An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

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

Only according to FET. I was stating what is known and accepted in RET.

Are you opening the door to a debate where I can say that because in RET the Earth is not Flat, then FET states that it it is round? Are you, Robosteve, if you are, then I ask that any true FEer stop you from doing that because it is only harming their position.

I would much prefer to debate against a real FEer rather than one who is trying to discredit FET form the inside.

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.

Because nobody has ever proven that it is feasible.

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

No need for billions of billions of tons. Just a single experiment to show that nuclear fusion is a sustainable source of energy.

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.

Thank you for that somewhat unsatisfactory, but vaguely correct definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have a point?

Only according to FET. I was stating what is known and accepted in RET.

Wrong. Please read the Gravity sticky.

Quote from: Edtharan on March 21, 2009, 08:07:14 PM

Only according to FET. I was stating what is known and accepted in RET.

Wrong. Please read the Gravity sticky.

Gravity sticky is in this forum and it doesn't apply to world which is out there.

Because nobody has ever proven that it is feasible.

Why shouldn't it be feasible? Are you suggesting that something that's never been done before is infeasible?

No need for billions of billions of tons. Just a single experiment to show that nuclear fusion is a sustainable source of energy.

So you will only accept fusion is a sustainable source of energy if we perform an experiment that suggests it's possible under different conditions to that of a star?

Quote from: hi on March 21, 2009, 02:06:55 PM

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.

Thank you for that somewhat unsatisfactory, but vaguely correct definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have a point?

I had a point untill I looked more into it. Sorry about my ignorance.

Steve you need to think of something though, you and more of the other FE'ers state that something isn't possible because it hasn't been proven. That is wrong, (I dont want to use this exmaple but I'll use it anyways) people said it wasn't possible for humans to fly, but then the Wright brother's came along and prooved those people wrong. Who's to say that somebody won't do that with sustainable nuclear fussion. You need to look at the possibilities.

Why shouldn't it be feasible? Are you suggesting that something that's never been done before is infeasible?

Not at all, merely pointing out that RET has no proven explanation for how the stars shine.

So you will only accept fusion is a sustainable source of energy if we perform an experiment that suggests it's possible under different conditions to that of a star?

I didn't say artificial creation of a star was unsatisfactory, I just said it was unnecessary.

Steve you need to think of something though, you and more of the other FE'ers state that something isn't possible because it hasn't been proven. That is wrong, (I dont want to use this exmaple but I'll use it anyways) people said it wasn't possible for humans to fly, but then the Wright brother's came along and prooved those people wrong. Who's to say that somebody won't do that with sustainable nuclear fussion. You need to look at the possibilities.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, only that it wasn't proven to be possible. Nobody has ever shown that nuclear fusion is a sustainable source of energy; therefore, the REers' explanation for starlight is little more than speculation.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, only that it wasn't proven to be possible. Nobody has ever shown that nuclear fusion is a sustainable source of energy; therefore, the REers' explanation for starlight is little more than speculation.

Wow you're the special kid on this forum it seems.

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

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

The definition of sustainable may be open to debate, but as far as stars go the reaction inside is ultimately unsustainable yet sustained for millions of years. Stars eventually burn up and swell to red giants before going supernova. Nonetheless, this reaction is where starlight comes from.

Did you do physics at elementary school? This is the kind of stuff you learn at that level.

Did you do physics at elementary school? This is the kind of stuff you learn at that level.

Be ready to be in awe, he Knows(cough, cough) actually what he is talking about - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.msg652439#msg652439

In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec.

Oh wow, a whole 0.5 seconds. And they didn't even achieve input power, meaning it was not a source of energy.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:53:09 AM

Did you do physics at elementary school? This is the kind of stuff you learn at that level.

Be ready to be in awe, he Knows(cough, cough) actually what he is talking about - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.msg652439#msg652439

Clearly not as seen in posts above.

Paying university academics != knowledge.

Clearly not as seen in posts above.

Paying university academics != knowledge.

