An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

Stop trying to divert attention from the fact that RET has no solid explanation for how the stars shine.

Well, I don't see any problem with it. What's so weak about it?

My personal theory is that they are balls of dust that are heated by the Sun - a phenomenon which, unlike nuclear fusion, has been proven to be a viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth.

I don't think it has.

1) You need to study science more. There are Scientific Facts. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

2) You need to substantiate your claim that dust balls heated by the Sun have been proven to be viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth. Remember you've got to show that the Sun with its spotlight pointed down can heat dust balls in a plane above, without illuminating them, to the point that they glow, and do so uniformly regardless of distance from the Sun over the course of the day.

3) You're wrong. Nuclear fusion has been shown in Earth-based laboratories to produce light. Please review any video of an above-ground H-Bomb test.

1) Wikipedia isn't always right. There is no such thing as a scientific fact.

2) The Sun need not be a spotlight if EA theory is correct. It can illuminate the stars while only illuminating part of the Earth below it. It has been proven that objects can be heated by radiation, and that hot objects will radiate visible light as they cool. Also, the stars will continue to be heated by the Sun when it is far away, just not to the same extent. Remember, they are being struck by all the light that started out heading towards the Earth and bent up before it reached the surface.

3) I am aware of what happens in H-bomb tests. The reaction lasts for a fraction of a second and then all hell breaks loose. Why aren't all of the stars in the sky exploding simultaneously?

Perhaps this link will answer your question: http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html

I don't see any information in there regarding the fictitious gravitational force felt by a proton in the Sun's core.

Yes, it has and I say quite clearly that you have people who can explain it right by your side almost every day. But I see also that you clearly refuse to ask from them. Why, if I may ask? I can see that you can write but maybe you have some speaking related disabilities which may explains the reluctance to actually speak with someone.

Because you are the one making the argument. You should be the one to justify it.

Well, I don't see any problem with it. What's so weak about it?

It has not been proven to be a plausible theory.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 01:02:26 PM

1) You need to study science more. There are Scientific Facts. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

2) You need to substantiate your claim that dust balls heated by the Sun have been proven to be viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth. Remember you've got to show that the Sun with its spotlight pointed down can heat dust balls in a plane above, without illuminating them, to the point that they glow, and do so uniformly regardless of distance from the Sun over the course of the day.

3) You're wrong. Nuclear fusion has been shown in Earth-based laboratories to produce light. Please review any video of an above-ground H-Bomb test.

1) Wikipedia isn't always right. There is no such thing as a scientific fact.

2) The Sun need not be a spotlight if EA theory is correct. It can illuminate the stars while only illuminating part of the Earth below it. It has been proven that objects can be heated by radiation, and that hot objects will radiate visible light as they cool. Also, the stars will continue to be heated by the Sun when it is far away, just not to the same extent. Remember, they are being struck by all the light that started out heading towards the Earth and bent up before it reached the surface.

3) I am aware of what happens in H-bomb tests. The reaction lasts for a fraction of a second and then all hell breaks loose. Why aren't all of the stars in the sky exploding simultaneously?

1) It's rather egotistical of you to think that you're right and Wiki isn't. I guess we should discount all of your posts accordingly.
2) Since you haven't shown EA to be correct and since Jack speaking for all FE says it's wrong, you argue from a faulty (or at least suspect) premise. When you have a consistent hypothesis that FEers accept, please continue.
3) It's sad that you can't admit that you're wrong about fusion producing light in labs before marching off with a new, even lamer, challenge. The stars differing from H-bombs, you should not expect them to behave in a similar fashion.

1) It's rather egotistical of you to think that you're right and Wiki isn't. I guess we should discount all of your posts accordingly.
2) Since you haven't shown EA to be correct and since Jack speaking for all FE says it's wrong, you argue from a faulty (or at least suspect) premise. When you have a consistent hypothesis that FEers accept, please continue.
3) It's sad that you can't admit that you're wrong about fusion producing light in labs before marching off with a new, even lamer, challenge. The stars differing from H-bombs, you should not expect them to behave in a similar fashion.

1) In order for something to be considered a fact, there must be zero doubt as to its validity. There is no such phenomenon.

2) Jack speaks for Jack. No single member on this forum speaks for all of FE. I do not see what is inconsistent about EA theory.

