The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2014, 09:28:22 PM
-
Astronomers have found what is, according to the true and correct theories of Modern Astronomy, a star colder than ice!
(http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/J0855-Simulation.gif)
How amazing that something like this can exist. Undoubtedly these methods of measuring the distance, composition, and temperature of stars based on slight color variations are well established, proven time and time again through direct sampling methods. Like the little-known time when the Victorian-era Royal Astronomical Society, who came up with most of the current methods, sent a space ship to a star. Remember that? It proved to the world that our present practice of Astronomy comes from something more than looking at stars and making guesses.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/meet-the-star-that-is-colder-than-ice/
-
Yes, you can have a star whose surface temperature is less than 0 degrees Celsius. I don't see a reason in your post to doubt that.
Yes, scientists have painstakingly documented the well tested, carefully reviewed technique of remotely sensing a star's surface temperature. Read the amazing seminal work by Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, "Stellar atmospheres", The Observatory, 1925; Harvard College Observatory, Monographs, no. 1. This book is her PH.D thesis which was submitted to Radcliffe College in 1925.
Please watch Episode 8 "Sisters of the Sun" of Cosmos here: http://www.fox.com/full-episodes .
Oh and just to set you straight of a couple of possible misconceptions on your part: No the theory was not developed by a man. No the theory was not developed by the RAS (though the RAS gladly welcomed Dr. Payne-Gaposchkin into the Society after her thesis was published.)
Oh and remote sensing works. Consider how one can determine the presences of parasites in one's liver, without sending a "space ship".
-
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.
According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning), the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K
"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."
10^6 K = 999727 Celsius
Uh oh...
-
According to Universe Today, this star is 15-30 Jupiter Masses (http://www.universetoday.com/13660/coolest-darkest-brown-dwarf-star-discovered)
"As it turns out, CFBDS0059 is small, only 15-30 times the mass of Jupiter, fulfilling the lower mass limit of brown dwarf stars"
According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs 13 to 80 Jupiter masses burn Deuterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf)
"Brown dwarfs are substellar objects too low in mass to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars, which can. They occupy the mass range between the heaviest gas giants and the lightest stars, with an upper limit around 75 to 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Brown dwarfs heavier than about 13 MJ are thought to fuse deuterium and those above ~65 MJ, fuse lithium as well."
Finally, according to Wikipedia, Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning)
"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the
center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."[/list]
10^6 K = 999727 Celsius
Uh oh...
I'm glad to assist you here. Thanks for explaining your concern. The most significant error you made was assuming that the burning fuel is on the surface. (You knew the 0 degrees Celsius was measured in the star's atmosphere. Remember the title of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin's thesis.) Nuclear fusion is confined to the very center of the star. (You might already know that fusion requires great pressure that occurs only at the star's center.) So the temperature at which deuterium fuses is not the surface temperature. This error destroys your argument and your concern. Please feel free to follow up with additional concerns or questions. Thanks again.
-
It doesn't say in the article that the temperature listed is only that of the star's surface. Astronomers claim to know the temperature of the interior of the sun very well, just by looking at it! The article doesn't specify.
To assert that at the center of this very low mass star, with a radius about the size of Jupiter's (all Brown Dwarfs are about the size radius of Jupiter), the temperature is 999727+ Celsius at the center and below 0 Celsius at the edges, is quite imaginative.
Astronomy depicts Brown Dwarfs as being very simple bodies with few layers in comparison with the sun. As far as I've read there is no significant difference in temperature between the core and surface for a Brown Dwarf. In a Brown Dwarf the surface recycles continuously with the core. There is a core and a convective zone.
(http://www.silverstar-academy.com/Images/information/science/martian_cataclysm/fig8.jpg)
In a convective zone, the matter continuously recycles directly from the core.
Compare this to the interior of the much larger sun, where the cooler surface matter does not directly recycle with the core, allowing the surface to be remain cooler in comparison with the core:
(http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach//education/senior/astrophysics/images/stellarevolution/sunlayers.jpg)
Are we expected to believe the absurdity that within WISE J085510.83–071442.5 the core is a 999727 Celsius or more, and the convection zone is colder than ice? And that this matter on the surface continuously recycles back into the core?
-
It doesn't say in the artile[sic] that the temperature is that of the star's atmosphere. ...
Are you expecting us to believe that at the center of this very low mass star, with a radius about the size of Jupiter's (all Brown Dwarfs are about the size radius of Jupiter), the temperature is 999727+ Celsius at the center and below 0 Celsius at the edges?
...
In a convective zone, the matter continuously recycles directly from the core.
...
Are we expected to believe that in WISE J085510.83–071442.5 the core is a 999727 Celsius or more, and the convection zone is colder than ice? And that this matter on the surface continuously recycles back into the core?
Yes, the article does make it clear that it's the surface temperature. It's also clear from "Stellar Atmospheres" that it's the visible light that we're using to determine remote sensing of a star's temperature.
By observing the spectra of the light it emitted (colder objects tend to be red in color, while the hotter ones are blue), he concluded that the temperature hangs around a nippy 225 to 260 Kelvin (that’s below the freezing point of water).
I expect you to provide evidence of your outlandish claims. I have no interest at all in what you believe, just what you can support with evidence and sound reasoning.
I suggest that you do the math to support your claim. You'll need to start with the diameter of fusing center. I have no idea how to obtain that number, so I suspect there's no means for you to support your claim. Once you have that diameter, then you can work the equations to determine what range of temperatures a brown star's surface can be. To be clear, you error again assuming that a brown star's convention is instantaneous and perfectly distributing of the star's heat. It is not.
Regardless of even those errors, you face the inverse squared law. Imagine a campfire with two seating rings, concentric about the fire. The inner circle holds four seats, so four people share the fire's heat. The outer circle holds eight seats. With twice the people, there's half the heat.
Finally I suggest that you learn the importance of original sourcing. Using a "newsy" article rather than the scholarly article causes you much confusion. It's harder to read science than news. If you had gone to the original source, you would have learned:
Brown dwarfs start their lives like stars, as collapsing balls of gas, but they lack the mass to burn nuclear fuel and radiate starlight.
So again, you've erred. No fusion there.
-
I don't believe I have stated that Brown Dwarfs are powered through full Stellar Fusion. I quoted sources which indicate Brown Dwarfs as being powered by Deuterium burning, which is a partial version of Stellar Fusion (the first two stages). To achieve Deuterium burning, a temperature of 999727 Celsius is required.
So I see that you persist in the idea that this star's sub zero surface exists simultaneously with a ~million degree core. I saw that you gave no objection to the interior illustrations I provided of the convective process for a Brown Dwarf.
Please explain to our ignorant community how matter colder than ice can directly recycle with ultra hot matter over and over again, without the entire system equalizing. I am genuinely interested and would pleasantly like to know.
Regardless of even those errors, you face the inverse squared law. Imagine a campfire with two seating rings, concentric about the fire. The inner circle holds four seats, so four people share the fire's heat. The outer circle holds eight seats. With twice the people, there's half the heat.
What if someone on the outer edge of the circle gets up and tosses himself into the burning bond fire over and over again. What is his temperature then?
-
So I see that you persist in the idea that this star's sub zero surface exists simultaneously with a ~million degree core. I saw that you gave no objection to the interior structure illustrations I provided for a Brown Dwarf.
Please explain to our ignorant community how matter colder than ice can directly recycle with ultra hot matter over and over again, without the entire system equalizing. I am genuinely interested and would pleasantly like to know.
If you don't pay attention, I don't know that you'll learn anything here. Let's start with the temperature at the core. As the NASA article states, brown dwarf stars don't have a fusing core.
Brown dwarfs start their lives like stars, as collapsing balls of gas, but they lack the mass to burn nuclear fuel and radiate starlight.
I hope this time you get this point. I don't know what else I can do to help you correct your misunderstanding that repeating the above quote. There is no "ultra hot matter" (whatever that redundant term means...).
Next, let's deal with your confusion about convention. By definition, convention is the flow between two temperature differentials. You seem to assume that all conventions immediately lead to equalized temperatures throughout the star. There is no basis for that assumption. Clearly the surface radiates energy to space, including to the Spitzer and WISE. I encourage you to be on better guard against unwarranted assumptions.
