) could sustain the internal temperature requisite of the combustion to occur and persist? Because if that is what you originally tried to convey, then I'll tell you what I told Boodysaspie: you should have phrased it that way.
And, no, I didn't use the term "electrolysis" incorrectly, nor did I use it to explain away thermal energy necessary to sustain the Sun. You just weren't articulate when typing your original comment. I thought you meant how the Sun is refueled. Please rephrase your point in a more articulate way.
-
JohnAdams1145,
Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.
Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?
Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).
Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?
But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.
Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?
So in your complete lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, you're going to throw out the law of conservation of energy? That law has been proven millions of times over because it applies in virtually everything we have today, from heat management to power distribution, etc. Electrolysis of H2O requires more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen and oxygen. You really can't be much of a genius if you don't even know that basic fact, proven in labs everywhere and industrial electrolysis. Otherwise I could create energy for free by setting up a loop (oh wait, that's your scheme here; I bet you don't know how nuclear fusion gets its energy).
Again, I'll say that the chemical energy is not anything compared to the thermal energy. You should study some basic chemistry before invoking terms like "electrolysis" which you clearly don't understand on even a basic level, and I've only taken introductory physics (although at quite a respectable institution). The enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is -286 kJ / mol. The thermal energy of the hydrogen at 27 million K is 180664 kJ / mol. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when you invoke electrolysis.
You also have no idea what spectral analysis is if you think only space agencies can conduct it. You must be suffering from some extreme Dunning-Kruger right here. Literally anyone can do spectral analysis just by looking at the light spectrum. If you have no idea how to do this, you can do it with a CD (for ordinary light sources; I don't know if this particular technique works with the Sun): https://petapixel.com/2015/10/30/you-can-use-a-cd-to-view-the-color-spectrum-of-your-light-sources/. In any case, you should be careful about eye damage. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines to see how we determine the elements in the Sun using dark lines in the spectrum (the frequency of the light is related to the emission/absorption of light through electron energy levels).
What is it that you're trying to convey exactly? Are you asserting that not enough thermal energy of the Sun (if the Sun is oxyhydrogen combustion) could sustain the internal temperature requisite of the combustion to occur and persist? Because if that is what you originally tried to convey, then I'll tell you what I told Boodysaspie: you should have phrased it that way.
And, no, I didn't use the term "electrolysis" incorrectly, nor did I use it to explain away thermal energy necessary to sustain the Sun. You just weren't articulate when typing your original comment. I thought you meant how the Sun is refueled. Please rephrase your point in a more articulate way.
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion? The stoichiometry is wrong for a self-sustaining reaction. It's fun to throw out ideas, but you need to think about them critically, as well.
And as far as you not trusting space agencies to telling us what the Sun is composed of, you're in luck! There happens to be a real genius chick who explained the spectra of the Sun (and stars in general) way back in the 1920s. Her name was Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin.
-
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?
Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with hydrogen to form h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits that according to the spectral analysis that he holds so dear to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.
-
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?
Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits from the spectral analysis that he holds so near to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.
In order to form H2O, there must be one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms, so wouldn't that mean that there would have to be more than trace amounts if it were to be used?
That is, the amount of hydrogen that can be used to make H2O is limited to twice the amount of oxygen. So trace amounts of oxygen means trace amounts of H2O at best. Meanwhile the rest of that hydrogen is not taking part in that process and instead would just be consumed - fire isn't very patient.
-
Pickel B. Gravel -- I seriously can't believe you don't understand the basic physics I'm trying to throw out here. Usually I refrain from saying this stuff, but you clearly haven't read what I've said carefully or you just lack even a layman's fundamental understanding of the world. The Sun cannot be refueled by electrolysis because it takes at least the same amount of energy to get the oxygen back from the water than combusting the hydrogen and oxygen together gives. To put it even more simply, the fuel you suppose powers the Sun costs at least the same amount of energy to produce than it gives when it is burned. The Sun cannot gain energy by reversing a chemical reaction and then performing that same reaction. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
And I'll insert my own, rather irrelevant quibble about terminology here, but I expect you to consider the merits of the rest of my argument; I'm only doing this so you realize that you don't know that much and should really do more study before ditching accepted science theory and making up your own. The splitting of water in the Sun would not be performed by electrolysis. It would be due to thermolysis in the extremely high temperatures inside. The fact that you don't know that means that you don't really know how electrolysis works.
I am saying that the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms is 1000x MORE ENERGY than you could get from combusting them with oxygen (even if you had an unlimited supply of oxygen), and even that's not enough to keep the Sun alive for more than 30 years. What's so hard to understand about this logic?
It also seems you don't understand the energy-based argument I'm trying to make here. We know that the Sun releases X amount of energy per unit of time through the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. We know that the Sun has been here for at least a thousand years (actually, we know it's been here for billions, but I'm sure even the worst of the conspiracy theorists can agree it's been here for at least a thousand). However, no physical source of energy (nuclear fusion is unsustainable in a small sun) could keep a 64 or 32-mile wide Sun here for a thousand years if it were emitting the amount of energy that we know it emits due to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
PickYerPoison, you're right. The Sun doesn't have much oxygen at all, so it's implausible that it could be powered off the miniscule amount of oxygen there for any reasonable amount of time (we're effectively reducing the fuel to some 4% of the Sun's mass). But I've proven something far stronger than this: even the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms (which is over 1000 times more than the energy you get from combusting each hydrogen with half an oxygen -- I apologize for a slight math error when I gave you the number of 180664 kJ / mol; it should be 361228, because that is the figure per mol of hydrogen atoms, while 286 kJ / mol is the figure per mol of hydrogen molecules) cannot sustain the Sun for more than 30 or so years. If we went with this so-called "genius girl"'s model, the Sun would barely last a year. I am as baffled as you that someone could even make us talk about combustion in the Sun. But this so-called "genius girl" insists that we can simply recycle the oxygen by reversing the very chemical reaction that we just performed and keep making free energy. And so we're stuck talking about it.
-
JohnAdams1145,
Pickel B. Gravel -- I seriously can't believe you don't understand the basic physics I'm trying to throw out here. Usually I refrain from saying this stuff, but you clearly haven't read what I've said carefully or you just lack even a layman's fundamental understanding of the world.
I think I don't understand what you're saying because you're not communicating effectively.
The Sun cannot be refueled by electrolysis because it takes at least the same amount of energy to get the oxygen back from the water than combusting the hydrogen and oxygen together gives. To put it even more simply, the fuel you suppose powers the Sun costs at least the same amount of energy to produce than it gives when it is burned. The Sun cannot gain energy by reversing a chemical reaction and then performing that same reaction. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
Are you suggesting that I have proposed that natural electrolysis of h2o is powered by the Sun within the Sun? Because that is not what I have suggested. I have stated that the Sun collects available oxygen and hydrogen, combines them to produce h2o, and releases the h2o. The h2o is then separated by means of electrolysis outside of the Sun, where the two gases are once again absorbed by the Sun and combined into h2o.
The splitting of water in the Sun would not be performed by electrolysis. It would be due to thermolysis in the extremely high temperatures inside. The fact that you don't know that means that you don't really know how electrolysis works.
Same as above. When have I ever typed on here that electrolysis of h2o is produced IN the Sun? It sounds to me like you're resorting to a strawman fallacy here.
I am saying that the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms is 1000x MORE ENERGY than you could get from combusting them with oxygen (even if you had an unlimited supply of oxygen), and even that's not enough to keep the Sun alive for more than 30 years. What's so hard to understand about this logic?
Your problem is assuming that my premise was that the Sun was a closed system that performed it's own electrolysis. That has never been my position.
PickYerPoison, you're right. The Sun doesn't have much oxygen at all, so it's implausible that it could be powered off the miniscule amount of oxygen there for any reasonable amount of time (we're effectively reducing the fuel to some 4% of the Sun's mass). But I've proven something far stronger than this: even the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms (which is over 1000 times more than the energy you get from combusting each hydrogen with half an oxygen -- I apologize for a slight math error when I gave you the number of 180664 kJ / mol; it should be 361228, because that is the figure per mol of hydrogen atoms, while 286 kJ / mol is the figure per mol of hydrogen molecules) cannot sustain the Sun for more than 30 or so years. If we went with this so-called "genius girl"'s model, the Sun would barely last a year. I am as baffled as you that someone could even make us talk about combustion in the Sun. But this so-called "genius girl" insists that we can simply recycle the oxygen by reversing the very chemical reaction that we just performed and keep making free energy. And so we're stuck talking about it.
Because the oxygen is quickly combined with hydrogen and released as h2o. So not much oxygen is able to be detected in the Sun because it's been released.
-
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?
Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits from the spectral analysis that he holds so near to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.
In order to form H2O, there must be one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms, so wouldn't that mean that there would have to be more than trace amounts if it were to be used?
That is, the amount of hydrogen that can be used to make H2O is limited to twice the amount of oxygen. So trace amounts of oxygen means trace amounts of H2O at best. Meanwhile the rest of that hydrogen is not taking part in that process and instead would just be consumed - fire isn't very patient.
Trace amounts of oxygen in the Sun doesn't mean that oxygen isn't being continuously supplied to the Sun and quickly combined and released. It just means the oxygen is being quickly used up and replaced (by outside sources) at the same rate so that a constant trace amount of oxygen remains detectable at any given point in time.
-
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?
Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with hydrogen to form h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits that according to the spectral analysis that he holds so dear to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.
Yes, trace amounts of oxygen does exist on the Sun. That is the whole point I am making - TRACE AMOUNTS. There is not enough oxygen to sustain OH combustion. If it isn't there, it can't be used by the Sun. I feel bad that you have been so let down by the education system. Were you home schooled by religious parents? Your viewpoints line up. Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing. A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!
-
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"
If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
-
Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis. I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry. There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures. If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive (you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).
-
StinkyOne,
Yes, trace amounts of oxygen does exist on the Sun. That is the whole point I am making - TRACE AMOUNTS. There is not enough oxygen to sustain OH combustion. If it isn't there, it can't be used by the Sun.
As I have already typed, a trace amount of oxygen is detected. That just means the rest of the oxygen has already combined with hydrogen and has been released and escapes detection.
I feel bad that you have been so let down by the education system.
Don't feel bad. I have always been a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA.