3) I never claimed fusion had not been shown to produce light. I only claimed it had not been shown to be sustainable, which is what is required for the stars to shine as REers claim they do. If stars are so different from H-bombs, then you cannot use H-bombs as evidence for plausibility of the mechanism by which stars supposedly produce energy.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 11:27:48 PM

1) It's rather egotistical of you to think that you're right and Wiki isn't. I guess we should discount all of your posts accordingly.
2) Since you haven't shown EA to be correct and since Jack speaking for all FE says it's wrong, you argue from a faulty (or at least suspect) premise. When you have a consistent hypothesis that FEers accept, please continue.
3) It's sad that you can't admit that you're wrong about fusion producing light in labs before marching off with a new, even lamer, challenge. The stars differing from H-bombs, you should not expect them to behave in a similar fashion.

1) In order for something to be considered a fact, there must be zero doubt as to its validity. There is no such phenomenon.

2) Jack speaks for Jack. No single member on this forum speaks for all of FE. I do not see what is inconsistent about EA theory.

3) I never claimed fusion had not been shown to produce light. I only claimed it had not been shown to be sustainable, which is what is required for the stars to shine as REers claim they do. If stars are so different from H-bombs, then you cannot use H-bombs as evidence for plausibility of the mechanism by which stars supposedly produce energy.

1) That is not true. A fact in science, and in life, does not require that level of confidence.
2) Jack's post was definitely a consensus-building one. I've pointed out the "parallel" action only inconsistency just this week to you--and you failed to respond.
3) You claimed that fusion had not been shown to be a source of light in laboratories. You admit that you knew that H-bombs did produce light. You erred and failed to step to face your mistake. You have not used the word 'sustainable' here in the debate and quite simply, sir, I must accuse you of lying here in that last post in this regards.

1) That is not true. A fact in science, and in life, does not require that level of confidence.
2) Jack's post was definitely a consensus-building one. I've pointed out the "parallel" action only inconsistency just this week to you--and you failed to respond.
3) You claimed that fusion had not been shown to be a source of light in laboratories. You admit that you knew that H-bombs did produce light. You erred and failed to step to face your mistake. You have not used the word 'sustainable' here in the debate and quite simply, sir, I must accuse you of lying here in that last post in this regards.

1) If that is your definition of a "fact", then it is irrelevant to ask what the stars are in FET anyway. "Probably" should be good enough.

2) I may have inadvertently missed your post. Which thread was it in?

3) I claimed that it had not been shown to be a viable method of producing light, not that it was incapable of doing so. Setting your house on fire would light it up, but it is not a viable method for doing so as it would not take long for your house to become charcoal. Also:

Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible in a laboratory? If the answer is "no", then RET has no better explanation for this process than FET does. It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to have RET taken seriously.

No apology necessary, we all make mistakes.

It has not been proven to be a plausible theory.

Fusion seems pretty plausible to me.

Out of interest, what do you think several billions of billions of tons of hot hydrogen squashed into a space a million km across should do, if it shouldn't form a star?

Fusion seems pretty plausible to me.

So you'll believe that billions of nuclear explosions throughout the Universe have managed to stabilise themselves for billions of years, but you REers won't even accept the simple fact that light doesn't travel in straight lines?

Out of interest, what do you think several billions of billions of tons of hot hydrogen squashed into a space a million km across should do, if it shouldn't form a star?

Exactly what happens when hydrogen nuclei fuse on Earth. Create a giant explosion in the sky, lasting a few seconds or so at most.

Quote from: zork on March 19, 2009, 04:59:42 PM

Yes, it has and I say quite clearly that you have people who can explain it right by your side almost every day. But I see also that you clearly refuse to ask from them. Why, if I may ask? I can see that you can write but maybe you have some speaking related disabilities which may explains the reluctance to actually speak with someone.

Because you are the one making the argument. You should be the one to justify it.

No, I don't have itself to justify it if I know that there are people who know more than me. I can refer you to them. And I claim that your faculty professors claim same thing that I. So, go and verify from them. And your post verifies one thing, that there is no flat earth out there, it exists only in this forum. Why else there is this obstinate reluctance to look some answers outside this forum and consistent request that only and only the person who says something must fully explain it. I state clearly - I can't. But I state as fact that your faculty professors can and you can go and verify this claim. They are people whom you communicate almost every day so, what is the problem?

No, I don't have itself to justify it if I know that there are people who know more than me. I can refer you to them. And I claim that your faculty professors claim same thing that I. So, go and verify from them. And your post verifies one thing, that there is no flat earth out there, it exists only in this forum. Why else there is this obstinate reluctance to look some answers outside this forum and consistent request that only and only the person who says something must fully explain it. I state clearly - I can't. But I state as fact that your faculty professors can and you can go and verify this claim. They are people whom you communicate almost every day so, what is the problem?

