The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 19, 2011, 08:31:33 PM

Title: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 19, 2011, 08:31:33 PM
Until the discovery of fusion it was difficult to explain the source of the Sun's energy source for astronomers.  Things like fossil fuels simply do not have the amount of energy needed to sustain the huge amounts of time that sun has been in fact lighting up our sky.

I have heard a variety of different theories on what powers the sun on these forums, from the downright crazy - solarshrimp, to the uninformed and not well thought out - pure fire.

Does FES have an accepted power source for the sun?  If so, what is it?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Horatio on May 19, 2011, 09:52:57 PM
Why would the power source of the sun under FET be any different than RET?

Solarshrimp were never stated as the source of power for the sun, but rather just a form of life on the surface of the sun.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Skeleton on May 19, 2011, 09:55:35 PM

Does FES have an accepted power source for the sun?  If so, what is it?

Coal.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 19, 2011, 10:31:16 PM
Why would the power source of the sun under FET be any different than RET?

Since the standard FE model has a much smaller sun, you won't have enough gravity to provide the pressure necessary to cause fusion.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Particle Person on May 19, 2011, 10:33:18 PM
Why would the power source of the sun under FET be any different than RET?

Since the standard FE model has a much smaller sun, you won't have enough gravity to provide the pressure necessary to cause fusion.

...or any gravity at all.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 19, 2011, 10:36:34 PM
What is this nonsense about gravity?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 19, 2011, 11:03:41 PM
What is this nonsense about gravity?

The amount of pressure needed to sustain the high temperatures that fusion needs can only be achieved through gravity, the only way that humans can start fusion reactions is through the use of fission reactions. 

Therefore FE with a thirty two diameter sun cannot use fusion as the energy source of the sun.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on May 20, 2011, 02:33:17 AM
Evidence? Support? Unsubstantiated claims?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 20, 2011, 02:58:34 AM
Evidence? Support? Unsubstantiated claims?

Of the immense pressures needed to begin a fusion reaction?
We don't seem to need to explain the concept of relativity to you, yet you're asking for evidence of this? Go read one of the many links that appear when you google "atomic fusion" ffs...
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 20, 2011, 07:29:49 AM
What is this nonsense about gravity?

The amount of pressure needed to sustain the high temperatures that fusion needs can only be achieved through gravity, the only way that humans can start fusion reactions is through the use of fission reactions. 


That's not quite accurate. Tokamak fusion reactors do exist and don't need fission or gravity, just electromagnetic containment and high temperatures. They do however require much more energy to put in than one gets out.

Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: John Davis on May 20, 2011, 07:39:22 AM
Quite the theory constructed out of second hand astronomical knowledge.  How again can you know with any certainty what powers the sun except for models that fit the data, rather than the truth?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 20, 2011, 07:55:01 AM
Quite the theory constructed out of second hand astronomical knowledge.  How again can you know with any certainty what powers the sun except for models that fit the data, rather than the truth?
How did you derive this truth then? And why doesn't it fit the data?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: John Davis on May 20, 2011, 08:16:07 AM
Quite the theory constructed out of second hand astronomical knowledge.  How again can you know with any certainty what powers the sun except for models that fit the data, rather than the truth?
How did you derive this truth then? And why doesn't it fit the data?
First hand observation when its available;  it could certainly fit the data - it in fact must.  However, it also fits the truth, rather than a wild mathematical converging of related and unrelated theories on what the data means.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 20, 2011, 09:34:54 AM
Quite the theory constructed out of second hand astronomical knowledge.  How again can you know with any certainty what powers the sun except for models that fit the data, rather than the truth?

All we ever have are models. There's never any access to the "truth". This is true for both second hand and first hand knowledge. We are just more aware of some of those models than others. When a little child plays catch with a ball they are using mental models about the movement of balls. When you cross the street at a crosswalk you are using a model that says it is safer to cross there than in the middle of the road. These are all models. The only difference is the degree that the knowledge is indirect. Note that having a lot of indirect evidence doesn't mean that that evidence can't be very strong. All my evidence that George Washington existed is indirect and very second hand. But that doesn't substantially alter my confidence that he existed.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 12:07:38 PM
Quite the theory constructed out of second hand astronomical knowledge.  How again can you know with any certainty what powers the sun except for models that fit the data, rather than the truth?

All we ever have are models. There's never any access to the "truth". This is true for both second hand and first hand knowledge. We are just more aware of some of those models than others. When a little child plays catch with a ball they are using mental models about the movement of balls. When you cross the street at a crosswalk you are using a model that says it is safer to cross there than in the middle of the road. These are all models. The only difference is the degree that the knowledge is indirect. Note that having a lot of indirect evidence doesn't mean that that evidence can't be very strong. All my evidence that George Washington existed is indirect and very second hand. But that doesn't substantially alter my confidence that he existed.

Ok ill try to use simple observations to prove that the sun could not be using fusion if it were only 32 miles in diameter.  Objects like jupiter and venus are far larger than 32 miles in diameter, and they have no where near the amount of gravity or density needed to begin fusion.  Its at around 13 jupiter masses when we begin to see small amounts of fusion in the core of these large planets, and thats why we begin to call them brown dwarfs.