I would be delighted if you could point out a fallacy in something I have said. I am always keen to expand my knowledge and learn from my mistakes.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 11:03:16 AM

Clearly not as seen in posts above.

Paying university academics != knowledge.

I would be delighted if you could point out a fallacy in something I have said. I am always keen to expand my knowledge and learn from my mistakes.

Don't make me laugh. Bendy light, super big dome built above earth, stars as heated dust balls up above there, all things which are not done in lab must be impossible and some others which I forgot. Go and debate these with your professors and let see what they think about that. But no, you can't because you know already what the result is.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 11:03:16 AM

Clearly not as seen in posts above.

Paying university academics != knowledge.

I would be delighted if you could point out a fallacy in something I have said. I am always keen to expand my knowledge and learn from my mistakes.

I already have. Read my previous posts in this thread.

Your fallacy is believing that because nuclear fusion is unsustainable it cannot sustain stars for millions of years. You also seem to be confused over what work in the field of nuclear physics have taken place. You make a false parrallel between the fact that because we have been unable (in your opinion) to "sustainably" produce energy by nuclear fusion here on earth, this must mean that stars are also unable to produce energy by nuclear fusion.

All of these fallacies are of the kind that should bar applicants from university, not admit them. How you got in I'll never know.

Your fallacy is believing that because nuclear fusion is unsustainable it cannot sustain stars for millions of years. You also seem to be confused over what work in the field of nuclear physics have taken place. You make a false parrallel between the fact that because we have been unable (in your opinion) to "sustainably" produce energy by nuclear fusion here on earth, this must mean that stars are also unable to produce energy by nuclear fusion.

I have made no such claim. It is you that are making the claim that something we has never observed is happening all over the Universe.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 11:42:48 AM

Your fallacy is believing that because nuclear fusion is unsustainable it cannot sustain stars for millions of years. You also seem to be confused over what work in the field of nuclear physics have taken place. You make a false parrallel between the fact that because we have been unable (in your opinion) to "sustainably" produce energy by nuclear fusion here on earth, this must mean that stars are also unable to produce energy by nuclear fusion.

I have made no such claim. It is you that are making the claim that something we has never observed is happening all over the Universe.

It is observed. Once again, you fail to understand rudimentary physics.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061001154146AAK0dda

Feel free to search around the subject. Or attend the lectures your mom and pop are paying for. Your choice.

Quote from: Robosteve on March 22, 2009, 11:54:13 AM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 11:42:48 AM

Your fallacy is believing that because nuclear fusion is unsustainable it cannot sustain stars for millions of years. You also seem to be confused over what work in the field of nuclear physics have taken place. You make a false parrallel between the fact that because we have been unable (in your opinion) to "sustainably" produce energy by nuclear fusion here on earth, this must mean that stars are also unable to produce energy by nuclear fusion.

I have made no such claim. It is you that are making the claim that something we has never observed is happening all over the Universe.

It is observed. Once again, you fail to understand rudimentary physics.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061001154146AAK0dda

Nothing there says we have ever observed sustainable nuclear fusion.

Not at all, merely pointing out that RET has no proven explanation for how the stars shine.

H-bombs produce a large amount of energy when hydrogen is placed under high temperatures and pressures. Stars continually provide large amounts of heat, pressure and hydrogen. Therefore, stars will continue to act like H-bombs until they run out one of the three things.

That's proof enough, as far as I'm concerned. The FE model doesn't have a proven method for how the stars shine, as I've yet to see scientists make dust hotter than the source that's heating it.

Quote

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?

Quote

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?

are star is not like a nuclear bomb on earth. the same basic principle is the same, but the scale is much different. the stars are billions of times bigger, and as such last alot longer. the time could increase exponentially(i think thats the word) compared to the size
aka, something 10x the size may last 50x the time. but stars are much more massive, billions of times the size


as for the argument about how stars shine? the produce light and heat. lots of it. the light makes them shine. the movement of particles in the atmosphere makes them "twinkle" at night.