I appreciate your admission that you cannot explain the phenomenon you are claiming exists, and graciously accept my victory in this debate.

3) I am aware of what happens in H-bomb tests. The reaction lasts for a fraction of a second and then all hell breaks loose. Why aren't all of the stars in the sky exploding simultaneously?

This is onyl a problem for FET, not RET.

According to RET the Stars and the Sun are truly massive. This mass creates an attractive force on all the particles. This force is larger than the force of the force caused by the Fusion reactions. This means that the greater force of Gravity overwhelms the force of the fusion explosions and hold the star together.

Now, there is a really good reason that stars don't (usually) blow themselves up. This is because as gravity bulls the gas cloud that forms the star together the fusion reaction will start to occur and create pressure to push the star outwards. However, when this occurs, the force needed to create the fusion reaction weaken and the fusion reaction stops.

This allows the star to one again contract under gravity which in turn increases the force needed to create the fusion reactions and then the fusion reaction starts up again.

It also means that stars are on the edge of bursting, but will not (except in certain circumstances) blow themselves apart. It is a dynamic balance between the pressures needed to cause fusion and the pressures caused by the fusion explosion. However, as the core material of the star is fused into the heavier elements, the pressures need to cause the fusion reaction increases. This means that when fusion does occur it will fuse more material and therefore release more energy.

If a star fuses most of its core's matter into carbon, then the energy released in the fusion process can be enough to blow the outer material off in a massive burst of energy released by the fusion. This is what we call a Nova, or if it is a really big explosion: a Super Nova.

This is onyl a problem for FET, not RET.

According to RET the Stars and the Sun are truly massive. This mass creates an attractive force on all the particles. This force is larger than the force of the force caused by the Fusion reactions. This means that the greater force of Gravity overwhelms the force of the fusion explosions and hold the star together.

Now, there is a really good reason that stars don't (usually) blow themselves up. This is because as gravity bulls the gas cloud that forms the star together the fusion reaction will start to occur and create pressure to push the star outwards. However, when this occurs, the force needed to create the fusion reaction weaken and the fusion reaction stops.

This allows the star to one again contract under gravity which in turn increases the force needed to create the fusion reactions and then the fusion reaction starts up again.

It also means that stars are on the edge of bursting, but will not (except in certain circumstances) blow themselves apart. It is a dynamic balance between the pressures needed to cause fusion and the pressures caused by the fusion explosion. However, as the core material of the star is fused into the heavier elements, the pressures need to cause the fusion reaction increases. This means that when fusion does occur it will fuse more material and therefore release more energy.

If a star fuses most of its core's matter into carbon, then the energy released in the fusion process can be enough to blow the outer material off in a massive burst of energy released by the fusion. This is what we call a Nova, or if it is a really big explosion: a Super Nova.

Gravity is not a force. It cannot, therefore, counteract any other force. See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

Quote from: zork on March 20, 2009, 02:23:02 AM

No, I don't have itself to justify it if I know that there are people who know more than me. I can refer you to them. And I claim that your faculty professors claim same thing that I. So, go and verify from them. And your post verifies one thing, that there is no flat earth out there, it exists only in this forum. Why else there is this obstinate reluctance to look some answers outside this forum and consistent request that only and only the person who says something must fully explain it. I state clearly - I can't. But I state as fact that your faculty professors can and you can go and verify this claim. They are people whom you communicate almost every day so, what is the problem?

I appreciate your admission that you cannot explain the phenomenon you are claiming exists, and graciously accept my victory in this debate.

  No, you haven't gained victory(you can't claim victory even if I can't explain phenomenon, because you itself can't explain yours and you even don't have any outside references to pint at. I have, if I just bother do search a little) because you haven't verified my claim that your professors support my view  about stars. You can get back and claim your victory only if you have done so.
 Or I can accept your statement as a statement which supports fact that flat earth exists only in this forum and you are afraid to ask about it even from your physics professor.

  No, you haven't gained victory(you can't claim victory even if I can't explain phenomenon, because you itself can't explain yours and you even don't have any outside references to pint at. I have, if I just bother do search a little) because you haven't verified my claim that your professors support my view  about stars. You can get back and claim your victory only if you have done so.
 Or I can accept your statement as a statement which supports fact that flat earth exists only in this forum and you are afraid to ask about it even from your physics professor.

My professors' opinions have nothing to do with this debate. You are making an argument that you cannot back up, therefore you must accept defeat.