Also the sun converts millions of tons, perhaps even billions depending on your source, of hydrogen a second in order to produce sufficient amounts of energy to power the amount of pressure that it needs to exert back on gravity to prevent itself from collapsing.  Models for the sun are extremely difficult to create, in fact there are entire upper-division classes here at UCSC devoted to constructing models of the sun.  If you put in too much mass, it has too much gravity, and will collapse. If you change the density, you change the amount of pressure driving fusion, and therefore change the amount of pressure pushing against gravity, and will cause the sun to collapse.  The sun is always in a very close balance between collapsing or expanding rapidly,  And this is arbitrary of whether the earth is round or not.  You can run the computer models yourself.  

Keep in mind also, that its pretty easy to see first hand that nuclear fusion takes immense amounts of pressure and heat to start.  One of the few ways, and the most common way that we are able to start fusion reactions, is through the use of fission nuclear bombs.

Now sure, none of this is proof that a 32 mile diameter sun could not (even though the pressures in the center of the earth would be greater than something merely 32 miles across, and therefore would start a nuclear fusion reaction) start a fusion reaction and sustain it for billions of years.  But it just doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation to assume that sun is 32 miles across and performing nuclear fusion when there are other objects of greater size that cannot preform the same action, for example, the earth.

But even more important, is the fact that you have not proven that nuclear fusion could actually happen only 3000 miles away from our surface in a body only 32 miles across.  If you want, i can give you many links on how fusion in the sun works given the suns size and mass in RE terms.  I dont think that you can provide me anywhere near the same level of evidence that this is in fact possible.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2011, 12:57:48 PM
You can run the computer models yourself. 

I'd really like to do that, actually.  Does it actually allow you to construct a sun 32 miles wide and play with its mass and density?  I'd like to see first-hand what happens.

Link?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: hoppy on May 20, 2011, 02:31:03 PM
Until the discovery of fusion it was difficult to explain the source of the Sun's energy source for astronomers.  Things like fossil fuels simply do not have the amount of energy needed to sustain the huge amounts of time that sun has been in fact lighting up our sky.

I have heard a variety of different theories on what powers the sun on these forums, from the downright crazy - solarshrimp, to the uninformed and not well thought out - pure fire.

Does FES have an accepted power source for the sun?  If so, what is it?

    Yes electricity, The sun is a large electric flood light.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 03:22:58 PM
You can run the computer models yourself. 

I'd really like to do that, actually.  Does it actually allow you to construct a sun 32 miles wide and play with its mass and density?  I'd like to see first-hand what happens.

Link?

These programs are usually designed by those who want to actually test these types of things. If there is an online system for doing this I am unaware of it.

Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 03:53:55 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Simply Amazing.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on May 20, 2011, 04:34:38 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 20, 2011, 05:41:59 PM
You can run the computer models yourself.  

I'd really like to do that, actually.  Does it actually allow you to construct a sun 32 miles wide and play with its mass and density?  I'd like to see first-hand what happens.

Link?

These programs are usually designed by those who want to actually test these types of things. If there is an online system for doing this I am unaware of it.



Oh, so when you said "You can run the computer models yourself", you really meant, "You can't run the computer models yourself unless you're a student at my school in my specialized field of knowledge"?

I am disappoint.  :(

I guess we have no way of confirming your vague accusations against FET for ourselves after all?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 05:44:31 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

??? Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: fluffycornsnake on May 20, 2011, 05:46:11 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

A concise and reasonable answer. I declare this case closed.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on May 20, 2011, 05:55:39 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

??? Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?


??? Were you being sarcastic in your post about the sun being fire?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 05:59:59 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

??? Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?


??? Were you being sarcastic in your post about the sun being fire?

Of course he was, fire requires oxygen, and a material to be burned, it is in fact the oxidization of an entity,  with the flames being the exited atmosphere nearby the energy source. 
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 06:00:59 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

??? Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?


??? Were you being sarcastic in your post about the sun being fire?

Yeah. I'm a DA. If you look in the quote, you'll see that in small, transparent letters, I wrote 'God, I feel like James.' James (I'm just assuming you don't know who he is, because I don't know you. Sorry if I'm being condescending) is a notorious troll here, although he's actually one of the few true believers. Actually, he came up with that idea, based on Aristotle's theory that everything is made of Earth, Fire, Water, and Air.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 06:01:20 PM
You can run the computer models yourself.  

I'd really like to do that, actually.  Does it actually allow you to construct a sun 32 miles wide and play with its mass and density?  I'd like to see first-hand what happens.

Link?


These programs are usually designed by those who want to actually test these types of things. If there is an online system for doing this I am unaware of it.



Oh, so when you said "You can run the computer models yourself", you really meant, "You can't run the computer models yourself unless you're a student at my school in my specialized field of knowledge"?

I am disappoint.  :(

I guess we have no way of confirming your vague accusations against our theory for ourselves after all?