Nothing there says we have ever observed sustainable nuclear fusion.

Read the second answer. It also answered the observation part; spectroscopy

Here. Read this.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99331.htm

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 22, 2009, 12:01:26 PM

Nothing there says we have ever observed sustainable nuclear fusion.

Read the second answer. It also answered the observation part; spectroscopy

Well, the anonymous "experts" who answered the question mentioned plenty about how we know that there is hydrogen and helium in stars, but it says nothing about observing nuclear fusion at all. 

Here. Read this.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99331.htm

Why?  I understand the theory.  This still makes no mention of us directly observing these processes taking place.  In fact, all the evidence so far seems to indicate that Robosteve was correct and the process is simply assumed based on what we observe of their composition.

This still makes no mention of us directly observing these processes taking place.  In fact, all the evidence so far seems to indicate that Robosteve was correct and the process is simply assumed based on what we observe of their composition.

No, all the evidence indicates this is exactly what is taking place. Stars: hot dense, emitting light, made of hydrogen and helium... we observe it thanks to spectroscopy. Which part don't you get?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 11:27:18 AM

This still makes no mention of us directly observing these processes taking place.  In fact, all the evidence so far seems to indicate that Robosteve was correct and the process is simply assumed based on what we observe of their composition.

No, all the evidence indicates this is exactly what is taking place. Stars: hot dense, emitting light, made of hydrogen and helium... we observe it thanks to spectroscopy. Which part don't you get?

Well, it's one interpretation of the evidence, and no doubt the one that appears most likely now based on the evidence (in a RE universe), but it's still not something we've directly observed.  Therefore, it's largely speculative.

Well, it's one interpretation of the evidence, and no doubt the one that appears most likely now based on the evidence (in a RE universe), but it's still not something we've directly observed.  Therefore, it's largely speculative.

You seem to be falling into the fallacy trap of "Well have you ever seen an electron?!"

This seems shockingly common here.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 12:03:59 PM

Well, it's one interpretation of the evidence, and no doubt the one that appears most likely now based on the evidence (in a RE universe), but it's still not something we've directly observed.  Therefore, it's largely speculative.

You seem to be falling into the fallacy trap of "Well have you ever seen an electron?!"

This seems shockingly common here.

Explain how what I am saying is a fallacy.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 23, 2009, 12:26:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 12:03:59 PM

Well, it's one interpretation of the evidence, and no doubt the one that appears most likely now based on the evidence (in a RE universe), but it's still not something we've directly observed.  Therefore, it's largely speculative.

You seem to be falling into the fallacy trap of "Well have you ever seen an electron?!"

This seems shockingly common here.

Explain how what I am saying is a fallacy.

The fallacy is that because we have not physically seen with our own eyes ("directly observed") hydrogen atoms fusing and releasing light, we cannot say it happens.

Likewise "Have you ever seen a bedbug?" "Have you ever seen a bacteria?" ...

You're demanding direct observation of something that cannot be directly observed, yet can be explained succinctly through theory.

"False Dilemma" would be the first I would pick out. I'm sure there's many others.

The fallacy is that because we have not physically seen with our own eyes ("directly observed") hydrogen atoms fusing and releasing light, we cannot say it happens.

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying we cannot assume it happens.  To go back to the electron metaphor, we never had a working understanding of the atom until recently, and our conception of its component and its workings are constantly changing as we gain new information.  Early models were completely wrong but considered to be the best representation of them at the time.  Current models may indeed be completely wrong as well; we can describe it mathematically quite strenuously but as far as its representation in reality we can only speculate, since we can't observe it directly.  No credible nuclear physicist would ever claim that we've accurately mapped the structure of the atom in anything but an abstract, mathematical way.

In this case, we can observe that the stars are composed of helium and hydrogen; we cannot observe the stars undergoing constant nuclear fusion to perpetuate their energy expenditure, and although it's the best theory to fit the model we can't replicate the effect in a laboratory either.  Given that we can't perform an experiment confirming that such sustainable nuclear fusion is possible, and we haven't observed it directly, it's nothing more than the best theory about a star's energy expenditure that they've been able to come up with; it's certainly not the final word because our understanding of how such a thing could even be possible is incomplete.