I tried the campfire example to assist you. Now let me have you imagine a lake that's frozen over. Why doesn't every lake with a frozen surface immediately become solid ice? Surely there's convention within the liquid water of the lake. Polar oceans on Earth have had frozen surfaces for eons, yet they are not, for the most part, not solid ice. So if you had reflected on your convention assumption for even a few minutes, you would have found your mistake on your own., Now I hope you can understand your error and accept that 0 degrees Celsius is, while unusual, not an improbable surface temperature of a brown dwarf. I hope that helps.
You've added another, rather silly, claim that deuterium burning is not burning nuclear fuel. It is. And you've seen the NASA article quote. There's no nuclear fuel burnt in brown dwarfs, so there is no deuterium burning.
Otherwise your new post is redundant except for the insipid jumping into the fire scenario, so I've answered all your relevant concerns.
Please don't call the community ignorant. It's obviously not.
-
If you don't pay attention, I don't know that you'll learn anything here. Let's start with the temperature at the core. As the NASA article states, brown dwarf stars don't have a fusing core.
Brown dwarfs start their lives like stars, as collapsing balls of gas, but they lack the mass to burn nuclear fuel and radiate starlight.
I hope this time you get this point. I don't know what else I can do to help you correct your misunderstanding that repeating the above quote. There is no "ultra hot matter" (whatever that redundant term means...).
Sigh. Brown Dwarfs have a burning core. They burn Deuterium. It is a partial, incomplete version of the Stellar Fusion process.
Next, let's deal with your confusion about convention. By definition, convention is the flow between two temperature differentials. You seem to assume that all conventions immediately lead to equalized temperatures throughout the star. There is no basis for that assumption. Clearly the surface radiates energy to space, including to the Spitzer and WISE. I encourage you to be on better guard against unwarranted assumptions.
Look at the illustration (http://www.silverstar-academy.com/Images/information/science/martian_cataclysm/fig8.jpg) again. Matter is continuously recycling with the core. This is how it is displayed for Brown Dwarfs and Red Dwarfs. This is how astronomy says they work.
Convention led to the conclusion of equalized temperatures. If you inject ice cold water into your veins, your blood circulations causes the coolness of the site to equalize over your entire body.
I tried the campfire example to assist you. Now let me have you imagine a lake that's frozen over. Why doesn't every lake with a frozen surface immediately become solid ice? Surely there's convention within the liquid water of the lake. Polar oceans on Earth have had frozen surfaces for eons, yet they are not, for the most part, not solid ice. So if you had reflected on your convention assumption for even a few minutes, you would have found your mistake on your own., Now I hope you can understand your error and accept that 0 degrees Celsius is, while unusual, not an improbable surface temperature of a brown dwarf. I hope that helps.
If the ice surface of a newly frozen-over lake were continuously brought to the bottom of the lake, it would no longer be ice. The entire system would reach an equilibrium.
You've added another, rather silly, claim that deuterium burning is not burning nuclear fuel. It is. And you've seen the NASA article quote. There's no nuclear fuel burnt in brown dwarfs, so there is no deuterium burning.
Where have I said anything about burning, or not burning, nuclear fuel? ??? I haven't even written the word nuclear, or nuclear fuel, in this thread.
-
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot. Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process. With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again. That's how convection works. Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.
This is perfectly consistent with how scientists describe lots of other astronomical objects, including the Earth. Jupiter's surface, for example, is much colder than ice, yet its core is thought to be 24,000C: http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT411/HTML/AT41102.htm
-
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot. Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process. With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again. That's how convection works. Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.
Thermodynamics doesn't work that way.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/0th_Law_of_Thermodynamics
(http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/9979/Picture_7.png?revision=1)
"If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication neither of them loses or gains heat, the two bodies are said to have equal temperature or the same temperature. The two bodies are then said to be in thermal equilibrium." -- Clerk Maxwell
-
If you don't pay attention, I don't know that you'll learn anything here. Let's start with the temperature at the core. As the NASA article states, brown dwarf stars don't have a fusing core.
Brown dwarfs start their lives like stars, as collapsing balls of gas, but they lack the mass to burn nuclear fuel and radiate starlight.
I hope this time you get this point. I don't know what else I can do to help you correct your misunderstanding that repeating the above quote. There is no "ultra hot matter" (whatever that redundant term means...).
Sigh. Brown Dwarfs have a burning core. They burn Deuterium. It is a partial version of the Stellar Fusion process. I said nothing about Brown Dwarfs operating via fusion.
Next, let's deal with your confusion about convention. By definition, convention is the flow between two temperature differentials. You seem to assume that all conventions immediately lead to equalized temperatures throughout the star. There is no basis for that assumption. Clearly the surface radiates energy to space, including to the Spitzer and WISE. I encourage you to be on better guard against unwarranted assumptions.
Look at the illustration (http://www.silverstar-academy.com/Images/information/science/martian_cataclysm/fig8.jpg) again. Matter is continuously recycling with the core. This is how it is displayed for Brown Dwarfs and Red Dwarfs. This is how astronomy says they work.
I tried the campfire example to assist you. Now let me have you imagine a lake that's frozen over. Why doesn't every lake with a frozen surface immediately become solid ice? Surely there's convention within the liquid water of the lake. Polar oceans on Earth have had frozen surfaces for eons, yet they are not, for the most part, not solid ice. So if you had reflected on your convention assumption for even a few minutes, you would have found your mistake on your own., Now I hope you can understand your error and accept that 0 degrees Celsius is, while unusual, not an improbable surface temperature of a brown dwarf. I hope that helps.
If the ice surface of a frozen-over lake were continuously brought to the bottom of the lake, it would no longer be ice. The entire system would reach an equilibrium.
You've added another, rather silly, claim that deuterium burning is not burning nuclear fuel. It is. And you've seen the NASA article quote. There's no nuclear fuel burnt in brown dwarfs, so there is no deuterium burning.
Where did I say anything about burning nuclear fuel? ??? I haven't even written the word nuclear, or nuclear fuel, in this thread.
I seem unable to help you with more than one point at a time. Let's deal with nuclear first. Once you understand your mistake on this topic then maybe we can move on to your other mistakes.
The "burning" of deuterium must be a nuclear process. Deuterium is the nuclear fuel when deuterium is burned. So when you wrote "burning of deuterium" you wrote about nuclear fusion. It's that simple.
You may not understand that "burning of deuterium", a isotope of hydrogen, is not like the burning of charcoal. That's a chemical process, called oxidation. Molecular oxygen (typically) from the Earth's atmosphere combines with the longer carbon chains of the charcoal producing ash, heat, and carbon dioxide. Deuterium burning is the fusing of the nuclei of that isotope to form typically an isotope of helium.
[qoute author=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning]Deuterium burning is a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs in stars and some substellar objects, in which a deuterium nucleus and a proton combine to form a helium-3 nucleus. It occurs as the second stage of the proton–proton chain reaction, in which a deuterium nucleus formed from two protons fuses with a further proton, but can also proceed from primordial deuterium.[/quote]
Yes, brown dwarfs are hot enough to burn the second heaviest hydrogen isotope. No, they are not hot enough to burn the lighter, more abundant lighter isotope. No, they do not have a stellar core that produces light, so they can get their energy out to the surface by only convention, not radiation. No, brown dwarfs have no "second stage" deuterium burning, as only primordial deuterium is burnt in brown stars.
If you understand that the heat from a brown dwarf comes from only this nuclear fuel, in very limited supply, not very productive, not very efficient and producing nothing even close to the stellar furnaces of shining stars, I think we can move on to your confusion about the efficiency and speed of convention.
-
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot. Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process. With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again. That's how convection works. Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.
This is perfectly consistent with how scientists describe lots of other astronomical objects, including the Earth. Jupiter's surface, for example, is much colder than ice, yet its core is thought to be 24,000C: http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT411/HTML/AT41102.htm
Tom, you need to listen to this guy. He's spot on and trying hard to help you.
-
The "burning" of deuterium must be a nuclear process. Deuterium is the nuclear fuel when deuterium is burned. So when you wrote "burning of deuterium" you wrote about nuclear fusion. It's that simple.
