JohnAdams1145

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2018, 08:52:45 AM »
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?

Unfortunately, because of the principle of explosion (one falsity can be used to prove any proposition), there are just too many things to hit at, and so we probably missed some logical hypocrisies. Nevertheless, you are correct. The main problem was she didn't understand on a deep level (and didn't realize she couldn't) any of the stuff she put forward, and so couldn't have a reasonable debate. The scientific arguments put forward are plenty enough to discredit her argument; there's no need to muddy the waters with some more abstract arguments about her sources and such. Besides, Round Earth people generally find NASA a reliable source.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2018, 11:18:42 AM »
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?

Quote
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,

Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).

NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology. In fact, NASA profits far more monetarily from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.

This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produce these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 12:30:18 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2018, 12:24:50 PM »
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.

This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2018, 01:04:15 PM »
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.

This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?

I made a number of claims there. NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year. The evidence is NASA's own claims, and what should really be common knowledge to anyone familiar with NASA and its vast contributions to our modern technology.

NASA even has the gall to use this money making scheme to justify its budget with Congress. Every $1 invested into NASA creates $8 to $14, the researched technologies benefit greatly to our modern life, and that is why Congress should keep NASA well funded. Where the new money goes after it is created is not really talked about.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2018, 01:49:48 PM »
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?

Quote
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,

Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).

I noticed it and kind of chuckled, but that is the least of her problems. I'd love to know how hydrogen and oxygen "naturally flow into the sun."
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2018, 02:41:56 PM »
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.

This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?

NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year.
Any specific sources for this? I can't find anywhere that they are making this claim. I see about 50 or so listed for the year 2017/2016/2015. A far cry from the 'well over a thousand' you're claiming here.

As a reminder, NASA's budget IS public and subject to congressional oversight/review. I'd love to see where TFES sees problems with it at some point.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2018, 05:38:09 PM »
NASA space travel may be fake, but researchers do go to NASA bases and conduct fundamental science like this. NASA works with the National Science Foundation and other organizations to conduct basic research on science and technology.
In fact, NASA profits far more money from patenting the technologies that come from the research than they get from its yearly government budget. Every year they publish a catalog of the technologies that come from NASA research.

This is actually another insidious racket. They use our money for the research that produced these patents and we don't even see a dividend.
Where is your evidence for a claim like this?

NASA claims to invent well over a thousand technologies a year.
Any specific sources for this? I can't find anywhere that they are making this claim. I see about 50 or so listed for the year 2017/2016/2015. A far cry from the 'well over a thousand' you're claiming here.

As a reminder, NASA's budget IS public and subject to congressional oversight/review. I'd love to see where TFES sees problems with it at some point.

Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline PickYerPoison

  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The Earth's not flat, just pre-pubescent.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2018, 06:55:00 PM »
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.

Quote
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.

1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.
Remember that "The truth is out there" as long as you are willing to look!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2018, 07:07:21 PM »
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.

Quote
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.

1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.


Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology

See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website for its employees and contractors:

Quote
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.

Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 07:09:54 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline PickYerPoison

  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The Earth's not flat, just pre-pubescent.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2018, 07:40:37 PM »
Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology

See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website for its employees and contractors:

Quote
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.

Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.

That means that the number 1,600 includes not just actual new technologies, such as e.g. launch methods, but also:
  • improvements to existing technology (for example, a slightly better battery)
  • new applications of existing technology (for example, using solar panel technology made for satellites on electric cars)
  • improved processes (for example, streamlining the process for a factory floor to request new equipment)
  • new processes (for example, creating a way for one group further down an assembly line to communicate with a group in front of them if they notice errors coming down the line)
  • improvements to existing manufacturing methods (for example, cost-saving on an engine casing by using leftovers from another part of the process to avoid waste)
  • new manufacturing methods (for example,
    creating a new robotic assembly line for a new set of parts)
  • improvements to existing materials (for example, creating a slightly different mix of metal that costs less but is equally strong)
  • new applications of existing materials (for example, using the above to build an old chassis)
  • new computer programs (for example, the GUI for compositing panoramic images taken by a new camera)
  • improvements to old computer programs (for example, updating an old program to eliminate memory leaks)
  • new applications of computer programs (for example, adapting code for new hardware)

But that's not all. If any NASA contractor or partner comes up with any of those, it also counts! That's important, because it means that people who aren't even on NASA'S payroll can contribute to that number of 1,600. And that's fine, because NASA isn't taking credit for the entire creation itself, but rather saying "here's something we helped to create or otherwise enabled the creation of".

e: This is getting off topic. If you would like to respond, please create a new thread about it.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 07:45:11 PM by PickYerPoison »
Remember that "The truth is out there" as long as you are willing to look!