No, you can run the model yourself, all i said was that you will have to design the program perimeters like everyone at my school does.  If you don't know how to do that, then you probably cannot definitively prove if a 32 mile diameter sun could in fact sustain a fusion reaction for billions of years.  And I am not making vague accusations against your theory, its quite clear.  Fusion requires immense pressure, greater than what a 32 mile diameter object can provide.  Look at jupiter, mars, venus, earth, all are much larger than 32 miles in diameter, yet none fuse atoms in their core.  In fact, it takes a minimum of 13 Jupiter masses to begin a process of fusion, at which points planets become classified as "brown dwarfs".

I'm providing you with how our sun works in RE, all i am asking you to do, is to show me how it works in FE, because after you read how our sun works, you will realize that shrinking the sun down to 32 miles in diameter will have huge consequences on how the process works in RE.  Cramming the amount of mass that the sun currently has into the size of the sun in FE would make it resemble a white dwarf star more than a normal star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Please explain to me how the sun works in FE, taking into consideration its dramatic reduction in size.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 20, 2011, 08:04:42 PM
 Cramming the amount of mass that the sun currently has into the size of the sun in FE would make it resemble a white dwarf star more than a normal star.


Interesting. When I first read that remark I thought "well shouldn't you actually get a black hole" but then I did the calculation for the Schwarzschild radius of the sun and it is surprisingly small (about an order of magnitude smaller).
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 20, 2011, 08:19:36 PM
So does the FE have no idea of how to power the sun?  Or is it nuclear fusion, just no one has any clue on how that works with a 32 mile diameter sun?  This is a pretty gaping hole in FE theory then...
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: FEisBS on May 20, 2011, 08:42:19 PM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

??? Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?


??? Were you being sarcastic in your post about the sun being fire?

Yes, he was. Tausami is a very sarcastic Round Earther who likes to mess with the lunatics who think the Earth is flat...
-Vincent.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 21, 2011, 01:42:24 AM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

So you don't support the conservation of energy law. Good to know.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: John Davis on May 21, 2011, 03:30:53 AM
I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

So you don't support the conservation of energy law. Good to know.
If the round earth exists, how can anyone without an infinite universe view hold the conversation of energy.  Its a giant "possibility" matrix that has made wise men fools ! look at truth!  why would we suggest something so ridiculous as a round earther, if not to hide our lies (to ourselves) and our faults.  This is the most important thing you will read in your life.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 21, 2011, 03:47:00 AM
This is the most important thing you will read in your life.
And sadly I don't understand it.

I could only make out the first sentence, so if you care to rephrase the rest of your post, that would be appreciated.

As for the first sentence - why does the universe need to be infinite for the conservation of energy to hold? Consider a closed system, a finite system. The law holds for that case in all observations to date, so why wouldn't it hold for your FE sun?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:18:48 PM
If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 12:22:47 PM
If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:57:44 PM
If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 01:12:33 PM
If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.

I have bolded the parts of your post that jumped out at me.  We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".


Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 01:28:58 PM
If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.

I have bolded the parts of your post that jumped out at me.  We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".




Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: fluffycornsnake on May 21, 2011, 02:00:19 PM
Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 02:04:54 PM
Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: fluffycornsnake on May 21, 2011, 02:26:50 PM
Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.

To critique one's own ideas against one's own arbitrary standards is a laughable activity. Socrates rightly perceived himself to be the wisest man in the world for recognising his ignorance. RE'ers and lovers of the scientific model would do well to learn from his example.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 03:00:41 PM
 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".


Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 03:09:06 PM
Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.

To critique one's own ideas against one's own arbitrary standards is a laughable activity. Socrates rightly perceived himself to be the wisest man in the world for recognising his ignorance. RE'ers and lovers of the scientific model would do well to learn from his example.

Two things.  One, what arbitrary standards are you talking about?

Two, I do not believe that Socrates was a supporter of ignorance.  While it is important to reconize that you do not infact know everything, or in fact, almost anything, that should not stop you from your quest to learn everything possible about your surroundings. Again, our idea of how the sun works is merely a theory, yet, whenever we look at new information, it still works with our current theory.  As time goes on and technology improves, we may find new information regarding how the sun works and it may completely change our perception of the sun and other celestial bodies.  but that should not stop you from trying to contemplate the unknown.

So at this point i am assuming that there is no theory for how the sun works in FE, which is cool, obviously you cant have a theory about everything, and you dont have funds to conduct a research, so its not a big deal.  But arguing semantics regarding knowing versus thinking was not the purpose of this thread, and it makes it seem as though you are hiding something.  RE theories do not have an explanation for everything, and i would assume that FE does not either.

However, i will say that the sun is sort of a big deal.  It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.  If you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community, and convince others of the earths flatness, these are the kinds of things that need looking into.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 07:30:16 PM
 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".


Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?

Oh, sure.  But I have the wisdom to recognize that they probably don't.

I'd like to see a list of predictions made that are dependent on the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion that have proven to be true, by the way.  Just to be sure you aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  I'm having trouble understanding how such predictions could even exist but I look forward to learning something new.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 08:14:36 PM
 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".


Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?

Oh, sure.  But I have the wisdom to recognize that they probably don't.

And this wisdom comes from where exactly?

Quote
I'd like to see a list of predictions made that are dependent on the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion that have proven to be true, by the way.  Just to be sure you aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  I'm having trouble understanding how such predictions could even exist but I look forward to learning something new.