It would be folly to completely discount the possibility that stars work in a way completely different from what we theorize, given our incomplete understanding of the phenomenon.  If the most obvious conventions were always taken for granted throughout history, where would scientific progress come from?

It would be folly to completely discount the possibility that stars work in a way completely different from what we theorize, given our incomplete understanding of the phenomenon.  If the most obvious conventions were always taken for granted throughout history, where would scientific progress come from?

  You have a quite good opinion about yourself. With this comparison(given our incomplete understanding of the phenomenon) you put yourself in same level with greatest minds of our physical science world. What makes yo think that because you don't understand it then someone doesn't understand it some ten or hundred times better than you. Yes, their knowledge is also incomplete but not so incomplete that they don't get the quite good picture of what is happening there.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 01:47:53 PM

It would be folly to completely discount the possibility that stars work in a way completely different from what we theorize, given our incomplete understanding of the phenomenon.  If the most obvious conventions were always taken for granted throughout history, where would scientific progress come from?

  You have a quite good opinion about yourself.

Yes, I do.

With this comparison(given our incomplete understanding of the phenomenon) you put yourself in same level with greatest minds of our physical science world. What makes yo think that because you don't understand it then someone doesn't understand it some ten or hundred times better than you. Yes, their knowledge is also incomplete but not so incomplete that they don't get the quite good picture of what is happening there.

Okay, so what am I missing?  How have they proven that stars generate their energy through sustained nuclear fusion?  And if their picture of what is happening is so good why can't they replicate the process in a laboratory?

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 23, 2009, 01:27:16 PM

The fallacy is that because we have not physically seen with our own eyes ("directly observed") hydrogen atoms fusing and releasing light, we cannot say it happens.

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying we cannot assume it happens.  To go back to the electron metaphor, we never had a working understanding of the atom until recently, and our conception of its component and its workings are constantly changing as we gain new information.  Early models were completely wrong but considered to be the best representation of them at the time.  Current models may indeed be completely wrong as well; we can describe it mathematically quite strenuously but as far as its representation in reality we can only speculate, since we can't observe it directly.

Once again, you are making some kind of fallacious appeal to ignorance or Loki wager.

Models move from strength to strength. We know that nuclear fusion happens in stars, although there may be certain parts which are still unexplained, or which have not been discovered to need explaining. However, the fact remains that we have observed stars producing light, we know that over their lifetime they undergo a transformation from hydrogen to helium and that simple equations (such as E=mc^2) accurately, predicatably and measurably define the amount of energy released.

And if their picture of what is happening is so good why can't they replicate the process in a laboratory?

They have. Try to keep up dearie.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 01:47:53 PM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 23, 2009, 01:27:16 PM

The fallacy is that because we have not physically seen with our own eyes ("directly observed") hydrogen atoms fusing and releasing light, we cannot say it happens.

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying we cannot assume it happens.  To go back to the electron metaphor, we never had a working understanding of the atom until recently, and our conception of its component and its workings are constantly changing as we gain new information.  Early models were completely wrong but considered to be the best representation of them at the time.  Current models may indeed be completely wrong as well; we can describe it mathematically quite strenuously but as far as its representation in reality we can only speculate, since we can't observe it directly.

Once again, you are making some kind of fallacious appeal to ignorance or Loki wager.

Models move from strength to strength. We know that nuclear fusion happens in stars, although there may be certain parts which are still unexplained, or which have not been discovered to need explaining. However, the fact remains that we have observed stars producing light, we know that over their lifetime they undergo a transformation from hydrogen to helium and that simple equations (such as E=mc^2) accurately, predicatably and measurably define the amount of energy released.

You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 03:30:29 PM

And if their picture of what is happening is so good why can't they replicate the process in a laboratory?

They have. Try to keep up dearie.

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.