You may not understand that "burning of deuterium", a isotope of hydrogen, is not like the burning of charcoal. That's a chemical process, called oxidation. Molecular oxygen (typically) from the Earth's atmosphere combines with the longer carbon chains of the charcoal producing ash, heat, and carbon dioxide. Deuterium burning is the fusing of the nuclei of that isotope to form typically an isotope of helium.
I am afraid it is you who needs to be corrected.
I had never even written the words "nuclear fusion" until my last post. If you go back and look at my original posts I believe you will find that I said that Deurerium burning is not "Stellar Fusion". I used that term, Stellar Fusion. Stellar Fusion is the specific stellar nucleosynthesis process which occurs in the sun.
A Brown Dwarf which burns Deurerium is NOT operating via Stellar Fusion.
-
In fairness, you're sort of right. Eventually the core of every BD will cool and it will lose its atmosphere and continually approach thermal equilibrium until the universe explodes, and convection is part of that process. You need to make an argument that it should have happened already.
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot. Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process. With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again. That's how convection works. Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.
Thermodynamics doesn't work that way.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/0th_Law_of_Thermodynamics
That page doesn't say what you think it does. Convection most certainly does work as I've described. It does not cause immediate thermal equilibrium. Heat is exchanged over time. You can verify this fact with a pot of hot water and a working stove.
The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics states that if two systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium with a third system, the two original systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Basically, if system A is in thermal equilibrium with system C and system B is also in thermal equilibrium with system C, system A and system B are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
I don't see the connection to convection.
"If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication neither of them loses or gains heat, the two bodies are said to have equal temperature or the same temperature. The two bodies are then said to be in thermal equilibrium." -- Clerk Maxwell
This quote means that if two systems do not lose or gain heat when in contact with one another, then they must have equal temperatures. I don't see the connection to convection. These two systems (the core and the atmosphere) are definitely exchanging heat. That's what convection is.
-
The "burning" of deuterium must be a nuclear process. Deuterium is the nuclear fuel when deuterium is burned. So when you wrote "burning of deuterium" you wrote about nuclear fusion. It's that simple.
You may not understand that "burning of deuterium", a isotope of hydrogen, is not like the burning of charcoal. That's a chemical process, called oxidation. Molecular oxygen (typically) from the Earth's atmosphere combines with the longer carbon chains of the charcoal producing ash, heat, and carbon dioxide. Deuterium burning is the fusing of the nuclei of that isotope to form typically an isotope of helium.
I am afraid it is you who needs to be corrected.
I had never even written the words "nuclear fusion" until my last post. If you go back and look at my original posts I believe you will find that I said that Deurerium burning is not "Stellar Fusion". I used that term, Stellar Fusion. Stellar Fusion is the specific stellar nucleosynthesis process which occurs in the sun.
A Brown Dwarf which burns Deurerium is NOT operating via Stellar Fusion.
But the burning of Deuretium[sic] is burning nuclear fuel, and deuterium burning is not the "first two steps" of stellar fusion, but it is a step, the second one, in stellar fusion.
Let's try this convention example. In an airtight, windowed kitchen with an open oven at 100 degrees Celsius, what is the ambient temperature in the kitchen with the other side of the window being 100 degrees Celsius? 0 degrees Celsius? 0 degree Kelvin?
Now what contrast that to a brown star what is the temperature just outside its surface? Why wouldn't the brown star radiate (in the infrared, as seen by WISE) away its surface heat quickly?
-
But the burning of Deuretium[sic] is burning nuclear fuel
I don't believe I objected otherwise. Again, I hadn't even mentioned the terms "nuclear fuel" or "nuclear fusion" until a few posts ago.
and deuterium burning is not the "first two steps" of stellar fusion, but it is a step, the second one, in stellar fusion.
The deuterium burn itself is the second step, but to my knowledge the first step, the fusing of hydrogen atoms, still needs to happen the burn to occur as part of the overall process. The hydrogen atoms didn't start off pre-fused.
Let's try this convention example. In an airtight, windowed kitchen with an open oven at 100 degrees Celsius, what is the ambient temperature in the kitchen with the other side of the window being 100 degrees Celsius? 0 degrees Celsius? 0 degree Kelvin?
Now what contrast that to a brown star what is the temperature just outside its surface? Why wouldn't the brown star radiate (in the infrared, as seen by WISE) away its surface heat quickly?
Much of the heat is pushed back into the core, recycling, via the diagram. Radiation heat does escape at the surface. But in space conduction and convection propagation of heat is almost entirely nonexistent. When compared with convection or conduction, radiating away energy is not an efficient way to cool down an object. It loses energy via radiation, but the rate at which it happens decays exponentially (See: Blackbody Radiation).
Consider the action of of dunking a hot spoon in water. When you dunk it in, the spoons's temperature drops very fast, but with time it'll cool down more slowly (although it is still losing heat). In space, since there is no matter or medium in contact with the material you want to "cool down," there will be no convection or conduction of heat.
-
The deuterium burn itself is the second step, but to my knowledge the first step, the fusing of hydrogen atoms, still needs to happen the burn to occur as part of the overall process. The hydrogen atoms didn't start off pre-fused.
Your knowledge is wrong. In nature the second heaviest hydrogen isotope, deuterium, occurs naturally, from either the Big Bang or other stellar activity. So, yes, there is "pre-fused" hydrogen when the brown stars forms. Brown stars can only burn this isotope as their mass is insufficient to burn the lightest hydrogen isotope. This is my point. Brown stars have little fuel that they can burn. See table 1 of www.lpi.usra.edu/books/MESSII/9038.pdf , less than one part in 1000 in most cases.
It loses energy via radiation, but the rate at which it happens decays exponentially (See: Blackbody Radiation).
Again, wrong. You've forgotten that the internal convention will continue to heat the surface. If you understood, Newton's Law of Heating, you'd realize that the rate is dependent on the surface temperature. So, it's either cold (already radiated) or still losing the heat at a significant rate.
Radiation moves energy. Radiation decreases the emitter's temperature. The surface of a brown star can be very cold, as the deuterium fuel is expended. How cold would you say a brown star's surface would be if it's down to its last gram of deuterium? How much deuterium is in the brown star WISE J085510.83-071442.5? Can it make any more? How cold would it get once it ran out of deuterium? So even if we gave you the (untrue) assumption of perfect, instantaneous convention, wouldn't a brown star still cool to near absolute zero as its fuel is exhausted? You mentioned the "black box" though experiment. Do it for yourself. What happens to a brown star's surface temperature as it expends the last of its fuel. No internal heating means no surface heating. Yet the surface radiates heat into space, cooling the brown star. Tell me that's simple enough that you understand now.
-
Hydrogen, Deuterium and Lithium were created in the Big Bang.
-
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot. Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process. With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again. That's how convection works. Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.
Thermodynamics doesn't work that way.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/0th_Law_of_Thermodynamics
(http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/9979/Picture_7.png?revision=1)
"If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication neither of them loses or gains heat, the two bodies are said to have equal temperature or the same temperature. The two bodies are then said to be in thermal equilibrium." -- Clerk Maxwell
Tom, that's for a closed system. I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system. Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.
-
I am glad Tom Bishop is feeling better and able to take on the disbelievers with such relish.
-
Given the elapsed time since TB's last appearance ITT, I suspect that he's given up. So let's review the challenge to FET and its outcome.
1) "Sisters of Sun" and "Stellar Atmospheres": TB failed to indict either, or even comment on either. Applying his standard that my failure to challenge his diagrams (that by not immediately challenging them with my next post) means I accepted the diagrams, TB accepts the both. So we now know the surface temperature of millions of stars. Those temperature all are compatible with RET, but not FET.
2) Contrary to TB's attempt to make fun of the observation of the surface temperature of WISE J085510.83-071442.5, NASA is correct that it's unusually cold, below 0 degree Celsius.
3) RET is consistent with its model of stellar (and near stellar) objects. Nuclear fusion fuels them.
Maybe TB will return soon with another outlandish attack. Let's hope he learns when to apply a closed-system law of thermodynamics first.
-
Actually, I just have better things to do on a Sunday than sit here talking to a wall.