Sure. The most obvious is that the sun should be a big neutrino source. That's pretty strongly confirmed. Note that fewer neutrinos than initially predicted have been detected, but the basic prediction is correct within a factor of 3  and the correct result is consistent with the Standard Model with oscillating neutrinos with non-zero rest mass. In contrast, most other obvious heat sources (three that have been mentioned on these boards are good-old fashioned fire, nuclear fission, and other radioactive decay processes) will all produce far fewer neutrinos.

The other important thing to realize is that the general theory which is making these predictions isn't just that the sun is powered by fusion but that stars in general are powered by fusion. Thus, one can predict that stars which we expect to be older stars (such as red giants) will have correspondingly different element ratios. And in fact one sees this. Thus for example, red giants have higher nitrogen/carbon ratios than does the sun. This is due to the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen fusion cycle. This was predicted in advance and then found to be true. Another related prediction predicts ratios of carbon-13, carbon-14 and carbon-12. And we've confirmed those. In particular, younger stars (that is stars which are predicted to be young by standard theories) have a higher c-13/c-12 ratio.

If you want, I can give other examples.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 08:53:29 PM
If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 21, 2011, 09:14:17 PM
If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!
You don't care for more examples, but rather to waste his time.

FEers are just modern day cavemen. They still believe the Earth is flat and the sun is a giant fireball.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 09:34:36 PM
If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!

We should expect to see an upsurge in neutrinos during a nearby supernova, especially at the very beginning of the supernova. This was dramatically confirmed  with the 1987a supernova which was bright enough to be visible to the naked eye (although this isn't perfect evidence because the supernova apparently occurred at a star that we didn't expect to supernova and people are still trying to figure out what happened.) A few hours prior, neutrino detectors saw spikes in neutrino  in the few hours before the supernova was visible.

The standard fusion theory predicts that stars can't have a mass more than about 300 times that of the sun, and that there should be almost none more than 200 masses (since heavier, less efficiently fusing elements are now prominent). In fact, the largest stars found are about a 150 solar masses. This has been consistent even as we've found the masses of more and more stars. (Note that estimating stellar mass is really difficult, so this is one of the weaker pieces of evidence).

The model of star formation also gives strong predictions about what elements will be most common in the universe. In particular, it predicts that elements that are heavier than iron will be rare and that they will be progressively rarer the heavier they are. This is something of a weak prediction, since we already had this information for Earth itself and the stellar model simply predicts that this will be true more or less in general.

This isn't to say that we have everything figured out. Far from it.  There's a lot still we don't know. For example, as I mentioned earlier, estimating stellar mass is really difficult. And then there are a handful of just weird things, like how Betelgeuse has been apparently changing size over the last hundred years. A lot of our understanding is very rough. Part of this is just due to the computational difficulty (even today, simulating the inside of a star is tough). And although there is some near-surface fusion, the vast majority of the fusion is taking place deep inside stars which is very hard to get data about (again, neutrinos are one of our few sources of information). And even some surface behavior like that of solar flares and sunspots, where we do have a lot of data, are still not well understood. But, these are all essentially details. The overarching picture of stellar fusion is pretty strongly established.

Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 22, 2011, 02:41:46 AM
I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 22, 2011, 03:28:40 AM
I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.
Please refrain from crackpottery in the upper fora.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
I see a picture of ancient illustrations, a porcupine and a cartoon sun - yet no data is to be found.

Not very zetetic of you, James.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 22, 2011, 06:40:35 AM
Do not pretend to moderate in the upper fora, this is against site rules. Consider this an official warning.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 22, 2011, 07:16:58 AM
I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.
Please refrain from crackpottery in the upper fora.

No memberating
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: berny_74 on May 22, 2011, 07:32:08 AM
I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

Yet the phrase of Fight Fire with Fire holds true.  A common method of fighting fires is - with other fires!  And there are many real world applications where the fires remain separate.

I think you may wish to do go out and do more experiments.

Berny
Wonders why he even bothers arguing with this Homo Ergaster.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: fluffycornsnake on May 22, 2011, 08:06:50 AM
It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2011, 08:48:12 AM
It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Then how can claiming that the sun's or moon's luminescence is biological in nature meet zetetic standards?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 22, 2011, 09:04:50 AM
Wonders why he even bothers arguing with this Homo Ergaster.

Do not make personal attacks in the upper fora, consider this an official warning.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 22, 2011, 09:22:26 AM
Do not pretend to moderate in the upper fora, this is against site rules. Consider this an official warning.
As a member of this forum should I not be entitled to some freedom of speech? Or do you expect to be able to throw your crackpottery around like a troll without a bridge without being singled out?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: fluffycornsnake on May 22, 2011, 11:05:08 AM
It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Then how can claiming that the sun's or moon's luminescence is biological in nature meet zetetic standards?

When have I said they're bioluminescent? I take no part in baseless speculation.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 03:22:55 PM
It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Sure, minus bacteria that live near heat vents at the bottom of the ocean, photosynthesis is the basis by which all energy is obtained.  Producers are the base of every energy pyramid, and producers use photosynthesis.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:17:41 PM
The sun's power source is mysterious.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.


Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 22, 2011, 06:38:50 PM
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.




It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
The sun's power source is mysterious.

Thats not entirely the case.  When we think about what could power the sun, our list of items gets quite small.  There is of course, the unknown, but there is at least one energy source that could work.  Fusion.  When we look at what fusion is, and what it requires, the sun and stars seem to possess the necessary ingredients for this type of power.  When examining the composition of the stars, we find that they are composed primarily of Hydrogen, which is what we use in our own fusion H-bombs.  Fusion is an incredibly efficient source of power, and knowing the mass of the sun using newton's version of kelpers third law we know that the sun has enough hydrogen to sustain its energy output for the life of the sun or in other words billions of years.  Every other star that we look at also has Hydrogen as one of its major components.


It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.

Chemical reactions would not even last thousands of years much less billions, and fission does not work as well as fusion in terms of longevity, nor does it fit the materials inside of stars as well (hydrogen).
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 22, 2011, 09:11:27 PM


It could just be a particularly hot chemical reaction. Could even be fission. I mean, we're only talking about 32 miles.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. The presence of neutrinos from the sun isn't consistent with a chemical reaction. Fission would also not be consistent with the neutrino data (although one would at least then expect a few neutrinos). Moreover, fission is only efficient if one has elements which are more massive than iron. We know the sun's composition from 19th century style stellar spectroscopy. Of course, if the sun were only 32 miles radius even if one had fusion it would be very difficult to get as much neutrino production as one has.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 23, 2011, 01:52:25 AM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on May 23, 2011, 04:37:25 AM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
It isn't even physically possible to "see" an atom in the sense that we see the colours of the rainbow.

Science fail.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 23, 2011, 05:19:07 AM
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: John Davis on May 23, 2011, 06:02:20 AM
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!
Now now, making up bullshit has been a long time honoured tradition in science dating back further than even Newton!
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2011, 06:37:42 AM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 23, 2011, 08:27:14 AM
Yes, it would seem science does fail in this regard. Positing all manner of imaginary particle to explain away the ridiculous inconsistencies in its own theories!

You would have a marginally valid point but for the fact that we can actually detect them. In the case of the neutrino it was predicted based on conservation of energy and conservation of momentum 9and some other more subtle conservation laws) that there had to be another particle arising from certain classes of collisions. So physicists set up experiments to see if they could find particles that behaved in the predicted fashion. And they did. And then they did yet more experiments to check those and find out more about them. A lot of these predictions are really impressive. Already mentioned in this thread was the prediction that nearby supernovas should generate neutrino spikes. These aren't just imaginary particles; they lead to consequences which we can predict and verify.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 AM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: sillyrob on May 23, 2011, 08:33:26 AM
Interesting Tom, I wasn't aware that any one person had seen enough of the Earth to prove it's a disc.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 23, 2011, 08:50:31 AM
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 09:09:54 AM
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct?

The hypothetical imaginings of scienticians rarely turn out to be correct. When there is any progress is it usually done by starting from inquiry, not hypothesis.

I believe it was the Wright Brothers who said -- "Science Theory held us up for years. When we threw out the science and started from experiment to experience, then we invented the airplane."

The Wright Brithers were Zetetics. They started from inquiry, not hypothesis. They did not "build on the shoulders of giants" like a disreputable scientician. They did their own experiments and let reality do the talking.

Quote
Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

My computer can work just as well with waves as it can with electrons. The operation of my computer does not tell us whether electrons exist or not.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 23, 2011, 09:40:44 AM


Quote
Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

My computer can work just as well with waves as it can with electrons. The operation of my computer does not tell us whether electrons exist or not.

What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 09:49:28 AM
What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.

I'm talking about the idea that matter only exists as waves as presented in this link: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2011, 10:55:05 AM
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 23, 2011, 12:05:06 PM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Technically, yes
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (For the first part)
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (Again, only the first part)
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it? Yes (Again, only the first part)

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 12:37:40 PM
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 23, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 02:00:48 PM
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.

Really? Who proved that particle matter exists?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2011, 02:38:13 PM
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Perhaps that depends on your definition of "particle" and "matter".  Again, Einstein proposed that matter and energy are the same thing.  Sounds like this guy is saying pretty much the same thing, just in a different way.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 25, 2011, 05:36:16 AM
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2011, 06:17:38 AM
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.

Not so.  A predictive model is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 25, 2011, 06:32:20 AM
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

Does he really need to produce statistical data?  Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer?  ???
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2011, 06:55:08 AM
It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals. I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

Will you?  Do you have any statistical data to support this notion?

Does he really need to produce statistical data?  Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer?  ???

No.  Are you denying the assertion that droughts, blights or any number of phenomena can prevent crops from growing correctly during the spring and summer?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 25, 2011, 09:12:41 AM
Tom, scientists make predictions based on the existence of these ideas. Do you have an explanation for why these predictions turn out to be correct? Or for that matter, do you have an explanation for how the computer you just sent your message on could possibly have been designed to work if the entire operating principles are fantasy?

