JohnAdams1145,
1. You are a liar. The essay is scored separately from the other sections (and it's 8 points, so it makes no sense to add to something with 10-point increments). It isn't reported as part of the -/1600 score. Stop trying to cover it up.
The essay is part of the SAT and is graded in 1 point intervals, so I included it. Just admit you were wrong. You accuse me of being stubborn and thinking I'm always right, but here you are guilty of the things you accuse me of!
Please PM me a screenshot of your SAT score report and I'll reconsider.
If you don't want to believe, don't. I'm not going to share private information. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to do so because I lack a camera.
As I said before your SAT score has little to do with your knowledge in chemistry and physics.
Did I ever say it had anything to do with physics and chemistry? Was that the reason why I mentioned it? No. As I have already mentioned, it was a rebuttal to another person's comment that the educational system failed me. If that person had instead said that I don't know about physics and chemistry, I would NOT have mentioned it.
2. Nobody has the patience to deal with someone who won't do the slightest bit of research and/or read posts carefully.
Yes, you should read posts carefully and do more research. I've already mentioned that.
3. You have not.
Of course I have.
You don't even know why combustion doesn't work in the Sun, as evidenced by your continued belief that what you said is scientifically correct. Please re-read my evisceration of your hypothesis AGAIN.
Combustion can work in the Sun. I understood what you typed: combustion of h2o in the Sun can't occur because the Sun is supposedly really hot (in your opinion), and even if combustion were possible in the Sun, it would be reversible (by means of thermolysis) due to the Sun's supposed temperature. Am I right? The problem that I believe you have is assuming (again) that the two of us agree on the Sun's temperature, which is why I asked you how hot you think the Sun is.
4. Do you even know how water electrolysis is performed? It requires at bare minimum an anode and a cathode and an electric current flowing from the anode to the cathode, and both have to be immersed in water.
Yes. How does this dispute anything that I have typed?
Let me ask you, do you see any of that in space? No.
Since neither you nor I have been to space, it's safe to say none of us have seen it. And in flat earth theory, the Sun is in the earth's atmosphere.
As I've said before, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd see how improbable it is for a potential difference to be maintained to continue the electrolysis reaction. Electrolysis is very unlikely to occur in large quantities in nature simply because it requires a certain structure.
And yet, we do know that lightning is a real phenomenon. I never said the mechanism for electrolysis occurs in an isolated location. In fact, I've mentioned lightning occurrences all over the world as contributors.
Thermolysis (how many times have I said this already?) and even a chemical reduction of the hydrogen is far more likely.
And I am always open-minded to modify this theory. Perhaps BOTH electrolysis and thermolysis contribute to the breakdown of h2o.
IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?
I've already addressed this. Did you not read what I typed? Flat earth theory is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding, support, acceptance than round earth theory. Also, electricity exists naturally. Do you deny that fact?
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
I've already addressed this. Do you deny the existence of natural electricity such as lightning? Do you deny that lightning is a form of energy?
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it.
I have never misrepresented anything you have posted here. And I've already addressed the energy source of natural electrolysis. Do you deny that electricity exists in nature?
Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside.
No. I have always been consistent. Where have I mentioned that electrolysis happens in the Sun? You assumed that because you didn't read carefully.
The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?
I've already addressed this. Electricity exists in nature, and flat earth is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding and support that round earth theory has received.
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear.
I've already cited a NASA article that explains that fire in zero gravity behaves differently: Fuel comes to the fire.
As for how water gets transported to the place where it gets electrolyzed, it depends on the mechanism used to electrolysize h2o. H2o would initially be released from the Sun in vapor form. Then, with lightning as a specific electrolyzer that I'll use as an example here, the h2o would condense into clouds. Lighting would then develop from the friction of clouds, and this would lead to the lightning performing electrolysis on the h2o.
Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.
Did you bother to read the NASA article that I cited? Because it goes on to state that fireballs in zero graviy don't require much energy to thrive. And your basing your argument on how hot you think the Sun is. How hot do you think the Sun is that it requires such high amounts of mass/energy?
[quore]8. So, why do you think that Round Earth gets more funding?[/quote]
I believe because proponents of a round earth out-rivaled their competitors and gained the upper hand in academia.
Probably because it makes more sense.
In your opinion.
Probably because hydrogen fusion has been demonstrated on Earth
It's not relevant whether fusion has been demonstrated by artificial means or not. Cheese has been created by humans; is that evidence that the moon is made of cheese? You actually have to establish a correlation between the two.
and it makes a TON more sense than water floating in space going in and out of the Sun.
The Sun in flat earth theory would be located in the earth's atmosphere, not in space. And it makes sense. This flat earth model of the Sun explains why earth has so much water and why other planets don't.
Perhaps it's because you still don't understand why a very large electrochemical cell is so hard to find in nature. Perhaps it's because you don't really understand how an electrochemical cell works. When you cite lightning as an example of natural electricity, do you realize how much smaller lightning is compared to the astronomical electric current any water electrolyzer would need to power the Sun? What charge pump (that is, something that generates and holds a strong electric field) could you even conceive to keep the voltage at a high enough level? There is none. This is why I find thermolysis at least a more informed (yet still garbage) mechanism to explain the separation of water.
The problem is I don't believe the Sun is as hot as you believe. So, less energy and fuel are needed to "power up" the Sun than what you are positing. Also, as I've already typed, the accumulation of all of the lightning in the world would contribute to electrolysis.
9. 10000 solar masses of water vapor would be very noticeable in space. It would block a lot of radiation and cause major problems with any sort of celestial astronomy.
According to the necessary energy for a really hot sun, to which you seem to be giving credence.
Also you haven't proposed what keeps the water vapor from simply dispersing; what keeps it flowing back and forth between the Sun and whatever magical source you have?
Water vapor forms into clouds, which then create their own energy (lightning). The lightning would perform electrolysis to convert h2o into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. These separate gases would then move toward the least dense area (the Sun), according to diffusion. But it's irrelevant if I cannot fully explain this. Explaining the phenomenon is not the same thing as explaining the mechanism for the phenomenon. Just because I may not be able to explain certain mechanisms for the theory, it doesn't affect the theory itself.