Were you home schooled by religious parents? Your viewpoints line up.
Not at all.
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.
So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?
A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!
May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.
-
Douglips,
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"
Correct. It was somewhat ambiguous though, which I pointed out. But I answered that combustion of hydrogen and oxygen was the fuel used as energy for the Sun to exist. Some on here just assumed that I meant that the Sun is a closed system and that fuel for the Sun is limited to the fuel already inside the Sun.
If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"
No. I have always been consistent here. I originally answered that the Sun is the result of hydrogen-oxygen combustion. People wanted to know about it (or misrepresented what I typed), so I added more specific information. I was not committing ad hoc fallacies if that's what you're implying.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
You need to specify exactly what you mean. "I" need to be providing more energy at equilibrium? See what I mean? I can't understand what it is that you're trying to convey. If it's not too much trouble, may you please rephrase what you typed in a more articulate way so I could reply in a more appropriate way?
-
JohnAdams1145,
How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.
I think I have answered quite nicely here, regardless of your attempt to resort to using strawman fallacies by suggesting that I proposed the Sun performs its own electrolysis. The facts still remain: the earth used to have more atmospheric hydrogen, the earth contains over 70% of h2o, and h2o is a byproduct of oxygen-hydrogen combustion. Thus, it is logical to conclude that earth's h2o is the product of hydrogen-oxygen combustion, and this fits in nicely with a flat earth. The earth is also the only planet with large bodies of water, which gives further credence to the idea that the earth contains the Sun within earth's atmosphere. Now, isn't that a better conclusion than "comets deposited water onto the earth"? You know, on a side note, it makes no sense how comets can even still exist if the solar system is billions of years old. They would be gone by now due to the second law of thermodynamics. But round earthers make up an excuse like the oort cloud (that has never been proven) and then they accuse us of speculating and making things up to fit into our worldview? The nerve!
Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis.
Of course I have. What about it?
I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry.
Or because you don't use the right words...
There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures.
I never proposed that water is in the Sun. Pay attention, please. Or is this another strawman attempt of yours? I suggested that h2o is formed by the Sun and that the hydrogen and oxygen are quickly replaced with New oxygen and hydrogen that are drawn in by the Sun to be used as fuel.
If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive
May I ask what are you basing that on?
(you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).
That's assuming that the Sun is really as hot as is claimed by round earthers. Also, what do you mean "you can't extract"? Are you suggesting that I have proposed that h2o is in the Sun but remains h2o and thus is able to be extracted by humans? Because I never suggested that.
-
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.
So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?
This isn't the time nor the place but someday I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind your Holocaust denial. Not debating it, just hearing it.
A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!
May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.
I've noticed that the assumption about the scientific method here seems to be that a hypothesis being wrong means the experiment results get thrown out. This is not the case - instead, follow-up experiments are done to determine why the results were different than expected. Typically the hypothesis is there to provide a clear way to look at the results. Additionally, you can't prove something wrong by failing to prove it right - that goes against both the scientific and zetetic methods.
-
As I have already typed, a trace amount of oxygen is detected. That just means the rest of the oxygen has already combined with hydrogen and has been released and escapes detection.
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.
Don't feel bad. I have always been a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA.
Yeah, that doesn't mean much if your school is failing you.
So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?
Yeeaahhhhh...zero evidence for the holocaust. Not the appropriate forum, but lets just say you might need to be careful who you're listening to.
May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.
If you work from the premise that the Earth is round, and your experimental data confirms your premise, you were correct. Take something like DirecTV. They are a private company that uses satellites to broadcast TV. If their satellites didn't work because the Earth was flat, they would know about it. No amount of presupposition fixes that.
-
JohnAdams1145,
How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.
Let's pick apart this paragraph:
"How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress."
Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off. Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid.
Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.
-
StinkyOne,
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.
So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?
There's a metric crapton of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."
"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."
More evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
-
Douglips,
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"
Correct. It was somewhat ambiguous though, which I pointed out. But I answered that combustion of hydrogen and oxygen was the fuel used as energy for the Sun to exist. Some on here just assumed that I meant that the Sun is a closed system and that fuel for the Sun is limited to the fuel already inside the Sun.
Sure. And then you suggested that the water that is the result of the sun's combustion is removed (or flows off of) the sun, and that it is hydrolyzed somewhere else, so that the hydrogen and oxygen are then ready to be taken back onboard the sun for combustion.
If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"
No. I have always been consistent here. I originally answered that the Sun is the result of hydrogen-oxygen combustion. People wanted to know about it (or misrepresented what I typed), so I added more specific information. I was not committing ad hoc fallacies if that's what you're implying.
I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun. I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.
You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
You need to specify exactly what you mean. "I" need to be providing more energy at equilibrium? See what I mean? I can't understand what it is that you're trying to convey. If it's not too much trouble, may you please rephrase what you typed in a more articulate way so I could reply in a more appropriate way?
Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
-
Stinkyone,
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.
I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up". The same is true for gravity being some sort of distinct force, which has never been proven or produced in a lab. I can buy magnets and electrical appliances but no gravity-based technology? Maybe the reason why I can't is because gravity doesn't exist?
Have you ever considered that maybe just maybe that much of what you know about the Sun is wrong and based on faulty logic and erroneous premises?
Yeah, that doesn't mean much if your school is failing you.
What about my 1595 SAT score?
Yeeaahhhhh...zero evidence for the holocaust. Not the appropriate forum, but lets just say you might need to be careful who you're listening to.
I'm simply looking at the "evidence" through historical context and listening to all holocaust survivors. You're listening to the conclusions based on the investigations carried out by allied nations and on the claims from anti-Nazi rebels who obtained and made public (allegedly) Nazi documents and testimony concerning the holocaust. The question is--and this is where critical thinking comes into play--can you trust them? What about the holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden? You're not looking at all sides. Mass hysteria inside labor camps doesn't translate to evidence for gassing of Jews.
If you work from the premise that the Earth is round, and your experimental data confirms your premise, you were correct. Take something like DirecTV. They are a private company that uses satellites to broadcast TV. If their satellites didn't work because the Earth was flat, they would know about it. No amount of presupposition fixes that.
And what exactly is the "experimental data" that supports a round earth and the method used to obtain this "experimental data" based on? They're made to fit the round earth model so that the results confirm a round earth! Theoretical calculations are not proof of anything.
-
Kal_9000,
Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off.
That was never my intention. If I wanted sympathy, I would've mentioned my recent undergoing of chemotherapy for cancer. But I didn't mention that. Do you know why? Because I don't want pity. No, I don't want him to back off. If I did, I would have politely told him to back off.
Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid.
Then why would he use ad hominem attacks if his arguments were valid? Ad hominem attacks are used by individuals losing an argument; it's their last weapon of defense.
Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.
That's what we are doing here: modifying flat earth theory and deciding what works and what does not work. and who's faking and ignoring evidence? Do we sometimes ignore claims? Yes. But evidence? And advancing flat earth IS scientific. We haven't had the kind of support and funding that round earth theory has received over the last few hundreds of years. That's the only reason why the spherical earth model seems like the better choice to most.
-
Stinkyone,
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.
I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".
They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.
You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.
Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.
-
Kal_9000,
There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."
"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."
More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.
-
Douglips,
I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun.
The problem is I never said that electrolysis occurs in the Sun or that the Sun was a closed system. Show me where I typed that. People either assumed that is what I typed, which I then corrected them by adding specifics, or they intentionally resorted to strawman fallacies to misrepresent my position.
I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.
Such as...?
You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.
Please elaborate.
Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
What exactly are you basing that on?
-
Stinkyone,
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.
I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".
They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.
You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.
Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.
In other words: because the oort cloud and gravity fit in with the round earth worldview, they're acceptable. That is so biased! There is no evidence for gravity or the oort cloud. They're speculative and theoretical, but that's alright with round earthers because it helps the round earth worldview. But flat earth theorists are held to a different standard.
-
Stinkyone,
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.
I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".
They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.
You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.
Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.
In other words: because the oort cloud and gravity fit in with the round earth worldview, they're acceptable. That is so biased! There is no evidence for gravity or the oort cloud. They're speculative and theoretical, but that's alright with round earthers because it helps the round earth worldview. But flat earth theorists are held to a different standard.
I would point to Cavendish for gravity proofs. But must admit ignorance on the oort cloud stuff, as I've largely fallen out of following astronomy.
As well though not "proof" per se, the equations for gravity DO properly explain planetary motion. So anything seeking to replace it should be able to explain them at least as well as I understand it.
-
Since we are on the topic of gravity, it should be interesting that Newton was a champion of disproving so many Aristotlean beliefs. It would be weird that the concept of a flat earth has been ignored for millennium because of the refusal to challenge Aristotle and that gravity would be wrong too for the same reasons. It is clear that Newton did not originate the law of gravity, as other scientists were also thinking there must be a way to prove the attraction decreases with distance and it is probably by the inverse of the square. When Hooke approached Newton with the idea, Newton had stated it was not the square due to thought processes Newton had as a boy on his aunt's farm. Newton did Zenetic research by watching the moon. He figured that if the earth was not there, the moon would go straight. But since it orbits the earth, the rate it is falling must equal the angular difference in the circle of orbit versus the straight line. From this he calculated the force of gravity and found it not to be square of the distance. Newton kept every piece of paper he wrote on. When proving it to Hooke, they discovered an error made as a young boy and the rest is history. Not much room for Aristotle to fit into this story. Basing the law of gravity by looking at the stuff out on the farm.
-
What about my 1595 SAT score?
First, you're a liar. The SAT is scored in ten-point increments, so it's impossible to get a 1595. Second, the SAT has little to no correlation with how much physics/chemistry you know because it doesn't test it.
Third, I have lost my patience with you. You haven't done even the most fundamental research to back up your claims, and are just spouting pseudoscientific junk without even the slightest conception of how things work. Let's eviscerate your hypothesis one more time:
1. You say that "something" is electrolyzing decomposing (since electrolysis requires a rather impossible electric setup; do you see that you can't even get basic terminology correct? What does that tell you about how much you know about chemistry?) water into hydrogen and oxygen outside of the Sun. Well, where does this "something" get the energy to do so? You've just moved the problem outside, and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun, and you still haven't proposed how this thing outside gets its own energy and why it wouldn't shine like the Sun.