Your knowledge is wrong. In nature the second heaviest hydrogen isotope, deuterium, occurs naturally, from either the Big Bang or other stellar activity. So, yes, there is "pre-fused" hydrogen when the brown stars forms. Brown stars can only burn this isotope as their mass is insufficient to burn the lightest hydrogen isotope. This is my point. Brown stars have little fuel that they can burn. See table 1 of www.lpi.usra.edu/books/MESSII/9038.pdf , less than one part in 1000 in most cases.
The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.
Again, wrong. You've forgotten that the internal convention will continue to heat the surface. If you understood, Newton's Law of Heating, you'd realize that the rate is dependent on the surface temperature. So, it's either cold (already radiated) or still losing the heat at a significant rate.
Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space. Haven't you been keeping up with NASA's fiction over the years? They go on and on about how heat loss is a major problem in space. It's one of those "amazing facts" they teach grade school children with. The story goes that it is very difficult to get rid of heat generated by instruments in manned and unmanned ships. They say that the Space Shuttle has more issues getting rid of heat than it does trying to stay warm, which is why it flew around with the bay door open.
There is a short story by Frederik Polh called "The Mapmakers," that works on this general premise; a starship, unable to navigate to a planet to obtain air as a coolant, is slowly dying of increasing temperature as it can't rid itself of its own waste heat from internal processes.
-
Tom, that's for a closed system. I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system. Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.
I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.
-
The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.
Please provide a scientific source for your outlandish claim: All brown stars sustain fusing hydrogen (lightest isotope).
Brown dwarfs are substellar objects too low in mass to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars, which can.
-
Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space.
Please provide evidence that objects like this brown star does not cool at a significant rate. Just your saying something is true does not make it so.
-
Tom, that's for a closed system. I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system. Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.
I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.
Please provide evidence that heat loss in space does not work that way. Why won't you consider a "running-on-empty" brown star's heat production limits? Why do you dismiss that tremendous energies can be irradiated from near-stellar objects? Give us an example where a near-stellar object that is not irradiating away large amounts of energy.
-
Deuterium burning does not necessarily proceed from initial hydrogen fusing in stellar nucleosynthesis but can be the first stage:
Deuterium burning is a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs in stars and some substellar objects, in which a deuterium nucleus and a proton combine to form a helium-3 nucleus. It occurs as the second stage of the proton–proton chain reaction, in which a deuterium nucleus formed from two protons fuses with a further proton, but can also proceed from primordial deuterium.
-
Tom, that's for a closed system. I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system. Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.
I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.
Tom, where does NASA, or anyone else, mention the rate at which the deuterium is fused in this particular brown dwarf and the rate at which the brown dwarf's atmosphere radiates that heat away? If there is no significant fusion going on in a relatively tiny stellar core, then why should there be any significant heat in the stellar atmosphere? Also, don't be biased by your human perceptions. The freezing point of water is still quite balmy compared to the near absolute zero temperature of deep space.
-
The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.
Please provide a scientific source for your outlandish claim: All brown stars sustain fusing hydrogen (lightest isotope).
I don't believe I stated that.
Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space.
Please provide evidence that objects like this brown star does not cool at a significant rate. Just your saying something is true does not make it so.
I did provide evidence. I directed you to learning materials for children.
Why won't you consider a "running-on-empty" brown star's heat production limits?
I don't see what "running on empty" has to do with anything. If the necessary temperature to maintain the Deuretium burn is not achieved, then it is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
The fire under a stove of boiling water may be "running on empty," but if a certain temperature is not achieved, the water is no longer boiling.
Why do you dismiss that tremendous energies can be irradiated from near-stellar objects? Give us an example where a near-stellar object that is not irradiating away large amounts of energy.
I can't help those who can't help themselves. The example I gave of the minimal instrumentation heat from space ships keeping them from cooling down, and actually increasing its temperature, despite being surrounded by the "cold" vastness of space is an apt one. Heat transfer via radiation loss is very inefficient, especialy if there is some amount of heat being generated within the body. The rate at which heat is radiated away is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann Law.
Another source: http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/misconceptions.html
"One of the biggest problems in designing spacecraft (even theoretical interstellar ones) is not how to keep them warm, but on the contrary, how to keep them cool. Motors, electronics and such all create heat, and there's nowhere this heat can dissipate to. Vacuum is a good temperature insulator and thus it's very hard to get rid of all that heat. Just putting a big thermal sink on the outer hull of the spacecraft would not be enough because it will radiate heat away too slowly.
One thing which might add to all this confusion is the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the phenomenon that the entire Universe is basically a black-body radiator of approximately 3 kelvin. Many people get confused by this and believe this means that anything put into deep space will quickly freeze to 3 kelvin.
The background radiation has nothing to do with how fast something will freeze in space. In fact, quite ironically, the effect is the opposite: Background radiation adds to the temperature of the object (in other words, it's another source of heat), it doesn't freeze it. (Of course if it's the only source of heat, it will, naturally, not be enough to keep the object warm. It just means basically that the object has a 3 kelvin heat source around it.)
Still not convinced? Well, consider this:
The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared observatory that launched in 2003. Since it detects infrared light, its instruments need to be cooled, or else they will emit infrared radiation which would interfere with the images. To do this, liquid helium was used to cool these instruments to almost absolute zero.
Now, if space was really, really cold, and everything put into space would freeze in seconds, why would they need to use liquid helium to cool off the instruments? Wouldn't the coldness of space be enough?
No, because as said, vacuum is a good insulator, and a very poor way of cooling anything, especially instruments which produce heat. That's why they needed the liquid helium to cool it down."
-
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.
According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning), the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K
"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."
10^6 K = 999727 Celsius
Uh oh...
Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 MJ to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:
WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.
-
The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared observatory that launched in 2003. Since it detects infrared light, its instruments need to be cooled, or else they will emit infrared radiation which would interfere with the images. To do this, liquid helium was used to cool these instruments to almost absolute zero.
Now, if space was really, really cold, and everything put into space would freeze in seconds, why would they need to use liquid helium to cool off the instruments? Wouldn't the coldness of space be enough?
No, because as said, vacuum is a good insulator, and a very poor way of cooling anything, especially instruments which produce heat. That's why they needed the liquid helium to cool it down."[/list]
Please provide scientific evidence that an object light years from any other object, and just a cannot radiate away enough heat to drop its surface temperature to 200 degree Kelvin. Clearly the need to cool Spitzer has more to do with the Sun's radiation and the crafts internal heat production than you consider.
-
The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).
Why can't a star have the same property?
-
I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core? The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes? Which means a decrease in temperature? And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?
Am I getting those relationships right?
-
I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core? The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes? Which means a decrease in temperature? And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?
Am I getting those relationships right?
You have it right. So, even a ball of just H would have core temperature higher than its surface temperature and would radiate from its surface. No matter how perfect and fast the convection is, there would still be a difference. So even in the extreme case, TB is wrong. Good point gg!
-
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.
According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning), the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K
"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."
10^6 K = 999727 Celsius
Uh oh...
Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 MJ to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:
WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.
I noticed that as well. If this star is under 13 Jupiter Masses, and the calculations demand a 13 Jupiter Mass minimum, it is just further evidence to show that the calculations in astronomy are unreliable. It's another nail in the coffin. I'm not aware of any theories exist speculating of self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space.
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.
I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.
But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III), and are oft searched for.
So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
-
The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).
Why can't a star have the same property?
Nothing like the earth. Stars are clouds of gas, and the outer layers are recycled into the core via convection.
I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core? The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes? Which means a decrease in temperature? And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?
Am I getting those relationships right?
You forgot the part about the outer layers being recycled into the core.
-
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.
I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.
But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III), and are oft searched for.
So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
Great! You concede that point. Thanks!
-
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.
I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.
But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III), and are oft searched for.
So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
Great! You concede that point. Thanks!
This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
"Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."
Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.
Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.
-
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.
I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.
But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III), and are oft searched for.
So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
Great! You concede that point. Thanks!
This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
"Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."
Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.
Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?
-
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?
In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.
How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?
-
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?
In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.
How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?
When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?
-
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.
According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning), the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K
"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."
10^6 K = 999727 Celsius
Uh oh...
Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 MJ to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:
WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.