It's a principle called overdetermination.  Many different coherent models with radically different explanatory methods are often capable of making equally valid predicitions about the outcome of a system.  Suppose I posit that my crops will grow only if Demeter is happy, and that Demeter's happiness is predicated on the presence of her daughter Persephone, who returns to her from the underworld at annual intervals.  I will still be able to predict when the crops will grow correctly, even if my explanation is not correct.

This is the core weakness of the hypothetical/theoretic approach to science.  It is satisfied with an explanation which has predictive power, it is not satisfied with the true explanation of what actually happens.

On the contrary, this is precisely why science tries to take hypotheses that make new predictions for events not yet observed. Thus to use an example earlier in this thread, the prediction that nearby supernova would generate detectable neutrino surges is an event that had not yet been observed when the hypothesis was constructed, and then turned out to work. If the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make predictions about unobserved classes of events and those events occur that makes it a hypothesis worth considering. But all Demeter-Persephone can do is predict an class of events that are already known to occur.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 25, 2011, 10:58:43 AM
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on May 25, 2011, 01:04:03 PM
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

First, I'm not sure why this is going on in the thread I made to discuss the suns powersource,  exceptthat you guys already admitted to having no clue,  so it was bound to get derailed.  Second,  James you act like science accepts the first answer that works with thier hypothesis,  which is completely untrue.  Even In my lower division classes here at UCSC my professors readily accept when the data points to multiple hypothesis that we do not know what is hAppening. Take for instance dark matter.  There are a few possibilites, but no certainties bit could be MACHOS or nutrinos,  or a few other things.  Science has to eliminate those options before it is even willing to call it a theory.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 25, 2011, 01:07:08 PM
One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.

Really? Who proved that particle matter exists?

Ernest Rutherford and J.J. Thompson.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 25, 2011, 06:37:40 PM
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

Right, but it can only make a prediction about a general result we had without knowing anything about Demeter-Persephone. The general pattern is clear without that hypothesis. Whether neutrinos would accompany supernovas is not like that. Incidentally, you seem somewhat confused about terminology- overdetermination is when I've see it a synonym for overfitting, when one makes a hypothesis or set of curves that fits data too well when some of it is just noise. The classic example of this is what happens when one tries to make a high degree polynomial to  map a set of data points, it often becomes a poorer predictor of new data even as it matches the current data as well. But again, testing against new data is the key. The standard hypotheses about how the sun works fits with a lot of different types of tests which were not known when the hypotheses were constructed. That's the key.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2011, 07:01:45 PM
The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

Does the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis predict crop failure due to drought, disease or natural disaster?

Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer?  ???

Does the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis hold valid for winter crops?
http://www.humeseeds.com/falwint.htm
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: James on May 26, 2011, 02:15:55 PM
Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2011, 02:56:49 PM
How does one properly appease Demeter?  I'm sure that the farmers in Russia would like to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on May 26, 2011, 04:02:31 PM
Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.

That didn't answer his question. Can droughts, disease, or natural disaster be predicted? What about winter crops?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Ski on May 26, 2011, 04:43:51 PM
We should expect to see an upsurge in neutrinos during a nearby supernova, especially at the very beginning of the supernova. This was dramatically confirmed  with the 1987a supernova which was bright enough to be visible to the naked eye (although this isn't perfect evidence because the supernova apparently occurred at a star that we didn't expect to supernova and people are still trying to figure out what happened.) A few hours prior, neutrino detectors saw spikes in neutrino  in the few hours before the supernova was visible.

The standard fusion theory predicts that stars can't have a mass more than about 300 times that of the sun, and that there should be almost none more than 200 masses (since heavier, less efficiently fusing elements are now prominent). In fact, the largest stars found are about a 150 solar masses. This has been consistent even as we've found the masses of more and more stars. (Note that estimating stellar mass is really difficult, so this is one of the weaker pieces of evidence).

The model of star formation also gives strong predictions about what elements will be most common in the universe. In particular, it predicts that elements that are heavier than iron will be rare and that they will be progressively rarer the heavier they are. This is something of a weak prediction, since we already had this information for Earth itself and the stellar model simply predicts that this will be true more or less in general.

This isn't to say that we have everything figured out. Far from it.  There's a lot still we don't know. For example, as I mentioned earlier, estimating stellar mass is really difficult. And then there are a handful of just weird things, like how Betelgeuse has been apparently changing size over the last hundred years. A lot of our understanding is very rough. Part of this is just due to the computational difficulty (even today, simulating the inside of a star is tough). And although there is some near-surface fusion, the vast majority of the fusion is taking place deep inside stars which is very hard to get data about (again, neutrinos are one of our few sources of information). And even some surface behavior like that of solar flares and sunspots, where we do have a lot of data, are still not well understood. But, these are all essentially details. The overarching picture of stellar fusion is pretty strongly established.

You get a lot of credit for honesty, but if you're trying to convince me that the sun is well understood by RE cosmological standards, you are doing a poor job.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 26, 2011, 05:35:39 PM
Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 26, 2011, 06:38:40 PM
Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tausami on May 26, 2011, 06:51:13 PM
Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.

That didn't answer his question. Can droughts, disease, or natural disaster be predicted? What about winter crops?