Quote from: zork on March 20, 2009, 03:01:35 AM

  No, you haven't gained victory(you can't claim victory even if I can't explain phenomenon, because you itself can't explain yours and you even don't have any outside references to pint at. I have, if I just bother do search a little) because you haven't verified my claim that your professors support my view  about stars. You can get back and claim your victory only if you have done so.
 Or I can accept your statement as a statement which supports fact that flat earth exists only in this forum and you are afraid to ask about it even from your physics professor.

My professors' opinions have nothing to do with this debate. You are making an argument that you cannot back up, therefore you must accept defeat.

Yes they have, because your professors view is that the stars up there is just as I said they are. And they back me up. So, I am making an argument that your professors view about stars are... how did you say - billions of exploding balls of gas all over the Universe. Or as wikipedia explains it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
 Your only way to triumph over me is to go and ask them, otherwise I assume that you are giving up. Or... if you really can't do that then you can give me their e-mail addresses so I can write for you to them. I guess that if I ask nicely then maybe one of them even bothers to take a look at the forum.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2009, 02:33:08 PM

Perhaps this link will answer your question: http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html

I don't see any information in there regarding the fictitious gravitational force felt by a proton in the Sun's core.

That's because gravitation is not a fictitious force.  Gravity is.  Come on Steve, you've been around here long enough to know better than that.

Quote from: NTheGreat on March 19, 2009, 05:51:42 PM

Well, I don't see any problem with it. What's so weak about it?

It has not been proven to be a plausible theory.

It's an exceptionally plausible theory. Which part don't you get? Maybe we can work through this with you.

I do not see what is inconsistent about EA theory.

Jack how told you to give it a rest with the bendy light crap. He gave reasons why it was implausible. Failure to respect the moderators is liable to get you smacked with the ban hammer.

So you'll believe that billions of nuclear explosions throughout the Universe have managed to stabilise themselves for billions of years

Well, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't they be stable?

Exactly what happens when hydrogen nuclei fuse on Earth. Create a giant explosion in the sky, lasting a few seconds or so at most.

Why would it stop?

Quote from: NTheGreat on March 20, 2009, 01:44:47 AM

Fusion seems pretty plausible to me.

So you'll believe that billions of nuclear explosions throughout the Universe have managed to stabilise themselves for billions of years, but you REers won't even accept the simple fact that light doesn't travel in straight lines?

Depending on how massive the star is the reactions can be occuring for billions of years due to the gravitational force. And when the lighter elements start to run out, the star will start to fuse the heaviery elements through it's own gravitational force. In the RE theory, the whole universe's main goal to to be stable and in order, also a reason why the stars formed that way, they are the most stable in that form.

And about the light's path, didn't einstein or some scientist using einstein's work, prove that gravity bends light. Also you have the factors of reflection and refraction bending light. So in a way light only travels in a straight line untill an outside force or medium distrupts its path.

Quote from: NTheGreat on March 20, 2009, 01:44:47 AM

Out of interest, what do you think several billions of billions of tons of hot hydrogen squashed into a space a million km across should do, if it shouldn't form a star?

Exactly what happens when hydrogen nuclei fuse on Earth. Create a giant explosion in the sky, lasting a few seconds or so at most.

This example isn't the best, using something such as a hydrgen bomb's durration isn't the best exmaple to prove your point. You need to take into consideration that the hydrogen bombs here on Earth only use a tiny amount of hydrogren, while the sun itself is billion upon billions more massive, which means billions and billions more hydrogren particles, and since the sun is so massive it would take a lot more energy to fuse that hydrogen, and with more energy it would mean more time to fuse.

That's because gravitation is not a fictitious force.  Gravity is.  Come on Steve, you've been around here long enough to know better than that.

I never said gravitation was a force. I used the phrase "fictitious gravitational force" to mean gravity, while acknowledging its fictitious nature upfront so that I didn't get bombarded with noobs saying "BUT FE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY LOL".

It's an exceptionally plausible theory. Which part don't you get? Maybe we can work through this with you.

I understand it perfectly. It has never been proven to work in a laboratory on Earth.

Jack how told you to give it a rest with the bendy light crap. He gave reasons why it was implausible. Failure to respect the moderators is liable to get you smacked with the ban hammer.

He gave reasons why it was implausible? Perhaps you'd care to cite one of them?

Well, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't they be stable?

Because no experiment ever devised has proven a stable nuclear fusion reaction to be practical.

Why would it stop?

Again, that is what experiments have shown. If you can devise an experiment that could show whether nuclear fusion is a sustainable source of energy, I would love to hear your method (and results).

Depending on how massive the star is the reactions can be occuring for billions of years due to the gravitational force. And when the lighter elements start to run out, the star will start to fuse the heaviery elements through it's own gravitational force. In the RE theory, the whole universe's main goal to to be stable and in order, also a reason why the stars formed that way, they are the most stable in that form.