I noticed that as well. If this star is under 13 Jupiter Masses, and the calculations demand a 13 Jupiter Mass minimum, it is just further evidence to show that the calculations in astronomy are unreliable.
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?
It's another nail in the coffin. I'm not aware of any theories exist speculating of self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space.
Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible? Hardly.
-
You forgot the part about the outer layers being recycled into the core.
No, I mentioned that in my first post. Hot matter leaves the core. It cools as it expands. After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues. It's like a big circle. That's what convection is. Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium.
Heat transfer takes time. Stars are huge. The end.
-
The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).
Why can't a star have the same property?
Nothing like the earth. Stars are clouds of gas, and the outer layers are recycled into the core via convection.
Tom the model you're using for convection etc... is for main sequence stars (i.e. something like our sun) the star under examination here is a brown dwarf star which does not have the mass to cause a chain reaction that powers a star like our sun. The heat flow mechanism within its core is not the same as the one you're proposing.
It's a failed star that lies on the cusp of being a planet.
-
A thought experiment just came to mind. Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.
Suppose that the BD suddenly is in equilibrium: the gas around the core is just as hot as the core. Heat transfer will cause the star to lose that equilibrium.
Atoms at the surface will cool. Some of them will be ejected from the star and take their energy with them, cooling the surface. Many of them will radiate energy, also cooling the surface. Those atoms will tend to fall toward the core.
Atom at the core will heat up. Gravity will pull them together, and the increase in pressure will increase the temperature of the core. Those atoms will tend to move away from the core and cool and they reach the surface.
Convection doesn't cause immediate equilibrium. Heat transfer takes time.
-
A thought experiment just came to mind. Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.
Before you put too much thought into your experiment, first we should all agree as to what constitutes thermal equilibrium. Does it mean that the temperature throughout the brown dwarf is the same or does it mean that the brown dwarf dissipates as much heat into space as it generates in its core resulting in relatively stable temperature zones? Personally, I vote for the latter.
-
A thought experiment just came to mind. Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.
Before you put too much thought into your experiment, first we should all agree as to what constitutes thermal equilibrium. Does it mean that the temperature throughout the brown dwarf is the same or does it mean that the brown dwarf dissipates as much heat into space as it generates in its core resulting in relatively stable temperature zones? Personally, I vote for the latter.
I take Tom to be saying that because the core is very hot, and because convection carries heat away from the core toward the surface, that the surface ought to be as hot as the core.
-
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?
In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.
How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?
When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?
The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible? Hardly.
I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.
No, I mentioned that in my first post. Hot matter leaves the core. It cools as it expands. After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues. It's like a big circle. That's what convection is. Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium.
Heat transfer takes time. Stars are huge. The end.
Not instant, but the systems are attempting to equalize at all levels.
The primary cooling comes from radiation loss, not "cooling as it expands". If there were no radiation loss, there would be no convection. This is a ball of gas. Heat rises to the top. Gas cooled by radiation loss at the surface falls to the core via convection, just as the cold air in a heated room falls to the floor, where it is recycled into the heater and brought up anew.
The argument that in an environment like that, a difference of a million degrees can be maintained in an equalizing, convective body, is simply absurd. Heat is constantly being moved to the top. It's nothing like earth.
-
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?
The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
You deliberately truncated the quotation above. Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,
and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]
This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 MJ, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread. So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.
Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible? Hardly.
I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.
Where did I say that the Astronomy is wrong? Your misrepresentation of my arguments is truly terrible.
To recap, you have not a leg to stand on to say that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 has a core temperature in the range of millions of degrees and your red herring about "self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space" is derailing the topic of the BDs temperature.
-
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?
The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
You deliberately truncated the quotation above. Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,
and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]
This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 MJ, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread. So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.
The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.
If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?
-
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?
The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"
You deliberately truncated the quotation above. Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:
"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,
and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]
This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 MJ, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread. So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.
The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.
If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
I agree, Tom. You're out of your leagues and RS has good advice.
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.
The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.
The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.
No, saying that your theory doesn't cover all observations, yet, is reliable science. This case requires only an atypical origin or condition of the BD. For example, it may have ran out of fuel and is cooling in accordance with the Gas Laws. Why can't the BD have lost mass since its D-burning days to a passing star millions of years ago?
-
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.
The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.
I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.
-
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.
Your opinions are not substantiated by scientific literature.
-
The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.
If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?
Who said that this star is >13 Jupiter masses? A bit of digging reveals that WISE J085510.83–071442.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISE_J085510.83-071442.5) is estimated to be about 3-10 Jupiter masses and is designated as a sub-brown dwarf.
Also of note:
In addition, many brown dwarfs undergo no fusion; those at the low end of the mass range (under 13 Jupiter masses) are never hot enough to fuse even deuterium, and even those at the high end of the mass range (over 60 Jupiter masses) cool quickly enough that they no longer undergo fusion after a period of time on the order of 10 million years.
-
The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.
If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?
Who said that this star is >13 Jupiter masses? A bit of digging reveals that WISE J085510.83–071442.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISE_J085510.83-071442.5) is estimated to be about 3-10 Jupiter masses and is designated as a sub-brown dwarf.
Also of note:
In addition, many brown dwarfs undergo no fusion; those at the low end of the mass range (under 13 Jupiter masses) are never hot enough to fuse even deuterium, and even those at the high end of the mass range (over 60 Jupiter masses) cool quickly enough that they no longer undergo fusion after a period of time on the order of 10 million years.
Please read the rest of the thread. This point has already been brought to Tom's attention and he has not yet found a way to get his argument back on track.
-
Please read the rest of the thread. This point has already been brought to Tom's attention and he has not yet found a way to get his argument back on track.
Sometimes you need to club Tom on the head a few times with the facts before they finally sink in.
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.
The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.
I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.
If the star is not burning Deuterium, and "we don't know what's powering it" is an inaccurate statement, then maybe you can do us all a favor and tell us what powers it.
-
... tell us what powers it.
Does this imply that you're finally ready to tell us what powers the FET Sun (and Moon and stars)? We've been waiting for years, centuries even, after all.
-
... tell us what powers it.
Does this imply that you're finally ready to tell us what powers the FET Sun (and Moon and stars)? We've been waiting for years, centuries even, after all.
Please start a new thread if you would like to go off topic.
-
Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom. In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?
The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.
The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.
I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.
If the star is not burning Deuterium, and "we don't know what's powering it" is an inaccurate statement, then maybe you can do us all a favor and tell us what powers it.
All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.
-
It isn't 'powered' by anything. The core of a giant ball of gas doesn't have to burn fuel to be hot. See: gas giants. This is what I was getting at with the Jupiter example on the first page. This is all perfectly consistent with how modern science describes all the gas giants.
Jupiter's core is very hot. Jupiter's surface is very cold. Convection is happening in between.
http://www.universetoday.com/11096/jupiters-winds-come-from-inside/
“Our model suggests convection driven by deep internal heat sources power Jupiter’s surface winds,” said Jonathan Aurnou, UCLA assistant professor of planetary physics. “The model provides a possible answer to why the winds are so stable for centuries. Jupiter’s surface is the tail; the dog is the hot interior of the planet."
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/page/jupiter_saturn
Heat from the interior of Jupiter causes circulation patterns in the atmosphere, with warm gas rising and cooling, before sinking back into the depths of the planet. This process is called convection, and it causes the different colored bands in Jupiter's atmosphere.
-
... tell us what powers it.
Does this imply that you're finally ready to tell us what powers the FET Sun (and Moon and stars)? We've been waiting for years, centuries even, after all.
Please start a new thread if you would like to go off topic.
I apologize. I though my sarcasm was clear, given the hypocrisy involved. Please just treat the question as rhetorical intended to only cause the reader (especially noobs) to ponder the relative standards of documentation required by the REers versus FEers. Sorry and Thanks.
-
All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.
The answer coming from this thread is that "it's a mystery in Astronomy." Exactly my point. This star cannot be explained by Astronomy, and so some new mystery power source needs to be created to explain it.
It isn't 'powered' by anything. The core of a giant ball of gas doesn't have to burn fuel to be hot. See: gas giants. This is what I was getting at with the Jupiter example on the first page. This is all perfectly consistent with how modern science describes all the gas giants.