2. Nobody has observed the Sun sending back water to the "something" because it can't. The Sun is too hot for water to exist in it, so it cannot produce or send it back.
3. You cannot gain energy by sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun; it will only get slightly bigger. Combustion doesn't work if the products are reversed to the reactants almost instantly. Anyone taking a basic chemistry class can tell you this. The temperature is simply too high for water to exist; thermolysis converts it back. If combustion were the main source of the Sun's energy, it would have to be at a far lower temperature than is currently observed.
4. You do not understand how much hydrogen and oxygen you need to combust to achieve the necessary power output. As I said before, you would need over 1000 cycles of free energy production through combustion to get just the current thermal energy of the Sun. Do you realize how much matter has to move out of the Sun for this to happen (1000 solar masses of hydrogen, and 8000 solar masses of oxygen)? Do you also realize that each 9000 solar masses will only sustain the Sun for 30 years? How much stuff has to move? Of course, this is a moot point because as I've said a million times before, combustion in the Sun yields no appreciable energy increase because the reaction is so heavily favored to a slurry of atoms.
Maybe you should study simple stuff like Le Chatelier's principle (although that's not exactly how it works here, it's a good starting point) instead of stubbornly holding dearly to your misconceptions and ignorance about basic science. The fact that you cannot browse a simple Wikipedia article about thermolysis shows that you are not making a good-faith effort to learn why you are wrong.
As I've said before, you suffer from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger. You think you know far more than everyone else but you really don't and most RE people are trying to patiently explain that to you (I'm already over that) while you continue to argue over minor points and refuse to consider what is being said (or refuse to try to understand it by looking up some basic science).
Also, please don't brag about your SAT score (whatever it is) or GPA; it has no relevance to the current discussion and is quite tacky.
-
Douglips,
I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun.
The problem is I never said that electrolysis occurs in the Sun or that the Sun was a closed system. Show me where I typed that. People either assumed that is what I typed, which I then corrected them by adding specifics, or they intentionally resorted to strawman fallacies to misrepresent my position.
Yes. I know. You didn't explicitly say it occurred in the sun, and some people assumed incorrectly how your model worked. I appreciate that your model does not have the water splitting occur inside the sun, and the quote from me illustrates this. Do I still need to show you something that I'm not asserting?
I said "People pointed out your mechanism can't occur in the sun", I didn't say you asserted it occurred in the sun. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.
Such as...?
Such... as... THE THING I SAID TWO PARAGRAPHS LOWER.
You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.
Please elaborate.
I DID ELABORATE ONE PARAGRAPH LOWER WHICH YOU QUOTE AGAIN HERE:
Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
What exactly are you basing that on?
Basic chemistry and physics. Specifically:
- We know the energy released by burning hydrogen and oxygen and producing water. This is a basic concept in chemistry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation)
- We know the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Here are all the ways to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting) The amount of energy required is always greater than or equal to the amount of energy you get by burning hydrogen and oxygen.
- Even if we didn't know those quantities, the laws of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics) tell us that nothing is perfectly efficient, you can't gain energy by going through this cycle, and in fact due to inefficiencies you can't break even - you will be wasting energy.
Does that make sense? We know that to power some water splitting thingie, we'd need more energy than you get from burning hydrogen to produce the water. Agree or disagree?
We also know that if you have some energy-using thingamajiggy, the laws of thermodynamics tell us it can't be 100% efficient, so it would be producing a lot of waste heat. Agree or disagree?
These things are just how hot things and chemical reactions work.
Now, I want to make it clear, I'm not accusing you of using ad hoc fallacies in whatever you post next, I want to make it clear that instead you simply have not told us enough of your proposed model of how the sun works. People will object to the obvious problems in the portion of the model you have presented, and then as you present more of the model people will present more problems that the new portions of your model present.
The reason this will keep happening is that the fundamental rules of chemistry and physics make it very difficult for to have such a model.
So, if I may, I'd love to ask you to completely enumerate your model of the sun burning hydrogen, so that it won't appear (incorrectly, of course!) to others that you are committing ad hoc fallacies as people pick apart the current level to which you've explained your model.
-
douglips,
What you say is right. But it implies that if Pickel elaborated her hypothesis it could somehow have a semblance of feasibility. Unfortunately, that's not true.
The main problem, as I see it, with her argument is literally that throwing hydrogen and oxygen (even if we could magically conjure it up from nothing) would not keep the Sun at its current temperature; at the current temperature, adding that fuel doesn't actually give it energy that it can use, and the Sun would have cooled to a much lower temperature. The fact that she doesn't know this means that she hasn't done adequate research before coughing up an ad-hoc explanation for the energy of the Sun. Only when the Sun cools to the point when the combustion is hard to reverse will the combustion actually put energy into the Sun and keep the temperature stable.
And as for the confusion whether the decomposition of the water happened inside or outside:
Regardless of where the decomposition of water happens, the same problem arises: where does the energy come from? This was literally the question asked. Just as nobody cares about the aluminum transmission cables if you claim to have a free energy device, quibbling over whether the decomposition of water happens in the Sun or in some magical fantasy land is a waste of time. The water has to be separated somewhere.
And then, there's the content of my previous post pointing out all of the errors in terms of scale and the inconsistency with observation. There are just so many reasons why this hypothesis is bunk, and the fact that Pickel can't see them means that she needs to really review intro chemistry/physics.
-
Douglips,
Yes. I know. You didn't explicitly say it occurred in the sun, and some people assumed incorrectly how your model worked. I appreciate that your model does not have the water splitting occur inside the sun, and the quote from me illustrates this. Do I still need to show you something that I'm not asserting?
To answer your question, no you do not.
I said "People pointed out your mechanism can't occur in the sun", I didn't say you asserted it occurred in the sun. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I never suggested that you did say that. I was simply pointing out why the people doing the pointing out were wrong.
Basic chemistry and physics. Specifically:
We know the energy released by burning hydrogen and oxygen and producing water. This is a basic concept in chemistry.We know the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Here are all the ways to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The amount of energy required is always greater than or equal to the amount of energy you get by burning hydrogen and oxygen.Even if we didn't know those quantities, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that nothing is perfectly efficient, you can't gain energy by going through this cycle, and in fact due to inefficiencies you can't break even - you will be wasting energy.
Pardon me. I should have specified what to elaborate. I was referring to this part of the quote:
If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
I agree with you on the electrolysis of h2o requiring more energy than the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. That was not subject of my original request for you to elaborate.
Does that make sense? We know that to power some water splitting thingie, we'd need more energy than you get from burning hydrogen to produce the water. Agree or disagree?
Of course.
We also know that if you have some energy-using thingamajiggy, the laws of thermodynamics tell us it can't be 100% efficient, so it would be producing a lot of waste heat. Agree or disagree?
Sure.
These things are just how hot things and chemical reactions work.
Of course. And I don't dispute them.
Now, I want to make it clear, I'm not accusing you of using ad hoc fallacies in whatever you post next, I want to make it clear that instead you simply have not told us enough of your proposed model of how the sun works.
And that is correct. I don't specify enough because that's not the subject that this particular post of the forum was created for. The original poster asked what was the energy source for the Sun, not what is the mechanism of the Sun in flat earth theory to which pickel b is referring.
People will object to the obvious problems in the portion of the model you have presented, and then as you present more of the model people will present more problems that the new portions of your model present.
I personally wouldn't word it like that. Instead I would say people will fill in with assumptions the gaps of the general theory I present.
The reason this will keep happening is that the fundamental rules of chemistry and physics make it very difficult for to have such a model.
You mean people criticizing what I present? The reason why it will keep happening is because I've provided a general overview of the theory and people fill in the gaps with assumptions. I have no problem with people criticizing what I type. My problem is when people make assumptions not explicitly stated and then debunk their assumptions as a way of proving me wrong. Why can't people simply ask me to elaborate if they don't fully understand what I type or if they want specifics rather than jump to conclusions? Jumping to conclusions is not using judgement to think critically.
So, if I may, I'd love to ask you to completely enumerate your model of the sun burning hydrogen, so that it won't appear (incorrectly, of course!) to others that you are committing ad hoc fallacies as people pick apart the current level to which you've explained your model.
Perhaps I'll make a separate thread that does just that. I don't want to post a new topic here, for I don't know if it would be acceptable. This discussion has already deviated from the original subject / inquiry.
-
JohnAdams1145,
First, you're a liar. The SAT is scored in ten-point increments, so it's impossible to get a 1595. Second, the SAT has little to no correlation with how much physics/chemistry you know because it doesn't test it.
The essay is scored in one point increments. How dare you accuse me of being a liar. May I ask, did you intentionally leave the essay part out or is it that you were wrong? And it's irrelevant whether the SAT tests chemistry and physics or not. It was stated by another user here that the educational system failed me (suggesting that I am poorly educated), and I mentioned my SAT score as a rebuttal. SAT scores are national and not dependent on one particular school's effectiveness at teaching. Also, the SAT tests critical reading and thinking, which are essential to acquiring knowledge.
Third, I have lost my patience with you.
And how exactly is it my fault that you lack mental stamina?
You haven't done even the most fundamental research to back up your claims, and are just spouting pseudoscientific junk without even the slightest conception of how things work.
No. I have backed up my claims quite nicely with science. It's not my fault that you assumed that I mentioned things like the Sun being a closed system that separated its own h2o when I didn't say such. Word of advice: never assume things that are not explicitly stated, and read carefully.
Let's eviscerate your hypothesis one more time:
1. You say that "something" is electrolyzing decomposing (since electrolysis requires a rather impossible electric setup; do you see that you can't even get basic terminology correct? What does that tell you about how much you know about chemistry?) water into hydrogen and oxygen outside of the Sun.
Electrolysis of h2o: running an electric current through h2o to yield separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Electricity (such as lightning) does exist in nature. So, I don't get what point you are trying to make. Also, electrolysis is a form of decomposition (or rather a mechanism of decomposition). So, why you chose to cross out "electrolysis" and replace it with "decomposition" is beyond me. Exactly what point were you tryng to make by doing that? And yet, you have the nerve to say I don't know what I'm talking about? It looks like you're the one who doesn't.
Well, where does this "something" get the energy to do so?