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2018, 07:46:46 PM »
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.

Quote
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.

1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.


Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology

See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website for its employees and contractors:

Quote
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.

Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.
Which I think is an important point here. They are using the word 'technology' in a way not in the common parlance. This is clearly a marketing piece (and as an interesting note isn't even put together by NASA but another company) and is definitely a bureaucracy thing in the naming of the NTR. But this is common among government agencies, and not exactly surprising. PickYerPoison also correctly points out these aren't even all done by direct NASA employees, but a lot are likely from partner's and contractors. They appear to even be able to apply to relatively small changes, like changing the order something is assembled for greater efficiency.

We've also gotten perhaps a touch off-topic though. I might see if I can play 'track the money' for this quote
Quote
NASA even has the gall to use this money making scheme to justify its budget with Congress. Every $1 invested into NASA creates $8 to $14, the researched technologies benefit greatly to our modern life, and that is why Congress should keep NASA well funded. Where the new money goes after it is created is not really talked about.
Because the information you've cited appears to give some good ideas on where exactly it actually goes. But that is a subject for a different thread.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #71 on: January 30, 2018, 03:14:53 AM »
JohnAdams1145,

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
3. You have not.

Of course I have.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Probably because it makes more sense.

In your opinion.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 03:17:20 AM by Pickel B Gravel »
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #72 on: January 30, 2018, 03:22:13 AM »
JohnAdams1145,

Quote
10. You still don't understand basic chemistry and haven't made a good-faith effort to read my previous post.Let me explain this as I would to a fourth-grader because you refuse to wrap your head around it.
The chemical equation for the combustion of water is 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O(\Delta H = -572 kJ / mol)
The reverse reaction has an enthalpy change of 572 kJ / mol. If you debate this, then you need to learn basic chemistry.So let's assume that we fed 10000000000000000 metric craploads of H2 and O2 in a 2:1 stoichiometric ratio into the Sun.It'll literally just ionize into a plasma (or just stay gaseous if it stays at the surface) because it'sso damn hot. The H2 and O2won't combine, as per basic chemistry. I don't understand why you don't get this. But let's assume that 4 mol of H2 gets combusted, just to explain basic chemistry to you.So the Sun gets a temporary extra 1144 kJ of energy. But because it'sso damn hot, the 4 mol of water just separates into H2 and O2 or even just back into the plasma (if it gets hot enough). Thermolysis is a real thing, you muppet.Guess what happens when 4 mol of water separates again? The Sun loses that 1144 kJ. Any water you put into the Sun will be decomposed by the thermal energy of the Sun back into hydrogen and oxygen, at the expense of some of the heat energy in the Sun. This is a consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As long as the Sun is hot enough to decompose water very quickly, you cannot gain energy by putting H2 and O2 into the Sun.

This is why I've asked in past posts how hot you think the Sun is. From reading your posts, it appears that you believe the Sun is extremely hot. And worse of all, it looks as if you're assuming I believe likewise.

Quote
11. How hot do I think the Sun is? 15 million K at its core.

Well, that explains why you keep bringing up thermolysis. Hydrogen doesn't combust with oxygen at 15 million K.

Quote
Of course, you won't believe this because you don't understand any of the science involved and just want to argue with me over an indefensible position.

No. I don't believe it because there's no evidence for it.

Quote
So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven.

Hydrogen doesn't combust at 5700 K. If that's what you're suggesting, what are you basing it on? I cannot agree with your rather erroneous (at least in my humble opinion) belief regarding the Sun's temperature.

Quote
You should know this from my previous posts, but you're clearly not a good reader...