Jupiter's core is very hot. Jupiter's surface is very cold. Convection is happening in between.
http://www.universetoday.com/11096/jupiters-winds-come-from-inside/
“Our model suggests convection driven by deep internal heat sources power Jupiter’s surface winds,” said Jonathan Aurnou, UCLA assistant professor of planetary physics. “The model provides a possible answer to why the winds are so stable for centuries. Jupiter’s surface is the tail; the dog is the hot interior of the planet."
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/page/jupiter_saturn
Heat from the interior of Jupiter causes circulation patterns in the atmosphere, with warm gas rising and cooling, before sinking back into the depths of the planet. This process is called convection, and it causes the different colored bands in Jupiter's atmosphere.
Last I checked Jupiter was not self luminous.
From page 31 of The Outline of Science Vol 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=htMXJmpmYrkC&lpg=PA31&ots=D612dr_Ww2&dq=is%20jupiter%20self%20luminous&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false) we read:
"The interior of Jupiter is very hot, but the planet is not self-luminous. The planets Venus and Jupiter shin very brightly, but they have no light of their own; they reflect sunlight."
-
All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.
The answer coming from this thread is that "it's a mystery in Astronomy." Exactly my point. This star cannot be explained by Astronomy, and so some new mystery power source needs to be created to explain it.
Tom, you make it sound like we are all astronomers here, and can definitively say that there is no answer in science at this time. Are you an astronomer? I am not. But a very quick search on the intrawebs showed that there are lots and lots of papers on the workings of Brown Dwarfs. They require payment and this is your bone to pick, so why dont you pony up? You might find the answer you are not looking for.
Setting that aside and indulging your "argument" hypothetically, you are saying that because there is no answer now that there never will be? If that is the horse you want to bet on, be my guest, but historically, the odds are against you.
-
All I know is that it is not deuterium fusion, making your claim of a core temperature in the millions of Celsius speculative and unsubstantiated. Unless you have new ground to break, this conversation is at a dead end.
The answer coming from this thread is that "it's a mystery in Astronomy." Exactly my point. This star cannot be explained by Astronomy, and so some new mystery power source needs to be created to explain it.
Tom, you make it sound like we are all astronomers here, and can definitively say that there is no answer in science at this time. Are you an astronomer? I am not. But a very quick search on the intrawebs showed that there are lots and lots of papers on the workings of Brown Dwarfs. They require payment and this is your bone to pick, so why dont you pony up? You might find the answer you are not looking for.
Setting that aside and indulging your "argument" hypothetically, you are saying that because there is no answer now that there never will be? If that is the horse you want to bet on, be my guest, but historically, the odds are against you.
While I'm not active in the field, I can assure you that all objects (Let's use Mars as the lower limitin mass.) derive almost all of their energy from gravity in one way or another. (Even the fission decay of radioactive isotopes is fostered by gravity's compression into sections of planets. So we know that this newly discovered WISE target got some energy from gravity. (By the way, you do a great job posting here.)
-
Tom, you make it sound like we are all astronomers here, and can definitively say that there is no answer in science at this time. Are you an astronomer? I am not. But a very quick search on the intrawebs showed that there are lots and lots of papers on the workings of Brown Dwarfs. They require payment and this is your bone to pick, so why dont you pony up? You might find the answer you are not looking for.
Setting that aside and indulging your "argument" hypothetically, you are saying that because there is no answer now that there never will be? If that is the horse you want to bet on, be my guest, but historically, the odds are against you.
I see. Mystery then.
-
Still waiting for you to get your argument back in track. Or are you saying that only omniscience is truly trustworthy? I could maybe get behind that if phrased properly.
-
Last I checked Jupiter was not self luminous.
Neither are brown dwarfs. At least, not in the same way as stars with fusion in their cores. They're just like Jupiter in this regard, only larger.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/BrownDwarf.html
A failed star which is not massive enough to ignite thermonuclear fusion in the core. According to stellar models, the maximum mass a brown dwarf can have is ~0.08M☉. Young brown dwarfs which are gravitationally contracting can release substantial amounts of gravitational energy, but older stars radiate from remnant internal heat only. For old brown dwarfs, the luminosity is smaller than smallest luminosity possible for a hydrogen-fusing star, ~0.0001L☉.
Just like Jupiter, brown dwarfs emit infrared radiation. That's how astronomers find them. They're very faint, and it's apparently quite difficult to detect them.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/brown_dwarfs.html
Brown dwarfs are very dim and cool compared with stars. The best hope for finding brown dwarfs is in using infrared telescopes, which can detect the heat from these objects even though they are too cool to radiate visible light.
-
Maybe off-topic, but...
A. Recent information released by NASA prove they are wrong.
B. NASA is a conspiracy devoted to perpetuating a RE.
Pick one.
-
Maybe off-topic, but...
A. Recent information released by NASA prove they are wrong.
B. NASA is a conspiracy devoted to perpetuating a RE.
Pick one.
To pile on.... why is an unresolved question about a two-hundred-year more advanced theory in any way an argument against the more advanced theory?
-
Maybe off-topic, but...
A. Recent information released by NASA prove they are wrong.
B. NASA is a conspiracy devoted to perpetuating a RE.
Pick one.
Both. NASA is a conspiracy that aims to decieve the population. Its no surprise they get tripped up by their own lies.
-
Don't forget that they are also Satanists. These type of people have a hard time separating the truth from fiction in their own minds.
-
Anyone who denies the word of God (BIBLE) is a Satanist.
-
Pardon my dullness, but the above three posts are satire, correct?
-
Pardon my dullness, but the above three posts are satire, correct?
It is fair to assume that whenever fappenhosen is involved.
-
Pardon my dullness, but the above three posts are satire, correct?
Evidence for NASAs Satanist activity is well documented.
http://sharingtruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/how-is-nasa-connected-to-satanic-rituals/
-
Pardon my dullness, but the above three posts are satire, correct?
It is fair to assume that whenever fappenhosen is involved.
Thank you for the candid advice. I won't bother to respond to fappenhosen when I suspect more satire.
-
Pardon my dullness, but the above three posts are satire, correct?
It is fair to assume that whenever fappenhosen is involved.
Thank you for the candid advice. I won't bother to respond to fappenhosen when I suspect more satire.
Yes, thank you. Should I treat jroa the same way? I've been under the impression that he is at least semi-serious in most of what he posts.
-
What does this post have to do with the shape of the earth?
There is a perplexing star out there, so what?
-
It's part of Tom's personal grudge against astronomy. He contends it's not a real science. This is him trying to get future ammo.
-
Anytime a fe'r posts some problem with science that is brought forth by scientists it flies in the face of the idea of a conspiracy.
Things like dark matter and dark energy are a problem for science and if it was all made up then it would benefit the conspirators to not allow the ideas to take shape.
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
Except for the times where we've actually sent probes and sometimes even man to these celestial objects. Even if it was purely observation, does that excuse humanity from attempting to understand it?
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?
Yes. Astronomy is not look out of the window. Telescopes can be tampered with very easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pi6VcH38pc
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?
Yes. Astronomy is not look out of the window. Telescopes can be tampered with very easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pi6VcH38pc
Pretty sure it's easy to tamper with a human eye too.
-
His beef with astronomy is that it depends purely on observation, making it "not a real science"
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?
Yes. Astronomy is not look out of the window. Telescopes can be tampered with very easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pi6VcH38pc
Why do you need a telescope to convince you that the Earth is not flat? Surely you can think of an experiment, like watching the stars revolve around two points in the sky over a few hours. Please pay attention.
-
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?
Yes. Astronomy is not look out of the window. Telescopes can be tampered with very easily.
[youtube video]
I own several telescopes and I don't modify them. In addition, my telescopes give me views of objects that I can predict theoretically, so my telescopes are in perfect shape, not unspectedly unmodified and are consistent with all physical laws used in astronomy and optics.
But, the most important thing is: you can do "astronomy" with just your unaided eyes.
-
my telescopes give me views of objects that I can predict theoretically,
Your predictions are made using the "laws" that the Conspiracy gave you. Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".
-
Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".
What about people who make their own telescopes?