I wasn't aware the Universe was sentient, that it may set goals for itself.

And about the light's path, didn't einstein or some scientist using einstein's work, prove that gravity bends light. Also you have the factors of reflection and refraction bending light. So in a way light only travels in a straight line untill an outside force or medium distrupts its path.

Gravity doesn't bend light. It doesn't do anything; it exists purely on the basis of the reference frame chosen.

This example isn't the best, using something such as a hydrgen bomb's durration isn't the best exmaple to prove your point. You need to take into consideration that the hydrogen bombs here on Earth only use a tiny amount of hydrogren, while the sun itself is billion upon billions more massive, which means billions and billions more hydrogren particles, and since the sun is so massive it would take a lot more energy to fuse that hydrogen, and with more energy it would mean more time to fuse.

No, it proves my point perfectly. My point being that nobody has ever shown experimentally that nuclear fusion is sustainable.

Quote from: hi on March 20, 2009, 11:15:09 AM

Depending on how massive the star is the reactions can be occuring for billions of years due to the gravitational force. And when the lighter elements start to run out, the star will start to fuse the heaviery elements through it's own gravitational force. In the RE theory, the whole universe's main goal to to be stable and in order, also a reason why the stars formed that way, they are the most stable in that form.

I wasn't aware the Universe was sentient, that it may set goals for itself.

Have you ever heard of the law of entrophy, it states that the universe is constantly heading towards order.

And about the light's path, didn't einstein or some scientist using einstein's work, prove that gravity bends light. Also you have the factors of reflection and refraction bending light. So in a way light only travels in a straight line untill an outside force or medium distrupts its path.

Gravity doesn't bend light. It doesn't do anything; it exists purely on the basis of the reference frame chosen.[/quote]

Read here: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html

This example isn't the best, using something such as a hydrgen bomb's durration isn't the best exmaple to prove your point. You need to take into consideration that the hydrogen bombs here on Earth only use a tiny amount of hydrogren, while the sun itself is billion upon billions more massive, which means billions and billions more hydrogren particles, and since the sun is so massive it would take a lot more energy to fuse that hydrogen, and with more energy it would mean more time to fuse.

No, it proves my point perfectly. My point being that nobody has ever shown experimentally that nuclear fusion is sustainable.[/quote]

That doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means that we lack the current technology.

Have you ever heard of the law of entrophy, it states that the universe is constantly heading towards order.

Thanks for the laugh.

Read here: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html

This website misuses the term "gravity" in exactly the same way you have.

That doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means that we lack the current technology.

So you admit that it has not been proven to be a plausible theory?

Because no experiment ever devised has proven a stable nuclear fusion reaction to be practical.

Why wouldn't it be stable? You got a situation where there's something pulling everything in and something trying to explode everything out. If it gets bigger, the exploding is going to get weaker, and if it gets smaller, the exploding is going to get stronger. I can't see why you feel this wouldn't be stable.

I understand it perfectly. It has never been proven to work in a laboratory on Earth.

So if we got several billions of billions of tons of hydrogen, and stars appeared in it, you would agree that it's possible?

Have you ever heard of the law of entrophy, it states that the universe is constantly heading towards order.

That's fucking great.

Steve, you've been brilliant lately.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090314.html

In 5 hours of exposure, the trees didn't move from wind at all?
Interesting.

Wow, I can see some of the stars moving in front of the tree branches. 

Quote from: hi on March 21, 2009, 11:27:46 AM

Have you ever heard of the law of entrophy, it states that the universe is constantly heading towards order.

That's fucking great.

Steve, you've been brilliant lately.

Then my physics teacher must of been wrong...


But steve along with the rest of the FE'ers have yet to present any evidence supporting their claims.

But steve along with the rest of the FE'ers have yet to present any evidence supporting their claims.

They can't, because there is no flat earth outside this forum. Even Robosteve accepts that.

The law of entropy states that heat will flow from one medium to an other till the tempature between the two mediums is equal to the other.

This also shows how the universe tends to stablize itself. But I did miss out on one fact, the law states that as soon as order is stablized, somewhere else chaos is formed.

sources: http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html and my phyiscs class.

Quote from: hi on March 21, 2009, 01:53:26 PM

But steve along with the rest of the FE'ers have yet to present any evidence supporting their claims.

They can't, because there is no flat earth outside this forum. Even Robosteve accepts that.

Because as we all know, they're just trolls. I bet Tom doesn't even fully believe in the flat Earth.