You NEVER typed on this specific forum what you believed the Sun's temperature was. The only time you mentioned it was indirectly when you pasted a rather large quote of yours from another forum. So, instead of assuming that you still believed the Sun was as hot as you claimed in another forum, I asked for a direct response. Am I to be insulted for asking such an innocent question?

Quote
12. If you don't understand how Le Chatelier's principle is relevant to the discussion, that means you don't know what it is  So get studying. You'll find that at the temperatures in the Sun, which way is the equilibrium? (Of course, normally combustion isn't reversible, but when it gets that hot, the H2 + O2 reaction is)

But I don't agree that the Sun is as hot as you believe it is...

Quote
13. If you don't understand why I've brought up thermolysis, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ. It's because in the Sun, thermolysis of water ensures that you cannot get energy out of combusting stuff into water. Is this so hard to understand?

I don't understand why you brought up thermolysis because I never agreed with you that the Sun is as hot as you believe.

Quote
14. I'm not scared. I'm exasperated. You write in your signature that you're a genius and then proceed to trash established science that people have worked so hard on without even understanding an inkling of what's going on. Do you understand why I find your antics disgusting? My physics professor dedicates herself to not only her research in dark matter but also explaining basic mechanics and relativity to a bunch of clueless students (including me).

It shouldn't disgust you when people question things and challenge accepted dogma. That's part of science. And it's irrelevant whether I "trash" established science. Are you suggesting that just because something is established and accepted by most, then it's true and exempt from being discarded? If so, you're appealing to common practice and appealing to popular belief, both of which are fallacious.

Quote
If you don't know something, the first step to getting better is admitting it and having an open mind instead of trashing things that don't seem intuitive to you.

I agree, and this statement of yours certainly pertains to your biased posts here and to your choice of making assumptions of things not explicitly stated instead of asking "what do you mean, pickel?"

Quote
15. You really don't know anything, and the fact that you still insist that you do (and even guess that you know more than I) is a major feature of Dunning-Kruger.

Your problem is you are being biased. This statement of yours implies that you believe you know more than I. So, why can't I accuse you of having dunning-kruger? You're the one who is asserting that you know more than all simply because you were taught what to think (rather than how to think). And you assume just because I reject established science, I don't know about it. No, I reject much of what is established because I actually analyze/question what I am taught.

Quote
At least I recognize that I'm no expert on GR, can only do some SR, don't understand a lot of things to do with rotation, and I'm no physicist/chemist and trust the peer-reviewed consensus instead of trashing their work because it doesn't make sense to me. I honestly suggest to you, as I've done to Tom Bishop, to try to take the AP Physics 1 and AP Chemistry practice tests (as I see you've supposedly taken the SAT recently) and see how well you do. I doubt you'll do too well. I certainly know very little about chemistry and only slightly more in physics.

When have I said I know everything? Appealing to authority, common practice, and popular belief (peer-reviewed paper, the work of "experts") are fallacious. And it's biased to ignore one side. I have looked at all sides and prefer the flat earth worldview. Criticizing theories and practices should not be discouraged.

Quote
16. You are the product of a failed education system if you even lend credence to Holocaust denial.

That's your opinion.

Quote
Not only that, this is a clear example of Dunning-Kruger: you think that whatever little research you did compares to the literal millions of witnesses (I mean victims) of what happened.

Looking at only one side gives the impression that the holocaust is fact. Once you look at all sides, then that perception starts to dissipate. If you had read my earlier posts on here about the holocaust, you'd know that I've cited some of the holocaust deniers who deny the holocaust. The many survivors who claim that the holocaust really happened may very well be victims of mass hysteria. I can imagine rumors starting among the detainees, altering their cognitive ability to observe things objectively. Suggestion is a big part of mass hysteria. I suggest you look into what some of the survivors say about their experience.
According to the accounts of holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust, It's apparent that there was already a common belief among new prisoners (before they entered the labor camps) that they would be killed via showers that release poisonous gas. This suggests mass hysteria.