-
Your predictions are made using the "laws" that the Conspiracy gave you. Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".
The "laws" that the Conspiracy gave me adapt to what my eyes can see each night and day.
I assembled my high end telescopes. Nobody could tamper them.
-
Your predictions are made using the "laws" that the Conspiracy gave you. Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".
The "laws" that the Conspiracy gave me adapt to what my eyes can see each night and day.
I assembled my high end telescopes. Nobody could tamper them.
What did you make the telescope out of? Pre-made materials, I'm guessing?
-
Your predictions are made using the "laws" that the Conspiracy gave you. Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".
The "laws" that the Conspiracy gave me adapt to what my eyes can see each night and day.
I assembled my high end telescopes. Nobody could tamper them.
What did you make the telescope out of? Pre-made materials, I'm guessing?
So what? Are you implying that he's not intelligent enough to detect tampering? Isn't any material pre-made? [joke]Oh look, you used quartz sand to make the lens. Obviously the conspiracy rigged your sand.[/joke]
-
Did Yamato use quartz sand to make his lens or did he use a pre-made lens? The question was directed at Yamato. Perhaps you posted on the wrong account?
Also, I didn't realize my question deserved a patronizing answer. Next time, let's try to keep it civil.
-
Did Yamato use quartz sand to make his lens or did he use a pre-made lens? The question was directed at Yamato. Perhaps you posted on the wrong account?
Also, I didn't realize my question deserved a patronizing answer. Next time, let's try to keep it civil.
You are so much nicer here than the other forum.
-
Did Yamato use quartz sand to make his lens or did he use a pre-made lens? The question was directed at Yamato. Perhaps you posted on the wrong account?
Also, I didn't realize my question deserved a patronizing answer. Next time, let's try to keep it civil.
You are so much nicer here than the other forum.
Different morons require different approaches.
-
Did Yamato use quartz sand to make his lens or did he use a pre-made lens? The question was directed at Yamato. Perhaps you posted on the wrong account?
Also, I didn't realize my question deserved a patronizing answer. Next time, let's try to keep it civil.
My question stands: "So what?" Dodging will do you no good. Oh, and please learn the difference between "patronizing" and satire. Oh, and yes, satire is both civil and, in your case, earned.
Please stop arguing that unknown agents use unknown methods to change observations to support RET. If you have evidence of some conspiracy, please present it in a new thread. Otherwise, innuendo does nothing to support your ideas.
-
When did I say anything about "unknown agents" or even anything about the conspiracy? I just asked a simple question, and that question hasn't even been answered yet.
Keep your pants on, Gully.
-
When did I say anything about "unknown agents" or even anything about the conspiracy? I just asked a simple question, and that question hasn't even been answered yet.
Keep your pants on, Gully.
And still my question remains: "So what?" If you're just curious about the materials, then say so and avoid the "unknown agents" rebuke. This is only the third time, I've asked you to clarify your intent. Dodging does not promote your position.
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?
Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Your dodging hurts your argument. Why do you ask about how the telescope was made? Again you dodge the question: So What?
How clear I am on those on-your questions is irrelevant.
It's a poor tin-foil-hat-wearer that blames the materials for a result they don't like.
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?
Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.
False. Kaleidoscopes do not cause the stars to appears where they should according to some predetermined map.
-
Gully, you inserted yourself into this when my question was clearly focused at Yamato. He needs to answer the question for the conversation to proceed, not you. How could you possibly know what materials he used? You are extremely self-centered and your head games are not helping your case.
This argument will proceed when Yamato answers the question directed at him. He probably hasn't seen it yet. Patience, Gully. Patience.
Also, about the kaleidoscopes. Kaleidoscope technology could very easily be modified into a telescope that seemingly shows you a false night sky. There are YouTube videos all over showing you how to build one yourself.
-
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?
Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.
If I bought a telescope that acted like a kaleidoscope I would take it back to the store and get a refund.
-
What did you make the telescope out of? Pre-made materials, I'm guessing?
They are made out of metal, crystal and mirrors. No plastic involved in the telescope itself.
The crystal part were designed by me and made by an artisan. The artisan doesn't know what the crystal is for. He just crafts the things according to the specifications.
The metal parts were designed by me and two other friends, and crafted by another person. The other person knew it was for a telescope, so he could tamper them, but after they were made, they were according to our calculations, so no possible tampering.
The mirrors the same as the crystal.
The whole thing was finally assembled by me and the persons who designed the metal parts.
The only premade thing that I use is the tripod, mount, motorization system, and other electronical and mecanical parts that do not interfere with the telescope performance at all. Well, I lie, the painting in the inner and outer part of the telescopes were "premade".
Thanks for answering.
Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.
No. The reason why a kaleidoscope can't show you stars where they want are:
- They don't have a lenses/mirrors system that comes any close to the one in a telescope
- They can't magnificate anything as a real telescope can
- They doesn't have enough apperture to let enough light to enter to allow us to see the most dimmer stars
- A telescope doesn't have any bead or thing inside to interfere the view
- They (kaleidoscopes) doesn't have enough strength to support the weight of the lenses and mirrors that any high-end telescope has before bending and breaking appart.
- They never show different sky objects in the predicted possition by the "conspirational" laws
- ...
[...]
Also, about the kaleidoscopes. Kaleidoscope technology could very easily be modified into a telescope that seemingly shows you a false night sky. There are YouTube videos all over showing you how to build one yourself.
You must be a genius to convert this
(http://maryloudriedger2.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/kaleidoscope.jpg)
into that:
(http://planewave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CDK700-front-844x1024.jpg)
-
They are made out of metal, crystal and mirrors. No plastic involved in the telescope itself.
The crystal part were designed by me and made by an artisan. The artisan doesn't know what the crystal is for. He just crafts the things according to the specifications.
The metal parts were designed by me and two other friends, and crafted by another person. The other person knew it was for a telescope, so he could tamper them, but after they were made, they were according to our calculations, so no possible tampering.
The mirrors the same as the crystal.
The whole thing was finally assembled by me and the persons who designed the metal parts.
The only premade thing that I use is the tripod, mount, motorization system, and other electronical and mecanical parts that do not interfere with the telescope performance at all. Well, I lie, the painting in the inner and outer part of the telescopes were "premade".
Very impressive. I would really like to see a picture of this supposed telescope you created. A work order form or receipt for all the work would also be very helpful in confirming your claims. I look forward to seeing them.
-
Very impressive. I would really like to see a picture of this supposed telescope you created. A work order form or receipt for all the work would also be very helpful in confirming your claims. I look forward to seeing them.
I would swear that FE'ers in this forum don't accept images as a proof... ::)
This is my telescope: http://i.imgur.com/odRMppj.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/odRMppj.jpg)
-
I would accept a photograph of you standing next to your telescope holding a piece of paper with your username on it. Its not too much to ask. Most everyone has something capable of taking pictures.
Your sarcastic response doesn't help your case. If anything it just seems like you're pulling everyone's leg.
-
I would accept a photograph of you standing next to your telescope holding a piece of paper with your username on it. Its not too much to ask. Most everyone has something capable of taking pictures.
Your sarcastic response doesn't help your case. If anything it just seems like you're pulling everyone's leg.
So, my image with my nickname has more validity than a image by the NASA?
Ok, here you go:
http://i.imgur.com/XgsWwJ8.png (http://i.imgur.com/XgsWwJ8.png)
Now without jokes, I will take it tomorrow, today is a bit late to assemble everything.
Now I guess what showing my telescope can solve anyway. ???
-
So, my image with my nickname has more validity than a image by the NASA?
I'm surprised you even have to ask this question.
-
NASA's images are perfectly valid.
-
NASA's images are perfectly valid.
Several photos released by NASA say otherwise. For example, take this picture of the "Orion Nebula".
(http://i.imgur.com/ySSAdxi.jpg)
NASA has admitted to "enhancing" this photo with computers. To the naked eye, the nebula looks very dull... but after some NASA magic it suddenly looks like a tier 10 wizard spell. NASA does this with several photos. Hardly "perfectly valid".
-
NASA's images are perfectly valid.
Several photos released by NASA say otherwise. For example, take this picture of the "Orion Nebula".