Yeah. So long as you know when Demeter is displeased, you can predict it.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 26, 2011, 07:41:32 PM
Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.

I see no problem with this.  All we have to do is postulate an unobserved mechanism, much like physicists do with dark energy, dark matter, dark flow, gravitons, parallel universes, hyperspatial dimensions, etc!

It needs a placeholder name, of course.  How about fusionite?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: JoshuaZ on May 26, 2011, 08:16:36 PM
Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.

I see no problem with this.  All we have to do is postulate an unobserved mechanism, much like physicists do with dark energy, dark matter, dark flow, gravitons, parallel universes, hyperspatial dimensions, etc!

It needs a placeholder name, of course.  How about fusionite?

There's an important distinction there. In those cases, they aren't just using placeholders. They are taking theories that have been already tested, and trying to deal with apparent discrepancies. Then, they make predictions based on those terms. Thus for example the standard hypotheses for dark matter all make different, specific predictions, and scientists are busy testing them. Thus for example, neutrino mass was a popular explanation for dark matter at one point, but careful experiments showed that it cannot account for more than about 5% of dark matter. Similarly, some of the more exotic possible particles have been ruled out. Thus, much of the dark matter comes down to likely being low-albedo conventional objects (such as brown dwarfs) or particles arising from supersymmetry or similar constructions. One is welcome to make place holders but one can't stop there. One needs to then ask "ok. What can I put in this place holder that fits what else I know? How can I go about testing it?"

 The philosopher Imre Lakatos talked about this a lot. To summarize his view of things, it is important to distinguish between fruitful and non-fruitful theories (he actually talked about "research programs" but for our purposes this is the same thing). Both get "defensive hypotheses" attached to them, essentially hypotheses which would protect the theory from falsification (as dark matter protects our theories of gravity). But a fruitful theory generates not just defensive hypotheses but makes useful predictions, and generates other hypotheses about related issues which can be used to make interesting predictions. If a theory just generates defensive hypotheses with no content then it isn't fruitful, and should be rejected. The standard theories of gravity, and stellar fusion have both been fruitful. The theory that the sun is 32 miles wide hasn't been very fruitful.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 26, 2011, 09:11:09 PM
But dark matter has also failed some predictions, hasn't it?  This should weaken the theory... yet it is the accepted explanation for the gravitational anomalies it was designed to explain.  I would imagine that's just because they haven't come up with anything better.  There's an incessant need in modern science to fill in holes that we aren't really equipped to fill; I believe that may be where zeteticism has a leg up on the scientific method.

Also, utility is not the same as truth; Newton's theory of gravity was and still is very useful, but it's wrong.  To suggest that a 32 mile sun cannot possibly exist because postulating its existence has not yet been "fruitful" (a perspective with which a number of FEers would probably disagree anyway) is fallacious.  Let's face it: until the day when FET replaces RET as the dominant worldview, progress in FET will naturally be much slower than it has been in RET, because there have been many more RE-oriented scientists than FE-oriented zeteticists.  It took forty years after dark matter was first postulated before anybody actually corroborated it.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on June 05, 2011, 09:27:41 PM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.
All those particles had been detected, they have all made verifiable predications that have been proven true, a lot of technology relies on the existence of these particles. Scientists rely on experiments, before a theory becomes mainstream it must make verifiable predictions which are then verified. If experiments show that somethings wrong with and accepted theory then the theory will often change. (Like what happened to what we knew about the composition of atoms after the geiger marsden experiment.) You can't make tech without the underlying science, if the underlying science is wrong then the tech will not work.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on June 05, 2011, 09:33:18 PM
What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.

I'm talking about the idea that matter only exists as waves as presented in this link: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.

How many new verifiable or falsifiable predictions have they made?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2011, 09:56:19 PM
But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.
All those particles had been detected, they have all made verifiable predications that have been proven true, a lot of technology relies on the existence of these particles.

No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

Quote
Scientists rely on experiments, before a theory becomes mainstream it must make verifiable predictions which are then verified. If experiments show that somethings wrong with and accepted theory then the theory will often change. (Like what happened to what we knew about the composition of atoms after the geiger marsden experiment.) You can't make tech without the underlying science, if the underlying science is wrong then the tech will not work.

Nah. A computer chip can work just as well with particle electrons as it can with wave electrons.

A mouse trap could work just as well made of birch wood as it can made out of cedar wood.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on June 06, 2011, 04:23:40 AM
No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

You don't have to see something for you to know it exists. We have seen it's effects, and that's enough.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 04:57:51 AM
Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.


How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.  

No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:13:53 AM
No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

You don't have to see something for you to know it exists. We have seen it's effects, and that's enough.

The wave theory of atomic matter would also cause the same effects.

Quote
How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work have reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

Quote
How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on June 06, 2011, 08:21:37 AM
Quote
How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.
In that case we have seen a proton and electron.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 08:41:46 AM
Quote
How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

Like with one of these?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_detector
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/CMScollaborationPoster.png/400px-CMScollaborationPoster.png)
The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) is an example of a large particle detector. Notice the person for scale.