Quote
From the American and Soviet soldiers who liberated the camps

As I've said, you can't ignore the possibility of bias and fraud. The allies (enemies of axis powers) were the only ones to investigate the alleged atrocities of Nazi Germany. And anti-Nazi rebels (enemies of Nazis) were the first to claim to the allies that the holocaust was real. Again, you can't leave out potential bias when the enemies of a regime are the ones making the claims.

Quote
to the camp guards to the piles of rotting bodies in hastily prepared graves to the ashes of those who died in the incinerators to the more fortunate who survived,

Again, you're only looking at one side and not thinking critically. What about the holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust (some of which I have stated)? How do dead bodies PROVE intentional genocide? What led you to make that conclusion instead of disease and food shortage caused by war?

Quote
there are PLENTY of people who know that the Holocaust happened and that it was targeted toward the Jews.

And there are plenty who reject it. Re-read what I typed about the holocaust. You have to think critically and look at the "evidence" through a historical lense.

Quote
There are even recordings of Adolf Hitler preaching his vitriol.

And? Saying things to appeal to voters of a certain demographic doesn't translate to Hitler actually killing Jews. And being anti-Semitic alone doesn't prove a holocaust happened.

Quote
Your supposed SAT score has nothing to do with that. The fact that you cannot put aside your worldview and just for once consider the evidence shows that you have failed not only elementary logic but also basic humanity.

There is no evidence. You're simply appealing to authority and choosing to believe in what you've been taught since youth instead of actually investigating all sides first. I used to accept established things too like the holocaust until I actually started to research them more and listen to all sides and weigh the evidence. in regards to the holocaust, for example, you mention dead bodies but don't realize that such can have many interpretations including disease and famine caused by war. And that does make more sense than an alleged genocide.

Quote
17. You still haven't addressed the primary problems (in descending order of importance) with your hypothesis: 1)Putting hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun doesn't give it energy at the temperatures it's at. It'll only sustain a lower temperature Sun. This is not an assumption. This is an experimentally verifiable FACT.

Remember: never assume things not explicitly stated. I don't agree (nor ever have agreed) the Sun is as hot as you believe.

Quote
2) You don't have an energy source for the Sun.

Combustion. I have already stated this.

Quote
3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.

According to your high-temperature Sun, it's a problem. All you have done is criticize your version of a flat earth Sun.

Quote
I suggest you educate yourself, and stop this silliness. You're in an argument against 99%+ scientists in the world. I could beat you just by referring to Wikipedia.

Appealing to authority is fallacious. So is appealing to popular belief. The only way you can "beat me" in this discussion is by resorting to ad hominem attacks, strawman tactics, and red herring attempts, which you have consistently been committing from the very beginning. I, on the other hand, want an honest and meaningful discussion. Are you willing to have one?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 03:24:31 AM by Pickel B Gravel »
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #73 on: January 30, 2018, 03:31:57 AM »
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...

If I'm not a genius, why exactly am a member of mensa? They don't let just anyone in, you know.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #74 on: January 30, 2018, 03:56:44 AM »
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?

Quote
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,

Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).

It's not cherry-picking. I have said that NASA fakes space travel and thus isn't a reliable source in that regard. I have NEVER stated that NASA is as a whole unreliable. As Tom Bishop has correctly pointed out, NASA isn't exclusively a space agency. It has other functions, too. And the NASA paper that I've cited clearly states that the initial discovery of fireball properties were discovered on earth in zero-gravity conditions.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #75 on: January 30, 2018, 04:05:16 AM »
Kal_9000,

Quote
There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."

"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."

More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors

Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.

Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.

To quote the Wikipedia article on Holocaust denial,
"Critics of Holocaust denial include the Auschwitz SS"
Do you know what the SS is? Or Auschwitz?

Of course I do. What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to equate me to the SS simply because I don't believe the holocaust happened? If so, I'd suggest that you Google "guilt by association".
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

JohnAdams1145

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #76 on: January 30, 2018, 04:44:07 AM »
No, Pickel, I suggest you get back on topic. Notwithstanding that, the point KAL_9000 was trying to make is that even those directly accused of the Holocaust and who have the most to lose from the truth of the Holocaust getting out and who were first-hand witnesses of the acts they are accused of perpetrating, have criticized the uninformed opinion of those generations removed from the alleged events who believe that their cursory "research" from conspiracy sites actually holds any water.