(http://i.imgur.com/ySSAdxi.jpg)
NASA has admitted to "enhancing" this photo with computers. To the naked eye, the nebula looks very dull... but after some NASA magic it suddenly looks like a tier 10 wizard spell. NASA does this with several photos. Hardly "perfectly valid".
They admitted to enhancing it. That is perfectly valid.
-
Another example that I found, which is actually pretty old news, but still telling nonetheless.
This is a picture of Saturn's moons:
(http://i.imgur.com/3faFZHV.jpg)
Looks pretty normal, right?
This is what happens when you increase the contrast and perform a few other revealing tweaks.
(http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg)
Does that look normal to you, rottingroom?
It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. Interestingly enough, NASA did not admit to "enhancing" this photograph despite the fact that they have admitted photo enchantments regarding other less serious offenders.
-
It convinces me that they are up to something: making the somewhat bland images there scientists look at more interesting and dynamic for the public who "just want to see cool shit".
So sinister!
-
It convinces me that they are up to something: making the somewhat bland images there scientists look at more interesting and dynamic for the public who "just want to see cool shit".
So sinister!
That doesn't explain the large alien looking mass near the smaller moon in this photo...
(http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg)
-
The fact that an unaltered image is available to even discuss just makes the unaltered image even more valid.
The fes's problem with NASA is that the images are allegedly fake. Not just enhanced to look prettier.
-
...
It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. ...
So you're arguing that "unknown agents" are using "unknown methods" to create "false data" that no one can reliably critique as fraud now? Please adjust your tin-foil hat, and document your claim rigorously. What "tweaks" did you apply in what order to what original? What is the provenance of the original?
-
The fact that an unaltered image is available to even discuss just makes the unaltered image even more valid.
No. The only way one would discover this is if one turned up the constrast on the original image. This was an oversight on NASA's part. They were careless and let this photoshopped image fall through the cracks. If they deleted it or tried to discredit it then it would arouse even more suspicion. NASA has been surprisingly quiet about the Saturn's moons image.
...
It certainly doesn't look normal to me. If this doesn't convince you that NASA is up to something, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause. ...
So you're arguing that "unknown agents" are using "unknown methods" to create "false data" that no one can reliably critique as fraud now? Please adjust your tin-foil hat, and document your claim rigorously. What "tweaks" did you apply in what order to what original? What is the provenance of the original?
You can see it for yourself. Take the original image, put it in Photoshop, increase the contrast. It's seriously that easy. The original image is there for you to do with what you please. Knock yourself out, Gully (literally, please).
-
What? If I made a fake image of a planet then why would there be an original? I would just make the fake image.
-
What? If I made a fake image of a planet then why would there be an original? I would just make the fake image.
Those are not planets. They are moons. The dark shadow around the right side of the smaller moon is an artifact left over from creating the duped image. At least that is my theory. Some people claim its some sort of alien spacecraft, which I personally don't believe.
-
Okay moons. Same difference. If I made a fake image, why would I get an image of something real and then alter it. How can their be an image available to manipulate of something real? Your contention is that there is no moon.
-
Okay moons. Same difference. If I made a fake image, why would I get an image of something real and then alter it. How can their be an image available to manipulate of something real? Your contention is that there is no moon.
My contention was never "there is no moon". That's your first mistake.
The image was modified to cover this artifact up OR was a result of modifying the image to begin with. I wish I understood NASA's motives, but sadly I do not.
-
Okay, so then you think the space program is real?
-
Okay, so then you think the space program is real?
That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.
http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg
What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.
-
It is relevant. This is the flat earth society and conspiracies are discussed here. Conspiracies are discussed because the FE position is that humanity hasn't been to space.
-
Okay, so then you think the space program is real?
That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.
http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg
What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.
Maybe you should ask the person who made the image:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html
-
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html
She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.
-
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html
She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.
That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.
What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.
So now that you have been provided with a plausible story, do you have anything else to say on the matter?
-
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html
She's kinda cute. Yeah, I might have a few questions to ask her.
That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.
What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.
So now that you have been provided with a plausible story, do you have anything else to say on the matter?
Hardly plausible. I don't see how said editing creates shadow objects such as that. It seems like something was deliberately covered up. The black shadow objects are actually "brushstrokes" from whatever editing program she used. You can clearly see that there is a light being emitted from behind the covered portion of the photo. What was there? She certainly didn't address that in her explanation, and if she did she used enough techno-babble to confuse even the most intelligent scholars of our time.
-
So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.
Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.
-
So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.
Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.
I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?
Why is everyone avoiding this question?
-
So you don't understand it, that is fine. We can go two ways with that: 1. NASA is performing a sinister cover up; 2. You are ignorant of the workings of the photo editing program they used.
Applying Occam's Razor, option 2 seems like the likely answer.
I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?
Because it was explicitly answered in the article:
some misalignment in the three component images that resulted from Dione's apparent motion across Titan in the time that separated the three frames.
Why is everyone avoiding this question?
What is with the histrionics?
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
Like I said earlier, this is techno-babble. It means nothing.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
Like I said earlier, this is techno-babble. It means nothing.
Oh so you just don't like the answer. Ah well you can't win them all can you? Just please do not complain that no answer was given when one obviously was.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
-
You may have noticed that no one in this thread has disagreed that NASA edits photos. All that is being contested is your odd and somewhat nonsensical assertion that photo-editing is nefarious. You have completely failed to support that idea.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
-
So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?
-
So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?
Why would an innocent party have to edit photos to begin with? ???
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
I don't have any reason to think that just about every photo isn't doctored. I doctor almost 100% of the photos in my personal library. So what?
-
So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?
Why would an innocent party have to edit photos to begin with? ???
You have been given multiple reasons in this thread.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
And isn't it ridiculous for anyone to assume a malicious intent from any doctoring?
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.
-
Editing a photo does not mean you have something to hide either. So do you have anything that can show NASA's nefarious intent or can we drop this?
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.
Yes you have.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8)
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.
Yes you have.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8)
There's still the possibility that my photo was cropped into a pre-existing NASA photo of Earth deliberately to discredit Flat Earth Theory.
-
No Vauxhall there really isn't.
-
Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo... ::)
So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? ???
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?
I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.
Did you forget this already?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61615.msg1614468#msg1614468
I cropped myself out of the photo because I didn't want to reveal my face. I request you take that down, please. I will report you.
-
...
Did you forget this already?
,,,
Excellent counterexample. Doctoring need not be malicious. Amusing that NASA maliciously doctors evidence is ridiculous.
-
So, my image with my nickname has more validity than a image by the NASA?
I'm surprised you even have to ask this question.
Maybe I'm part of the conspirational society? How can you know?
Several photos released by NASA say otherwise. For example, take this picture of the "Orion Nebula".
(http://i.imgur.com/ySSAdxi.jpg)
NASA has admitted to "enhancing" this photo with computers. To the naked eye, the nebula looks very dull... but after some NASA magic it suddenly looks like a tier 10 wizard spell. NASA does this with several photos. Hardly "perfectly valid".
Enhancing ≠ Modifying, in this context.
What they do, and what every astronomer does is Image Staking (http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotography/imageStacking.shtml).
Stacked images doesn't mean "photoshoped" in the sense you mean.
I do it, and my images are as valid as what I see with my eyes, if not even more valid. The image of the Moon that I posted on the other thread, is also enhanced by stacking. I have more images, if you want them.
BTW, in the moon image I posted before, you can see the alignment marks in the borders of the image. I could cover them with black mspaint strokes, but I don't mind them to stay there.
And also use of filters to capture light from different wavelengths that your naked eye can't, so I don't understand what's wrong with it: http://www.astroshop.eu/telescope-accessories/filters/nebulae-filters/15_15_30 (http://www.astroshop.eu/telescope-accessories/filters/nebulae-filters/15_15_30)
Something of this invalidates an image? Then you must go gack to XVI century man...
I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?
Why is everyone avoiding this question?
You clearly didn't read the article by Emily Lackdawalla (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html), otherwise, it's impossible you missed, in the second paragraph:
"you'll see the brush strokes on the night side of Dione where I painted out some misalignment in the three component images that resulted from Dione's apparent motion across Titan in the time that separated the three frames"