Depends. I'm not necessarily saying that electrolysis of h2o is limited to one particular mechanism. Lightning in particular is the result of friction between clouds that results in unequal electron distribution and transfer.
You've just moved the problem outside,
No, I haven't moved the problem outside. I've always been consistent and never said h2o is separated into hydrogen and oxygen inside the Sun. Why do you continue to resort to strawman tactics?
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
and you still haven't proposed how this thing outside gets its own energy and why it wouldn't shine like the Sun.
Unfortunately, flat earth theory has not received the resources, funding, and support that round earth theory has received. So, you can understand that we're still in the developing stage, and our theories are not fully advanced. That being said, I would like to reiterate what I typed above:
Lightning is an observed phenomenon that usually occurs around water of some sort. The accumulation of lightning around the world could at least be partially responsible for performing electrolysis on h2o. And I don't think I have to mention how lightning acquires energy to exist unless you deny the existence of lightning.
2. Nobody has observed the Sun sending back water to the "something" because it can't.
Not in h2o's liquid form. But water vapor is hardly noticeable. Much of the released h2o would form into clouds and be an extension of the water cycle.
The Sun is too hot for water to exist in it, so it cannot produce or send it back.
I have always suggested that water / h2o is produced by the sun. There's a difference between saying that and saying "water is in the Sun". I've already mentioned this. Are you not reading what I have typed? Or are you intentionally resorting to strawman tactics?
3. You cannot gain energy by sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun; it will only get slightly bigger.
What exactly are you basing that on?
Combustion doesn't work if the products are reversed to the reactants almost instantly. Anyone taking a basic chemistry class can tell you this. The temperature is simply too high for water to exist;
How hot do you think the Sun is?
thermolysis converts it back. If combustion were the main source of the Sun's energy, it would have to be at a far lower temperature than is currently observed.
How hot do you think the Sun is?
4. You do not understand how much hydrogen and oxygen you need to combust to achieve the necessary power output. As I said before, you would need over 1000 cycles of free energy production through combustion to get just the current thermal energy of the Sun. Do you realize how much matter has to move out of the Sun for this to happen (1000 solar masses of hydrogen, and 8000 solar masses of oxygen)? Do you also realize that each 9000 solar masses will only sustain the Sun for 30 years? How much stuff has to move? Of course, this is a moot point because as I've said a million times before, combustion in the Sun yields no appreciable energy increase because the reaction is so heavily favored to a slurry of atoms.
May I ask how hot do you think the Sun is?
Maybe you should study simple stuff like Le Chatelier's principle (although that's not exactly how it works here, it's a good starting point) instead of stubbornly holding dearly to your misconceptions and ignorance about basic science.
How is this relevant to this discussion? You disagree angrily with my scientific theory of the Sun (which has stood up to scrutiny on this forum and remains plausible) and resort to personal attacks and false assumptions. Stick to the content being discussed, please.
The fact that you cannot browse a simple Wikipedia article about thermolysis shows that you are not making a good-faith effort to learn why you are wrong.
I already know what thermolysis is. To be honest, I'm not even sure why you've brought it up in the first place. Red herring tactic perhaps? Is it because you assume (again) that the both of us agree on a certain temperature of the Sun?
As I've said before, you suffer from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
Well, thank you for the diagnosis, Dr. JohnAdams1145! Again with the ad hominem attacks. What are you so scared of that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks?
You think you know far more than everyone else but you really don't
Have I ever said that I did? You're the one insisting that you have all the answers.
and most RE people are trying to patiently explain that to you (I'm already over that) while you continue to argue over minor points and refuse to consider what is being said (or refuse to try to understand it by looking up some basic science).
So, it's my fault now that you haven't communicated effectively in this discussion? It's my fault you made many bad assumptions? I don't argue over little things. I'm looking to have a meaningful discussion here, and I welcome people to criticize and strengthen this flat earth scientific theory regarding the sun. I do not come here to be insulted and called names, which is what have consistently been doing.
Also, please don't brag about your SAT score (whatever it is) or GPA; it has no relevance to the current discussion and is quite tacky.
I'm not bragging. Please go back and actually read the conversation IN CONTEXT. I was accused of being the product of a failed education system. So, I mentioned my SAT score, GPA, and being a straight-A student as rebuttals. How is that bragging?
-
douglips,
What you say is right. But it implies that if Pickel elaborated her hypothesis it could somehow have a semblance of feasibility. Unfortunately, that's not true.
The main problem, as I see it, with her argument is literally that throwing hydrogen and oxygen (even if we could magically conjure it up from nothing) would not keep the Sun at its current temperature; at the current temperature, adding that fuel doesn't actually give it energy that it can use, and the Sun would have cooled to a much lower temperature. The fact that she doesn't know this means that she hasn't done adequate research before coughing up an ad-hoc explanation for the energy of the Sun. Only when the Sun cools to the point when the combustion is hard to reverse will the combustion actually put energy into the Sun and keep the temperature stable.
And as for the confusion whether the decomposition of the water happened inside or outside:
Regardless of where the decomposition of water happens, the same problem arises: where does the energy come from? This was literally the question asked. Just as nobody cares about the aluminum transmission cables if you claim to have a free energy device, quibbling over whether the decomposition of water happens in the Sun or in some magical fantasy land is a waste of time. The water has to be separated somewhere.
And then, there's the content of my previous post pointing out all of the errors in terms of scale and the inconsistency with observation. There are just so many reasons why this hypothesis is bunk, and the fact that Pickel can't see them means that she needs to really review intro chemistry/physics.
Since this was addressed to Douglips, I'll refrain from addressing it. All I will say is much of what johnadams1145 typed here has already been addressed by me or are assumptions of his. The rest is ad hominem attacks and lies. Regardless of where the decomposition of water happens, the same problem arises: where does the energy come from? This was literally the question asked.
No, the question asked was "what is the energy of the Sun?" And I have answered that. "What is the energy of the natural electrolysis?" is a separate debate.
-
1. You are a liar. The essay is scored separately from the other sections (and it's 8 points, so it makes no sense to add to something with 10-point increments). It isn't reported as part of the -/1600 score. Stop trying to cover it up. Please PM me a screenshot of your SAT score report and I'll reconsider. As I said before, your SAT score has little to do with your knowledge in chemistry and physics.
2. Nobody has the patience to deal with someone who won't do the slightest bit of research and/or read posts carefully.
3. You have not. You don't even know why combustion doesn't work in the Sun, as evidenced by your continued belief that what you said is scientifically correct. Please re-read my evisceration of your hypothesis AGAIN.
4. Do you even know how water electrolysis is performed? It requires at bare minimum an anode and a cathode and an electric current flowing from the anode to the cathode, and both have to be immersed in water. Let me ask you, do you see any of that in space? No. As I've said before, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd see how improbable it is for a potential difference to be maintained to continue the electrolysis reaction. Electrolysis is very unlikely to occur in large quantities in nature simply because it requires a certain structure. Thermolysis (how many times have I said this already?) and even a chemical reduction of the hydrogen is far more likely. IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it. Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside. The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear. Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.
8. So, why do you think that Round Earth gets more funding? Probably because it makes more sense. Probably because hydrogen fusion has been demonstrated on Earth and it makes a TON more sense than water floating in space going in and out of the Sun. Perhaps it's because you still don't understand why a very large electrochemical cell is so hard to find in nature. Perhaps it's because you don't really understand how an electrochemical cell works. When you cite lightning as an example of natural electricity, do you realize how much smaller lightning is compared to the astronomical electric current any water electrolyzer would need to power the Sun? What charge pump (that is, something that generates and holds a strong electric field) could you even conceive to keep the voltage at a high enough level? There is none. This is why I find thermolysis at least a more informed (yet still garbage) mechanism to explain the separation of water.
9. 10000 solar masses of water vapor would be very noticeable in space. It would block a lot of radiation and cause major problems with any sort of celestial astronomy. Also you haven't proposed what keeps the water vapor from simply dispersing; what keeps it flowing back and forth between the Sun and whatever magical source you have?
10. You still don't understand basic chemistry and haven't made a good-faith effort to read my previous post. Let me explain this as I would to a fourth-grader because you refuse to wrap your head around it.
- The chemical equation for the combustion of water is 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
(\Delta H = -572 kJ / mol)
- The reverse reaction has an enthalpy change of 572 kJ / mol. If you debate this, then you need to learn basic chemistry.
- So let's assume that we fed 10000000000000000 metric craploads of H2 and O2 in a 2:1 stoichiometric ratio into the Sun.
- It'll literally just ionize into a plasma (or just stay gaseous if it stays at the surface) because it's so damn hot. The H2 and O2 won't combine, as per basic chemistry. I don't understand why you don't get this. But let's assume that 4 mol of H2 gets combusted, just to explain basic chemistry to you.
- So the Sun gets a temporary extra 1144 kJ of energy. But because it's so damn hot, the 4 mol of water just separates into H2 and O2 or even just back into the plasma (if it gets hot enough). Thermolysis is a real thing.
- Guess what happens when 4 mol of water separates again? The Sun loses that 1144 kJ. Any water you put into the Sun will be decomposed by the thermal energy of the Sun back into hydrogen and oxygen, at the expense of some of the heat energy in the Sun. This is a consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As long as the Sun is hot enough to decompose water very quickly, you cannot gain energy by putting H2 and O2 into the Sun.
11. How hot do I think the Sun is? 15 million K at its core. Of course, you won't believe this because you don't understand any of the science involved and just want to argue with me over an indefensible position. So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven. You should know this from my previous posts, but you're clearly not a good reader...
12. If you don't understand how Le Chatelier's principle is relevant to the discussion, that means you don't know what it is :) So get studying. You'll find that at the temperatures in the Sun, which way is the equilibrium? (Of course, normally combustion isn't reversible, but when it gets that hot, the H2 + O2 reaction is)
13. If you don't understand why I've brought up thermolysis, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ. It's because in the Sun, thermolysis of water ensures that you cannot get energy out of combusting stuff into water. Is this so hard to understand?
14. I'm not scared. I'm exasperated. You write in your signature that you're a genius and then proceed to trash established science that people have worked so hard on without even understanding an inkling of what's going on. Do you understand why I find your antics disgusting? My physics professor dedicates herself to not only her research in dark matter but also explaining basic mechanics and relativity to a bunch of clueless students (including me). If you don't know something, the first step to getting better is admitting it and having an open mind instead of trashing things that don't seem intuitive to you.