Now will you please address the numerous problems I pointed out in your "electrolysis" Sun hypothesis? (Wow, I just realized that you've really cheapened the word "hypothesis")

Of course the damn combustion temperature of hydrogen isn't at 5700 K. That's the lower bound I'm going to use because I really don't feel like explaining where the 15 million K comes from. That's the whole argument I've been making; hydrogen and oxygen cannot combine in appreciable quantities (and anything that does is reversed) at 5700 K. Therefore, you cannot extract energy from them. Simple logic, simple chemistry. What makes me not have Dunning-Kruger? Hmm... maybe it's because I agree with the stuff that 99% of scientists seem to agree on and some of my friends use the exact same principles I'm talking about to do groundbreaking research and innovation from engineering to biology. I've also freely admitted that I know close to nothing about GR, cartography, star navigation, etc.

As for your other points, I've already made the energy calculations in many other posts... I suggest you re-read. These all assume a surface temperature of 5700 K, as you should've noted (but clearly didn't).  You've not addressed the energy problem. You can't just handwave into existence the energy by saying "we don't know where it comes from" -- that bends credulity. I could say that the US government has the ability to instantly vaporize the entire Solar System; someone could give the energy argument, and I could say "I didn't get enough funding to investigate the US government, but I'm sure they have a superweapon that can create the energy out of nowhere to turn the entire Solar System into a massive 15 million K ball of hydrogen gas." By the same logic, I could argue that the US government can conjure pure gold out of a hat, but I haven't had the money to investigate how they do it.

Now onto your absolute garbage hypothesis that the Sun is in the Earth's atmosphere... do you know what convection is? If not, do you know what wind is? You're pretty bad at this. Seems fair for someone who calls herself a genius. This is real Dunning-Kruger + backfire effect. The hypotheses keep getting more absurd... More and more absurd. Hey, by the way, if the Sun were in the atmosphere, how come Kim Jong Un hasn't launched a rocket/airplane to grab a piece of it? That's right, you're clueless.

Combustion is not an energy source of the Sun, as I've stated a million times before. You need to state WHERE the energy was CREATED not how it was TRANSMITTED, in the same way, we don't talk about how aluminum power lines generate electricity.

Do the calculation for how much charge transfer needs to happen to electrolyze 10000 solar masses of water. Then tell me that you're not a crank who hasn't bothered to master basic chemistry. I'm not going to keep doing these calculations only for you to come up with more and more absurd hypotheses; if you believe that you know anything about chemistry, the calculation should be very easy. But I doubt you'll get it correct.

Let me clarify one last thing for it. You think there's no evidence for a hot Sun because you've seen no satisfactory evidence for it. This is because you don't understand the vast body of scientific work that has gone into producing that piece of knowledge. That's because you're illiterate on the basics of chemistry and physics. So, I'm going to ask you again, please do the AP Physics 1&2 and AP Chemistry exams. You've taken the SAT recently (according to you), so that's anyway going to be a part of what you have to do to apply to college.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 09:57:54 AM by JohnAdams1145 »

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2018, 04:52:25 AM »
JohnAdams1145,

Quote
So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven.

Hydrogen doesn't combust at 5700 K. If that's what you're suggesting, what are you basing it on? I cannot agree with your rather erroneous (at least in my humble opinion) belief regarding the Sun's temperature.


The sun emits what appears to be a 5800K blackbody radiation spectrum.
Blackbody radiation is extremely well understood by physics. This means that either the sun is a minimum of 5800K, or it is something that is even hotter using energy in some weird way to simulate being a 5800K blackbody.

What temperature do you think the sun is, Pickel?

Quote

Quote
3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.

According to your high-temperature Sun, it's a problem. All you have done is criticize your version of a flat earth Sun.


What temperature do you think the sun is?

How much solar energy do you think is striking the earth when the sun is shining? How much hydrogen would have to burn to provide that energy?