Or, one of these?
Quote from: http://www.cloudchambers.com/betadeflection.htm
(http://www.cloudchambers.com/Images/Beta.jpg)
Low energy beta particle tracks can be observed in a Supersaturated Environments Cloud Chamber. Particles emitted from a Carbon-14 source placed at a source port will follow trajectories that are deflected by the 1000 Gauss magnetic field produced by our Rare Earth Magnet. Carbon-14 yields a maximum particle energy of 156 keV, resulting in frequent scattering in STP air. An increase in deflection curvature and ionization per unit length is observed as each particle is slowed in air.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:43:20 AM
Quote
How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

Like with one of these?
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_detector
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/CMScollaborationPoster.png/400px-CMScollaborationPoster.png)
The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) is an example of a large particle detector. Notice the person for scale.

Or, one of these?
Quote from: http://www.cloudchambers.com/betadeflection.htm
(http://www.cloudchambers.com/Images/Beta.jpg)
Low energy beta particle tracks can be observed in a Supersaturated Environments Cloud Chamber. Particles emitted from a Carbon-14 source placed at a source port will follow trajectories that are deflected by the 1000 Gauss magnetic field produced by our Rare Earth Magnet. Carbon-14 yields a maximum particle energy of 156 keV, resulting in frequent scattering in STP air. An increase in deflection curvature and ionization per unit length is observed as each particle is slowed in air.

How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 09:29:24 AM
How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 09:30:52 AM
How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?

A trail of waves.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 09:40:24 AM
Quote
How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 09:49:03 AM
Quote
How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?


That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

If it does happen, then your work did not eliminate all other contradicting possibilities.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on June 06, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
Quote
How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?


That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
Quote
How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?


That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

How can you be sure you have all the possible possibilities?   For example, supposing you discover a new contradicting interaction under certain extreme conditions, not previously possible to produce.

EDIT - Beaten by Harutsedo
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 10:03:18 AM
How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?

A trail of waves.

How does one tell the difference between a trail left by a particle and a trail left by a wave?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 10:05:16 AM
How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?

You know that you are in a state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities when you put your work forwards and skeptics are unable to challenge your work with contradicting possibilities.

If it's not yet known to be possible, then it's not yet a contradicting possibility.

Quote from: markjo
How does one tell the difference between a trail left by a particle and a trail left by a wave?

You can't. There's no way to know whether that device is detecting particles or waves.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 10:08:43 AM
How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?

You know that you are in a state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities when you put your work forwards and skeptics are unable to challenge your work with contradicting possibilities.

If it's not yet known to be possible, then it's not yet a contradicting possibility.

..Then you have still not arrived at the truth, because there may be (as you hinted) a contradicting possibility in the future.

Thanks.
 
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 10:09:01 AM
How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?

You know that you are in a state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities when you put your work forwards and skeptics are unable to challenge your work with contradicting possibilities.

If it's not yet known to be possible, then it's not yet a contradicting possibility.

Quote from: markjo
How does one tell the difference between a trail left by a particle and a trail left by a wave?

You can't. There's no way to know whether that device is detecting particles or waves.

Interesting.  So you're saying that wave theory does not contradict particle theory?  How is one to know which is true if there is no contradiction?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Parsifal on June 06, 2011, 10:10:39 AM
The Sun is known to be a large ball of quarks and antiquarks, powered by the mutual annihilation of said quarks, which is modulated by the strong force.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Citation please?
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 10:26:54 AM
..Then you have still not arrived at the truth, because there may be (as you hinted) a contradicting possibility in the future.

Thanks.
 

By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

Quote from: markjo
Interesting.  So you're saying that wave theory does not contradict particle theory?  How is one to know which is true if there is no contradiction?

I didn't say that wave theory was true. I said that it was a contradicting possibility which has not been eliminated.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Harutsedo on June 06, 2011, 10:29:18 AM
..Then you have still not arrived at the truth, because there may be (as you hinted) a contradicting possibility in the future.

Thanks.
 

By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

Quote from: markjo
Interesting.  So you're saying that wave theory does not contradict particle theory?  How is one to know which is true if there is no contradiction?

I didn't say that wave theory was true. I said that it was a contradicting possibility which has not been eliminated.

The present truth may not be the truth.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2011, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: markjo
Interesting.  So you're saying that wave theory does not contradict particle theory?  How is one to know which is true if there is no contradiction?

I didn't say that wave theory was true. I said that it was a contradicting possibility which has not been eliminated.

If proton waves have the same properties as proton particles, then where is the contradiction?  ???
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 10:38:06 AM
..Then you have still not arrived at the truth, because there may be (as you hinted) a contradicting possibility in the future.

Thanks.
 

By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

But doesn't a "future truth" invalidate the "present truth"? 
Then surely the "present truth" was not the truth after all.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Part of the Problem on June 06, 2011, 11:05:04 AM
So it sounds like truth may actually have an expiration date.
Title: Re: The Sun's power source.
Post by: Puttah on June 06, 2011, 07:47:39 PM
How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?

You know that you are in a state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities when you put your work forwards and skeptics are unable to challenge your work with contradicting possibilities.

If it's not yet known to be possible, then it's not yet a contradicting possibility.

lol this has scientific method written all over it.