[JohnAdams1145]

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]

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.
• 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.

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.

[JohnAdams1145]

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.

[Pickel B Gravel]

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.

[Pickel B Gravel]

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?

[Pickel B Gravel]

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.

[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. 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.

[JohnAdams1145]

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/

[totallackey]

All these hayseeds posting about how it is fusion powering the Sun.

Sustained fusion is not possible, period.

[douglips]

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.

[JohnAdams1145]

All these hayseeds posting about how it is fusion powering the Sun.

Sustained fusion is not possible, period.

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.

[douglips]

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/

[AATW]

I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...

[JohnAdams1145]

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]

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]

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?

[KAL_9000]

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."

[PickYerPoison]

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.

[KAL_9000]

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.

True, PickYerPoison, true.

[ghostopia]

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 ).