15. You really don't know anything, and the fact that you still insist that you do (and even guess that you know more than I) is a major feature of Dunning-Kruger. At least I recognize that I'm no expert on GR, can only do some SR, don't understand a lot of things to do with rotation, and I'm no physicist/chemist and trust the peer-reviewed consensus instead of trashing their work because it doesn't make sense to me. I honestly suggest to you, as I've done to Tom Bishop, to try to take the AP Physics 1 and AP Chemistry practice tests (as I see you've supposedly taken the SAT recently) and see how well you do. I doubt you'll do too well. I certainly know very little about chemistry and only slightly more in physics.
16. You are the product of a failed education system if you even lend credence to Holocaust denial. Not only that, this is a clear example of Dunning-Kruger: you think that whatever little research you did compares to the literal millions of witnesses (I mean victims) of what happened. From the American and Soviet soldiers who liberated the camps to the camp guards to the piles of rotting bodies in hastily prepared graves to the ashes of those who died in the incinerators to the more fortunate who survived, there are PLENTY of people who know that the Holocaust happened and that it was targeted toward the Jews. There are even recordings of Adolf Hitler preaching his vitriol. Your supposed SAT score has nothing to do with that. The fact that you cannot put aside your worldview and just for once consider the evidence shows that you have failed not only elementary logic but also basic humanity.
17. You still haven't addressed the primary problems (in descending order of importance) with your hypothesis: 1) Putting hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun doesn't give it energy at the temperatures it's at. It'll only sustain a lower temperature Sun. This is not an assumption. This is an experimentally verifiable FACT. 2) You don't have an energy source for the Sun. 3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.
I suggest you educate yourself, and stop this silliness. You're in an argument against 99%+ scientists in the world. I could beat you just by referring to Wikipedia.
-
Here's a decent explanation of my argument that the h2 and o2 won't burn to make water:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3gyizf/is_there_a_temperature_at_which_water_will_ignite/
-
All these hayseeds posting about how it is fusion powering the Sun.
Sustained fusion is not possible, period.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsDAGgGu--E
-
Pardon me. I should have specified what to elaborate. I was referring to this part of the quote:
If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle
The solid angle of the sun is about .00007 steraidians, out of 4π. 4π / .00007 is about 200000.
The sun is about 400,000 times brighter than the Moon - see table of celestial objects here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude
400000/200000 = 2, so the entire sky would be about twice as bright as the Moon.
Perhaps I'll make a separate thread that does just that. I don't want to post a new topic here, for I don't know if it would be acceptable. This discussion has already deviated from the original subject / inquiry.
I would welcome such a thread.
-
All these hayseeds posting about how it is fusion powering the Sun.
Sustained fusion is not possible, period.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsDAGgGu--E
Then explain how a thermonuclear bomb works. You can't just assert stuff without putting evidence forward.
Also I'm watching the video you've provided (with no summary, of course), and it sounds like total garbage. People love to insert big words and vague hand-waves when they really have no idea what they're talking about. For one, the narrator seems to believe that the "electrical structure" of matter prevents degenerate matter... what a load of garbage.
The narrator also uses an FE favorite: taking quotes out of context without understanding what they mean and then twisting them to imply that established science has no idea what it's talking about. I could do the same with FE.
Additionally, FE people have a serious problem understanding just the nature of science: of course there will be things that we don't know; that's why scientists still have jobs. The narrator points to a double explosion of a star that's a very interesting observation (pretty much all of science has been developed off this; would it be fair to say that Newton's Laws must be wrong because of electromagnetism? I didn't think so.) However, the incompleteness of a theory that has been supported by many experiments is not enough to discredit it completely. Do you understand basic logic? Let's say I assert a, b, c, ... z (since theories are just a bunch of logical propositions). Now let's say that the theory as a whole predicts a1, b1, c1, ..., z1, a2, ..., p21 correctly. However, it does not predict p22 correctly, saying that it is true when it is observed to be false. That does NOT mean that all of a, b, c, ... z are false. It could mean that z is false under certain conditions that the theory wasn't tested so much in during its formation. While this means that the theory is logically false, this does not mean that it can't be mostly right, with some kinks to iron out.
Let's have another hypothesis that comes along that asserts A (namely the flatness of the Earth). On its face, it seems simpler (asserts less) than the consensus theory (a, b, c, ... z) because the Earth looks flat and there are various counterintuitive phenomena around, as well as a mysterious force named "gravity" by the consensus theory that modern science can't unify with the Standard Model. But then you apply logical rules and observed physics and you find out that you also need the assertions B (UA), C (gravitation 1), D (gravitation 2), E (gravitation 3), F (space conspiracy), G (mysterious dome), H (electric Sun), I (electric equations don't apply in large/small scale), J (conservation of energy is fake), K (contradictory distortion arguments), ..., Z150 to effectively "patch" up the hypothesis to make it line up with observations. Then it is asserting far too much.
Of course, since virtually none of you are scientists by profession (and a lot of you can't pass a physics course), that's pretty hard to get. A hypothesis that seems more intuitive to the uneducated does not have to be the correct one.
The stupid narrator then goes on to talk about how we can't assume gravity exists in stars because it exists in places other than stars. What a load of garbage. Yes, we don't know how gravity fits in with the concept of force-mediating particles (I'll say that I have no expertise in this area by far). But then again, that's why scientists have jobs. However, it's a VERY good heuristic that if you observe that masses attract each other, and that celestial bodies are spherical (the expected shape with gravity), AND that orbits happen, that gravity works inside stars. Too bad the narrator is so caught up in his grandiloquence that he can't see the basic logical fallacy of the inane drivel he spouts.
It's extreme Dunning-Kruger for some random person to assert that massive damage has been done to physics by respected scientists who have done much to advance modern technology. I love how the narrator thinks that the theory so complex that it's not falsifiable, yet points to evidence that supposedly falsifies it... sounds like an ignorant rant. I'm going to twist the oft-repeated "you not understanding a theory doesn't mean it's false" and change it to "if you don't understand a theory, you are in absolutely no position to declare it false." It is extreme arrogance that lets novices like FE theorists assert that so many scientists are wrong just because of some supposed experiment you did on a beach (Tom Bishop).
The concept of a "galactic circuit" essentially means that Mr. Thornhill is inventing a magic source of energy to make the star very bright to make it look like a supernova. He clearly understands nothing about black body radiation and spectral analysis. The spectrum you get from an electric arc in some ionized gas is very different (very narrow bands) than the one you get from black body radiation. Stars cannot be arc lights.
Mr. Thornhill is obviously a crank who isn't up to par at the state of the art and just cherry-picks new scientific observations to somehow support his hypothesis which is easily debunked by anyone knowledgeable in the matter (hint: his hypothesis seems simpler at first glance, but it makes wrong predictions, and requires outlandish patches to keep it alive). Anyone see something familiar? Maybe cranks' brains are just wired differently.
-
To address another digression within this thread, SAT scores are confusing. When I was a kid there were two multiple choice sections and the maximum score was 1600. Then they added an essay and the maximum score was 2400. Then they did something else and the maximum is 1600. I have no idea how to compare my 1370 from 1986 to any more recent score.
https://magoosh.com/hs/sat/about-the-sat/2016/what-is-the-highest-score-on-the-new-sat-a-qa/
-
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...
-
To address another digression within this thread, SAT scores are confusing. When I was a kid there were two multiple choice sections and the maximum score was 1600. Then they added an essay and the maximum score was 2400. Then they did something else and the maximum is 1600. I have no idea how to compare my 1370 from 1986 to any more recent score.
https://magoosh.com/hs/sat/about-the-sat/2016/what-is-the-highest-score-on-the-new-sat-a-qa/
If you took it in 1986 it was out of 1600 (reading and math) and is roughly equivalent to the score today (although the content tested has changed a bit). I took it in the short time the SAT included a writing part, which is scored out of 800 (for a total of 2400 across all 3 parts). How that score out of 800 was determined included the essay and the multiple choice.
Now they've changed it back to the evidence-based reading and writing (reading section) and the math; the essay is optional and reported separately.
This is why I think that Pickel B Gravel is lying about her SAT score. While using ad hominem is fallacious if it is used to assert the truth or falsity of a statement, one can use it as a heuristic about the veracity of the claims made by the person, and whether they hold worthwhile merit pending some quick research.
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...
Spot on. Very few people are geniuses (as per definition). I don't claim to be one, and most scientists don't claim to be (even some Nobel laureates), and yet Pickel claims it...
-
Kal_9000,
Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off.
That was never my intention. If I wanted sympathy, I would've mentioned my recent undergoing of chemotherapy for cancer. But I didn't mention that. Do you know why? Because I don't want pity. No, I don't want him to back off. If I did, I would have politely told him to back off.
Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid.
Then why would he use ad hominem attacks if his arguments were valid? Ad hominem attacks are used by individuals losing an argument; it's their last weapon of defense.
Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.
That's what we are doing here: modifying flat earth theory and deciding what works and what does not work. and who's faking and ignoring evidence? Do we sometimes ignore claims? Yes. But evidence? And advancing flat earth IS scientific. We haven't had the kind of support and funding that round earth theory has received over the last few hundreds of years. That's the only reason why the spherical earth model seems like the better choice to most.
If you had chemotherapy recently, your hair would have fallen out, which is not what your profile picture (presumably your face) shows.
That CAN be a case where ad hominem attacks are used. They're sometimes also used when the person you're debating is fed up with your bullshit.
No amount of modification to Flat Earth Theory will make it correct, because the core premise is false. In science, we discard theories that have been repeatedly proven to be false.
-
Kal_9000,
There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."
"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."
More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.
To quote the Wikipedia article on Holocaust denial,
"Critics of Holocaust denial include the Auschwitz SS"
Do you know what the SS is? Or Auschwitz?
-
I fixed Pickel's signature!
"Hi y'all. I am a typical IDIOT girl who does NOT follow the masses and who blindly accepts what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of facts including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth FACT."
-
If you had chemotherapy recently, your hair would have fallen out, which is not what your profile picture (presumably your face) shows.