JohnAdams1145

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #78 on: January 30, 2018, 05:06:29 AM »
douglips, I intentionally withheld that piece of information from her hoping that she'd do a bit of research on it. The fact that she doesn't know why I picked 5700 K as a lower bound should tell you something about how much she actually understands physics... well, the beans have been spilled :(

Argument from authority is only fallacious when the authority is not relevant to the situation. For example, asking a doctor with no physics training or a lawmaker about the merits of the luminiferous aether theory vs Newtonian mechanics vs Special Relativity would be fallacious. Asking physicists who have written seminal papers and profoundly changed our world is not fallacious.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #79 on: January 30, 2018, 05:09:54 AM »

And yet, we do know that lightning is a real phenomenon. I never said the mechanism for electrolysis occurs in an isolated location. In fact, I've mentioned lightning occurrences all over the world as contributors.
You still have a conservation of energy/laws of thermodynamics problem.
Where does the energy for lightning come from? If lightning were happening often enough to generate the hydrogen for the sun to combust, the sky would be bright everywhere. See my previous demonstration that for the energy of the sun to be dissipated across the entire sky, the sky would be approximately twice as bright as the moon.
Quote
Quote
IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?

I've already addressed this. Did you not read what I typed? Flat earth theory is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding, support, acceptance than round earth theory. Also, electricity exists naturally. Do you deny that fact?

What is the source of the electricity in lightning?

Quote

Quote
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.

I've already addressed this. Do you deny the existence of natural electricity such as lightning? Do you deny that lightning is a form of energy?

Lightning doesn't magically appear. The energy that drives lightning comes from somewhere. It's well understood. Where do you think lightning gets its energy?
Quote

Quote
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it.

I have never misrepresented anything you have posted here. And I've already addressed the energy source of natural electrolysis. Do you deny that electricity exists in nature?

Saying there is an energy source, and quantifying that it is a SUFFICIENT energy source, are so far apart as to be completely different things. How much energy is released by lightning world-wide? Where does the energy for lightning come from? Here's a hint: Why is lightning more common in the summer than in the winter?

Quote

Quote
Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside.

No. I have always been consistent. Where have I mentioned that electrolysis happens in the Sun? You assumed that because you didn't read carefully.
The point is that a very large amount of energy is being radiated from the sun to the earth. Agree or disagree?
Such energy has to come from somewhere.
One theory is that fusion of hydrogen in the sun is the source of energy. This theory has support from such things as the kamiokande neutrino detector.
One hypothesis you are advancing is that water from combustion in the sun goes somewhere and is decomposed back into hydrogen and oxygen.
How much energy will that take?
If there were enough lightning or other sources of that energy, why don't we all get sunburns at night from all the space/upper atmosphere lightning?
Quote

Quote
The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?

I've already addressed this. Electricity exists in nature, and flat earth is still in its developing phase due to receiving less funding and support that round earth theory has received.
Round earth gets zero research dollars, because all the research was done 5 or more centuries ago. If a flat earth theory were better, some other culture could have been navigating the world better than, say, the Royal Navy, which was navigating the entire surface of the planet 200 years ago based on latitude and longitude observations.

What possible experiments would you like to perform as a flat earth scientist that hasn't already been performed by someone centuries ago?
Quote

Quote
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear.

I've already cited a NASA article that explains that fire in zero gravity behaves differently: Fuel comes to the fire.
As for how water gets transported to the place where it gets electrolyzed, it depends on the mechanism used to electrolysize h2o. H2o would initially be released from the Sun in  vapor form. Then, with lightning as a specific electrolyzer that I'll use as an example here, the h2o would condense into clouds. Lighting would then develop from the friction of clouds, and this would lead to the lightning performing electrolysis on the h2o.
What you are proposing is a perpetual motion device. Please consider the laws of thermodynamics. Those aren't round-earth science, they are just science.
Quote
Quote
Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.

Did you bother to read the NASA article that I cited? Because it goes on to state that fireballs in zero graviy don't require much energy to thrive. And your basing your argument on how hot you think the Sun is. How hot do you think the Sun is that it requires such high amounts of mass/energy?

Fireballs don't need much energy to thrive, but they do need at least the amount of energy they are radiating, or they are a perpetual motion machine.

So, how hot do you think the sun is?
How much solar energy do you think is striking the earth? I think it is in excess of 10^14 watts.