I doubt she'd update it to show that, I know I wouldn't. I'd stop trying to poke holes in her personal life stories and just discard them as unrelated - that's an area where she has an objective advantage, because she could make up anything and you couldn't prove her wrong.
You should stick to the flat earth discussions, where she can still make stuff up but you can prove her wrong. :P
-
If you had chemotherapy recently, your hair would have fallen out, which is not what your profile picture (presumably your face) shows.
I doubt she'd update it to show that, I know I wouldn't. I'd stop trying to poke holes in her personal life stories and just discard them as unrelated - that's an area where she has an objective advantage, because she could make up anything and you couldn't prove her wrong.
You should stick to the flat earth discussions, where she can still make stuff up but you can prove her wrong. :P
True, PickYerPoison, true.
-
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
-
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?
Unfortunately, because of the principle of explosion (one falsity can be used to prove any proposition), there are just too many things to hit at, and so we probably missed some logical hypocrisies. Nevertheless, you are correct. The main problem was she didn't understand on a deep level (and didn't realize she couldn't) any of the stuff she put forward, and so couldn't have a reasonable debate. The scientific arguments put forward are plenty enough to discredit her argument; there's no need to muddy the waters with some more abstract arguments about her sources and such. Besides, Round Earth people generally find NASA a reliable source.
-
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology. In fact, NASA profits far more monetarily from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.
This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produce these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
-
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.
This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?
-
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.
This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?
I made a number of claims there. NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year. The evidence is NASA's own claims, and what should really be common knowledge to anyone familiar with NASA and its vast contributions to our modern technology.
NASA even has the gall to use this money making scheme to justify its budget with Congress. Every $1 invested into NASA creates $8 to $14, the researched technologies benefit greatly to our modern life, and that is why Congress should keep NASA well funded. Where the new money goes after it is created is not really talked about.
-
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
I noticed it and kind of chuckled, but that is the least of her problems. I'd love to know how hydrogen and oxygen "naturally flow into the sun."
-
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.
This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?
NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year.
Any specific sources for this? I can't find anywhere that they are making this claim. I see about 50 or so listed for the year 2017/2016/2015. A far cry from the 'well over a thousand' you're claiming here.
As a reminder, NASA's budget IS public and subject to congressional oversight/review. I'd love to see where TFES sees problems with it at some point.
-
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.
This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?
NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year.
Any specific sources for this? I can't find anywhere that they are making this claim. I see about 50 or so listed for the year 2017/2016/2015. A far cry from the 'well over a thousand' you're claiming here.
As a reminder, NASA's budget IS public and subject to congressional oversight/review. I'd love to see where TFES sees problems with it at some point.
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf) --
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth
- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)
I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.
-
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf) --
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth
- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)
I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.
1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.
-
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf) --
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth
- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)
I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.
1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.
Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology
See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website (https://invention.nasa.gov/faqs.php) for its employees and contractors:
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.
Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.
-
Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology
See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website (https://invention.nasa.gov/faqs.php) for its employees and contractors:
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.
Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.
That means that the number 1,600 includes not just actual new technologies, such as e.g. launch methods, but also:
- improvements to existing technology (for example, a slightly better battery)
- new applications of existing technology (for example, using solar panel technology made for satellites on electric cars)
- improved processes (for example, streamlining the process for a factory floor to request new equipment)
- new processes (for example, creating a way for one group further down an assembly line to communicate with a group in front of them if they notice errors coming down the line)
- improvements to existing manufacturing methods (for example, cost-saving on an engine casing by using leftovers from another part of the process to avoid waste)
- new manufacturing methods (for example,
creating a new robotic assembly line for a new set of parts) - improvements to existing materials (for example, creating a slightly different mix of metal that costs less but is equally strong)
- new applications of existing materials (for example, using the above to build an old chassis)
- new computer programs (for example, the GUI for compositing panoramic images taken by a new camera)
- improvements to old computer programs (for example, updating an old program to eliminate memory leaks)
- new applications of computer programs (for example, adapting code for new hardware)
But that's not all. If any NASA contractor or partner comes up with any of those, it also counts! That's important, because it means that people who aren't even on NASA'S payroll can contribute to that number of 1,600. And that's fine, because NASA isn't taking credit for the entire creation itself, but rather saying "here's something we helped to create or otherwise enabled the creation of".
e: This is getting off topic. If you would like to respond, please create a new thread about it.
-
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf) --
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth
- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)
I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.
1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.
Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology
See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website (https://invention.nasa.gov/faqs.php) for its employees and contractors:
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.
Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.
Which I think is an important point here. They are using the word 'technology' in a way not in the common parlance. This is clearly a marketing piece (and as an interesting note isn't even put together by NASA but another company) and is definitely a bureaucracy thing in the naming of the NTR. But this is common among government agencies, and not exactly surprising. PickYerPoison also correctly points out these aren't even all done by direct NASA employees, but a lot are likely from partner's and contractors. They appear to even be able to apply to relatively small changes, like changing the order something is assembled for greater efficiency.
We've also gotten perhaps a touch off-topic though. I might see if I can play 'track the money' for this quote
NASA even has the gall to use this money making scheme to justify its budget with Congress. Every $1 invested into NASA creates $8 to $14, the researched technologies benefit greatly to our modern life, and that is why Congress should keep NASA well funded. Where the new money goes after it is created is not really talked about.
Because the information you've cited appears to give some good ideas on where exactly it actually goes. But that is a subject for a different thread.
-
JohnAdams1145,
1. You are a liar. The essay is scored separately from the other sections (and it's 8 points, so it makes no sense to add to something with 10-point increments). It isn't reported as part of the -/1600 score. Stop trying to cover it up.
The essay is part of the SAT and is graded in 1 point intervals, so I included it. Just admit you were wrong. You accuse me of being stubborn and thinking I'm always right, but here you are guilty of the things you accuse me of!
Please PM me a screenshot of your SAT score report and I'll reconsider.
If you don't want to believe, don't. I'm not going to share private information. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to do so because I lack a camera.
As I said before your SAT score has little to do with your knowledge in chemistry and physics.
Did I ever say it had anything to do with physics and chemistry? Was that the reason why I mentioned it? No. As I have already mentioned, it was a rebuttal to another person's comment that the educational system failed me. If that person had instead said that I don't know about physics and chemistry, I would NOT have mentioned it.
2. Nobody has the patience to deal with someone who won't do the slightest bit of research and/or read posts carefully.
Yes, you should read posts carefully and do more research. I've already mentioned that.
3. You have not.
Of course I have.
You don't even know why combustion doesn't work in the Sun, as evidenced by your continued belief that what you said is scientifically correct. Please re-read my evisceration of your hypothesis AGAIN.
Combustion can work in the Sun. I understood what you typed: combustion of h2o in the Sun can't occur because the Sun is supposedly really hot (in your opinion), and even if combustion were possible in the Sun, it would be reversible (by means of thermolysis) due to the Sun's supposed temperature. Am I right? The problem that I believe you have is assuming (again) that the two of us agree on the Sun's temperature, which is why I asked you how hot you think the Sun is.
4. Do you even know how water electrolysis is performed? It requires at bare minimum an anode and a cathode and an electric current flowing from the anode to the cathode, and both have to be immersed in water.
Yes. How does this dispute anything that I have typed?
Let me ask you, do you see any of that in space? No.
Since neither you nor I have been to space, it's safe to say none of us have seen it. And in flat earth theory, the Sun is in the earth's atmosphere.
As I've said before, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd see how improbable it is for a potential difference to be maintained to continue the electrolysis reaction. Electrolysis is very unlikely to occur in large quantities in nature simply because it requires a certain structure.
And yet, we do know that lightning is a real phenomenon. I never said the mechanism for electrolysis occurs in an isolated location. In fact, I've mentioned lightning occurrences all over the world as contributors.
Thermolysis (how many times have I said this already?) and even a chemical reduction of the hydrogen is far more likely.
And I am always open-minded to modify this theory. Perhaps BOTH electrolysis and thermolysis contribute to the breakdown of h2o.
IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?
I've already addressed this. Did you not read what I typed? Flat earth theory is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding, support, acceptance than round earth theory. Also, electricity exists naturally. Do you deny that fact?
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
I've already addressed this. Do you deny the existence of natural electricity such as lightning? Do you deny that lightning is a form of energy?
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it.
I have never misrepresented anything you have posted here. And I've already addressed the energy source of natural electrolysis. Do you deny that electricity exists in nature?
Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside.
No. I have always been consistent. Where have I mentioned that electrolysis happens in the Sun? You assumed that because you didn't read carefully.
The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?
I've already addressed this. Electricity exists in nature, and flat earth is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding and support that round earth theory has received.
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear.
I've already cited a NASA article that explains that fire in zero gravity behaves differently: Fuel comes to the fire.
As for how water gets transported to the place where it gets electrolyzed, it depends on the mechanism used to electrolysize h2o. H2o would initially be released from the Sun in vapor form. Then, with lightning as a specific electrolyzer that I'll use as an example here, the h2o would condense into clouds. Lighting would then develop from the friction of clouds, and this would lead to the lightning performing electrolysis on the h2o.
Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.
Did you bother to read the NASA article that I cited? Because it goes on to state that fireballs in zero graviy don't require much energy to thrive. And your basing your argument on how hot you think the Sun is. How hot do you think the Sun is that it requires such high amounts of mass/energy?
[quore]8. So, why do you think that Round Earth gets more funding?[/quote]
I believe because proponents of a round earth out-rivaled their competitors and gained the upper hand in academia.
Probably because it makes more sense.
In your opinion.
Probably because hydrogen fusion has been demonstrated on Earth
It's not relevant whether fusion has been demonstrated by artificial means or not. Cheese has been created by humans; is that evidence that the moon is made of cheese? You actually have to establish a correlation between the two.
and it makes a TON more sense than water floating in space going in and out of the Sun.
The Sun in flat earth theory would be located in the earth's atmosphere, not in space. And it makes sense. This flat earth model of the Sun explains why earth has so much water and why other planets don't.
Perhaps it's because you still don't understand why a very large electrochemical cell is so hard to find in nature. Perhaps it's because you don't really understand how an electrochemical cell works. When you cite lightning as an example of natural electricity, do you realize how much smaller lightning is compared to the astronomical electric current any water electrolyzer would need to power the Sun? What charge pump (that is, something that generates and holds a strong electric field) could you even conceive to keep the voltage at a high enough level? There is none. This is why I find thermolysis at least a more informed (yet still garbage) mechanism to explain the separation of water.
The problem is I don't believe the Sun is as hot as you believe. So, less energy and fuel are needed to "power up" the Sun than what you are positing. Also, as I've already typed, the accumulation of all of the lightning in the world would contribute to electrolysis.
9. 10000 solar masses of water vapor would be very noticeable in space. It would block a lot of radiation and cause major problems with any sort of celestial astronomy.
According to the necessary energy for a really hot sun, to which you seem to be giving credence.
Also you haven't proposed what keeps the water vapor from simply dispersing; what keeps it flowing back and forth between the Sun and whatever magical source you have?
Water vapor forms into clouds, which then create their own energy (lightning). The lightning would perform electrolysis to convert h2o into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. These separate gases would then move toward the least dense area (the Sun), according to diffusion. But it's irrelevant if I cannot fully explain this. Explaining the phenomenon is not the same thing as explaining the mechanism for the phenomenon. Just because I may not be able to explain certain mechanisms for the theory, it doesn't affect the theory itself.
-
JohnAdams1145,
10. You still don't understand basic chemistry and haven't made a good-faith effort to read my previous post.Let me explain this as I would to a fourth-grader because you refuse to wrap your head around it.
The chemical equation for the combustion of water is 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O(\Delta H = -572 kJ / mol)
The reverse reaction has an enthalpy change of 572 kJ / mol. If you debate this, then you need to learn basic chemistry.So let's assume that we fed 10000000000000000 metric craploads of H2 and O2 in a 2:1 stoichiometric ratio into the Sun.It'll literally just ionize into a plasma (or just stay gaseous if it stays at the surface) because it'sso damn hot. The H2 and O2won't combine, as per basic chemistry. I don't understand why you don't get this. But let's assume that 4 mol of H2 gets combusted, just to explain basic chemistry to you.So the Sun gets a temporary extra 1144 kJ of energy. But because it'sso damn hot, the 4 mol of water just separates into H2 and O2 or even just back into the plasma (if it gets hot enough). Thermolysis is a real thing, you muppet.Guess what happens when 4 mol of water separates again? The Sun loses that 1144 kJ. Any water you put into the Sun will be decomposed by the thermal energy of the Sun back into hydrogen and oxygen, at the expense of some of the heat energy in the Sun. This is a consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As long as the Sun is hot enough to decompose water very quickly, you cannot gain energy by putting H2 and O2 into the Sun.
This is why I've asked in past posts how hot you think the Sun is. From reading your posts, it appears that you believe the Sun is extremely hot. And worse of all, it looks as if you're assuming I believe likewise.
11. How hot do I think the Sun is? 15 million K at its core.
Well, that explains why you keep bringing up thermolysis. Hydrogen doesn't combust with oxygen at 15 million K.
Of course, you won't believe this because you don't understand any of the science involved and just want to argue with me over an indefensible position.
No. I don't believe it because there's no evidence for it.
So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven.
Hydrogen doesn't combust at 5700 K. If that's what you're suggesting, what are you basing it on? I cannot agree with your rather erroneous (at least in my humble opinion) belief regarding the Sun's temperature.
You should know this from my previous posts, but you're clearly not a good reader...
You NEVER typed on this specific forum what you believed the Sun's temperature was. The only time you mentioned it was indirectly when you pasted a rather large quote of yours from another forum. So, instead of assuming that you still believed the Sun was as hot as you claimed in another forum, I asked for a direct response. Am I to be insulted for asking such an innocent question?
12. If you don't understand how Le Chatelier's principle is relevant to the discussion, that means you don't know what it is  So get studying. You'll find that at the temperatures in the Sun, which way is the equilibrium? (Of course, normally combustion isn't reversible, but when it gets that hot, the H2 + O2 reaction is)
But I don't agree that the Sun is as hot as you believe it is...
13. If you don't understand why I've brought up thermolysis, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ. It's because in the Sun, thermolysis of water ensures that you cannot get energy out of combusting stuff into water. Is this so hard to understand?
I don't understand why you brought up thermolysis because I never agreed with you that the Sun is as hot as you believe.
14. I'm not scared. I'm exasperated. You write in your signature that you're a genius and then proceed to trash established science that people have worked so hard on without even understanding an inkling of what's going on. Do you understand why I find your antics disgusting? My physics professor dedicates herself to not only her research in dark matter but also explaining basic mechanics and relativity to a bunch of clueless students (including me).
It shouldn't disgust you when people question things and challenge accepted dogma. That's part of science. And it's irrelevant whether I "trash" established science. Are you suggesting that just because something is established and accepted by most, then it's true and exempt from being discarded? If so, you're appealing to common practice and appealing to popular belief, both of which are fallacious.
If you don't know something, the first step to getting better is admitting it and having an open mind instead of trashing things that don't seem intuitive to you.
I agree, and this statement of yours certainly pertains to your biased posts here and to your choice of making assumptions of things not explicitly stated instead of asking "what do you mean, pickel?"
15. You really don't know anything, and the fact that you still insist that you do (and even guess that you know more than I) is a major feature of Dunning-Kruger.
Your problem is you are being biased. This statement of yours implies that you believe you know more than I. So, why can't I accuse you of having dunning-kruger? You're the one who is asserting that you know more than all simply because you were taught what to think (rather than how to think). And you assume just because I reject established science, I don't know about it. No, I reject much of what is established because I actually analyze/question what I am taught.
At least I recognize that I'm no expert on GR, can only do some SR, don't understand a lot of things to do with rotation, and I'm no physicist/chemist and trust the peer-reviewed consensus instead of trashing their work because it doesn't make sense to me. I honestly suggest to you, as I've done to Tom Bishop, to try to take the AP Physics 1 and AP Chemistry practice tests (as I see you've supposedly taken the SAT recently) and see how well you do. I doubt you'll do too well. I certainly know very little about chemistry and only slightly more in physics.
When have I said I know everything? Appealing to authority, common practice, and popular belief (peer-reviewed paper, the work of "experts") are fallacious. And it's biased to ignore one side. I have looked at all sides and prefer the flat earth worldview. Criticizing theories and practices should not be discouraged.
16. You are the product of a failed education system if you even lend credence to Holocaust denial.
That's your opinion.
Not only that, this is a clear example of Dunning-Kruger: you think that whatever little research you did compares to the literal millions of witnesses (I mean victims) of what happened.
Looking at only one side gives the impression that the holocaust is fact. Once you look at all sides, then that perception starts to dissipate. If you had read my earlier posts on here about the holocaust, you'd know that I've cited some of the holocaust deniers who deny the holocaust. The many survivors who claim that the holocaust really happened may very well be victims of mass hysteria. I can imagine rumors starting among the detainees, altering their cognitive ability to observe things objectively. Suggestion is a big part of mass hysteria. I suggest you look into what some of the survivors say about their experience.
According to the accounts of holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust, It's apparent that there was already a common belief among new prisoners (before they entered the labor camps) that they would be killed via showers that release poisonous gas. This suggests mass hysteria.
From the American and Soviet soldiers who liberated the camps
As I've said, you can't ignore the possibility of bias and fraud. The allies (enemies of axis powers) were the only ones to investigate the alleged atrocities of Nazi Germany. And anti-Nazi rebels (enemies of Nazis) were the first to claim to the allies that the holocaust was real. Again, you can't leave out potential bias when the enemies of a regime are the ones making the claims.
to the camp guards to the piles of rotting bodies in hastily prepared graves to the ashes of those who died in the incinerators to the more fortunate who survived,
Again, you're only looking at one side and not thinking critically. What about the holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust (some of which I have stated)? How do dead bodies PROVE intentional genocide? What led you to make that conclusion instead of disease and food shortage caused by war?
there are PLENTY of people who know that the Holocaust happened and that it was targeted toward the Jews.
And there are plenty who reject it. Re-read what I typed about the holocaust. You have to think critically and look at the "evidence" through a historical lense.
There are even recordings of Adolf Hitler preaching his vitriol.
And? Saying things to appeal to voters of a certain demographic doesn't translate to Hitler actually killing Jews. And being anti-Semitic alone doesn't prove a holocaust happened.
Your supposed SAT score has nothing to do with that. The fact that you cannot put aside your worldview and just for once consider the evidence shows that you have failed not only elementary logic but also basic humanity.
There is no evidence. You're simply appealing to authority and choosing to believe in what you've been taught since youth instead of actually investigating all sides first. I used to accept established things too like the holocaust until I actually started to research them more and listen to all sides and weigh the evidence. in regards to the holocaust, for example, you mention dead bodies but don't realize that such can have many interpretations including disease and famine caused by war. And that does make more sense than an alleged genocide.
17. You still haven't addressed the primary problems (in descending order of importance) with your hypothesis: 1)Putting hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun doesn't give it energy at the temperatures it's at. It'll only sustain a lower temperature Sun. This is not an assumption. This is an experimentally verifiable FACT.
Remember: never assume things not explicitly stated. I don't agree (nor ever have agreed) the Sun is as hot as you believe.
2) You don't have an energy source for the Sun.
Combustion. I have already stated this.
3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.
According to your high-temperature Sun, it's a problem. All you have done is criticize your version of a flat earth Sun.
I suggest you educate yourself, and stop this silliness. You're in an argument against 99%+ scientists in the world. I could beat you just by referring to Wikipedia.
Appealing to authority is fallacious. So is appealing to popular belief. The only way you can "beat me" in this discussion is by resorting to ad hominem attacks, strawman tactics, and red herring attempts, which you have consistently been committing from the very beginning. I, on the other hand, want an honest and meaningful discussion. Are you willing to have one?
-
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...
If I'm not a genius, why exactly am a member of mensa? They don't let just anyone in, you know.
-
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
It's not cherry-picking. I have said that NASA fakes space travel and thus isn't a reliable source in that regard. I have NEVER stated that NASA is as a whole unreliable. As Tom Bishop has correctly pointed out, NASA isn't exclusively a space agency. It has other functions, too. And the NASA paper that I've cited clearly states that the initial discovery of fireball properties were discovered on earth in zero-gravity conditions.
-
Kal_9000,
There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."
"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."
More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.
To quote the Wikipedia article on Holocaust denial,
"Critics of Holocaust denial include the Auschwitz SS"
Do you know what the SS is? Or Auschwitz?
Of course I do. What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to equate me to the SS simply because I don't believe the holocaust happened? If so, I'd suggest that you Google "guilt by association".
-
No, Pickel, I suggest you get back on topic. Notwithstanding that, the point KAL_9000 was trying to make is that even those directly accused of the Holocaust and who have the most to lose from the truth of the Holocaust getting out and who were first-hand witnesses of the acts they are accused of perpetrating, have criticized the uninformed opinion of those generations removed from the alleged events who believe that their cursory "research" from conspiracy sites actually holds any water.
Now will you please address the numerous problems I pointed out in your "electrolysis" Sun hypothesis? (Wow, I just realized that you've really cheapened the word "hypothesis")
Of course the damn combustion temperature of hydrogen isn't at 5700 K. That's the lower bound I'm going to use because I really don't feel like explaining where the 15 million K comes from. That's the whole argument I've been making; hydrogen and oxygen cannot combine in appreciable quantities (and anything that does is reversed) at 5700 K. Therefore, you cannot extract energy from them. Simple logic, simple chemistry. What makes me not have Dunning-Kruger? Hmm... maybe it's because I agree with the stuff that 99% of scientists seem to agree on and some of my friends use the exact same principles I'm talking about to do groundbreaking research and innovation from engineering to biology. I've also freely admitted that I know close to nothing about GR, cartography, star navigation, etc.
As for your other points, I've already made the energy calculations in many other posts... I suggest you re-read. These all assume a surface temperature of 5700 K, as you should've noted (but clearly didn't). You've not addressed the energy problem. You can't just handwave into existence the energy by saying "we don't know where it comes from" -- that bends credulity. I could say that the US government has the ability to instantly vaporize the entire Solar System; someone could give the energy argument, and I could say "I didn't get enough funding to investigate the US government, but I'm sure they have a superweapon that can create the energy out of nowhere to turn the entire Solar System into a massive 15 million K ball of hydrogen gas." By the same logic, I could argue that the US government can conjure pure gold out of a hat, but I haven't had the money to investigate how they do it.
Now onto your absolute garbage hypothesis that the Sun is in the Earth's atmosphere... do you know what convection is? If not, do you know what wind is? You're pretty bad at this. Seems fair for someone who calls herself a genius. This is real Dunning-Kruger + backfire effect. The hypotheses keep getting more absurd... More and more absurd. Hey, by the way, if the Sun were in the atmosphere, how come Kim Jong Un hasn't launched a rocket/airplane to grab a piece of it? That's right, you're clueless.
Combustion is not an energy source of the Sun, as I've stated a million times before. You need to state WHERE the energy was CREATED not how it was TRANSMITTED, in the same way, we don't talk about how aluminum power lines generate electricity.
Do the calculation for how much charge transfer needs to happen to electrolyze 10000 solar masses of water. Then tell me that you're not a crank who hasn't bothered to master basic chemistry. I'm not going to keep doing these calculations only for you to come up with more and more absurd hypotheses; if you believe that you know anything about chemistry, the calculation should be very easy. But I doubt you'll get it correct.
Let me clarify one last thing for it. You think there's no evidence for a hot Sun because you've seen no satisfactory evidence for it. This is because you don't understand the vast body of scientific work that has gone into producing that piece of knowledge. That's because you're illiterate on the basics of chemistry and physics. So, I'm going to ask you again, please do the AP Physics 1&2 and AP Chemistry exams. You've taken the SAT recently (according to you), so that's anyway going to be a part of what you have to do to apply to college.
-
JohnAdams1145,
So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven.
Hydrogen doesn't combust at 5700 K. If that's what you're suggesting, what are you basing it on? I cannot agree with your rather erroneous (at least in my humble opinion) belief regarding the Sun's temperature.
The sun emits what appears to be a 5800K blackbody radiation spectrum.
Blackbody radiation is extremely well understood by physics. This means that either the sun is a minimum of 5800K, or it is something that is even hotter using energy in some weird way to simulate being a 5800K blackbody.
What temperature do you think the sun is, Pickel?
3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.
According to your high-temperature Sun, it's a problem. All you have done is criticize your version of a flat earth Sun.
What temperature do you think the sun is?
How much solar energy do you think is striking the earth when the sun is shining? How much hydrogen would have to burn to provide that energy?
-
douglips, I intentionally withheld that piece of information from her hoping that she'd do a bit of research on it. The fact that she doesn't know why I picked 5700 K as a lower bound should tell you something about how much she actually understands physics... well, the beans have been spilled :(
Argument from authority is only fallacious when the authority is not relevant to the situation. For example, asking a doctor with no physics training or a lawmaker about the merits of the luminiferous aether theory vs Newtonian mechanics vs Special Relativity would be fallacious. Asking physicists who have written seminal papers and profoundly changed our world is not fallacious.
-
And yet, we do know that lightning is a real phenomenon. I never said the mechanism for electrolysis occurs in an isolated location. In fact, I've mentioned lightning occurrences all over the world as contributors.
You still have a conservation of energy/laws of thermodynamics problem.
Where does the energy for lightning come from? If lightning were happening often enough to generate the hydrogen for the sun to combust, the sky would be bright everywhere. See my previous demonstration that for the energy of the sun to be dissipated across the entire sky, the sky would be approximately twice as bright as the moon.
IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?
I've already addressed this. Did you not read what I typed? Flat earth theory is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding, support, acceptance than round earth theory. Also, electricity exists naturally. Do you deny that fact?
What is the source of the electricity in lightning?
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
I've already addressed this. Do you deny the existence of natural electricity such as lightning? Do you deny that lightning is a form of energy?
Lightning doesn't magically appear. The energy that drives lightning comes from somewhere. It's well understood. Where do you think lightning gets its energy?
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it.
I have never misrepresented anything you have posted here. And I've already addressed the energy source of natural electrolysis. Do you deny that electricity exists in nature?
Saying there is an energy source, and quantifying that it is a SUFFICIENT energy source, are so far apart as to be completely different things. How much energy is released by lightning world-wide? Where does the energy for lightning come from? Here's a hint: Why is lightning more common in the summer than in the winter?
Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside.
No. I have always been consistent. Where have I mentioned that electrolysis happens in the Sun? You assumed that because you didn't read carefully.
The point is that a very large amount of energy is being radiated from the sun to the earth. Agree or disagree?
Such energy has to come from somewhere.
One theory is that fusion of hydrogen in the sun is the source of energy. This theory has support from such things as the kamiokande neutrino detector.
One hypothesis you are advancing is that water from combustion in the sun goes somewhere and is decomposed back into hydrogen and oxygen.
How much energy will that take?
If there were enough lightning or other sources of that energy, why don't we all get sunburns at night from all the space/upper atmosphere lightning?
The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?
I've already addressed this. Electricity exists in nature, and flat earth is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding and support that round earth theory has received.
Round earth gets zero research dollars, because all the research was done 5 or more centuries ago. If a flat earth theory were better, some other culture could have been navigating the world better than, say, the Royal Navy, which was navigating the entire surface of the planet 200 years ago based on latitude and longitude observations.
What possible experiments would you like to perform as a flat earth scientist that hasn't already been performed by someone centuries ago?
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear.
I've already cited a NASA article that explains that fire in zero gravity behaves differently: Fuel comes to the fire.
As for how water gets transported to the place where it gets electrolyzed, it depends on the mechanism used to electrolysize h2o. H2o would initially be released from the Sun in vapor form. Then, with lightning as a specific electrolyzer that I'll use as an example here, the h2o would condense into clouds. Lighting would then develop from the friction of clouds, and this would lead to the lightning performing electrolysis on the h2o.
What you are proposing is a perpetual motion device. Please consider the laws of thermodynamics. Those aren't round-earth science, they are just science.
Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.
Did you bother to read the NASA article that I cited? Because it goes on to state that fireballs in zero graviy don't require much energy to thrive. And your basing your argument on how hot you think the Sun is. How hot do you think the Sun is that it requires such high amounts of mass/energy?
Fireballs don't need much energy to thrive, but they do need at least the amount of energy they are radiating, or they are a perpetual motion machine.
So, how hot do you think the sun is?
How much solar energy do you think is striking the earth? I think it is in excess of 10^14 watts.
-
Since neither you nor I have been to space, it's safe to say none of us have seen it. And in flat earth theory, the Sun is in the earth's atmosphere.
Say what? The Sun exists in the atmosphere?? How big is the atmosphere in your opinion? The sun is supposedly 3000 miles away. There are plenty of videos of people launching balloons past the vast majority of the atmosphere - about 20 miles up. The Sun is clearly not in the atmosphere.
I've already cited a NASA article that explains that fire in zero gravity behaves differently: Fuel comes to the fire.
Please tell us why you think the sun exists in zero gravity. How did it form?
How hot do you think the Sun is that it requires such high amounts of mass/energy?
We know how hot it is by the radiation it emits. Please tell us how your flaming ball generates x-rays.
I believe because proponents of a round earth out-rivaled their competitors and gained the upper hand in academia.
Please point us to a few prominent FE academic and the work they've done.
The Sun in flat earth theory would be located in the earth's atmosphere, not in space. And it makes sense. This flat earth model of the Sun explains why earth has so much water and why other planets don't.
Ganymede has more water than Earth and it is only a moon. Enceladus is also covered in water. (Frozen surface, obviously)
Water vapor forms into clouds, which then create their own energy (lightning). The lightning would perform electrolysis to convert h2o into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. These separate gases would then move toward the least dense area (the Sun), according to diffusion. But it's irrelevant if I cannot fully explain this. Explaining the phenomenon is not the same thing as explaining the mechanism for the phenomenon. Just because I may not be able to explain certain mechanisms for the theory, it doesn't affect the theory itself.
The problem with your theory is that it is unfounded, not backed by observation, and, frankly, impossible. Other than that, I think you're on to something.
-
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...
If I'm not a genius, why exactly am a member of mensa? They don't let just anyone in, you know.
I have to say, I doubt how they let people who don't believe in stuff like evolution and history (well, parts of) in.
And, to quote stephen hawking:
"People who boast about their IQs are losers"