An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

The problem is that lab conditions still wouldn't match the conditions in the sun.  Because of its gravitational conditions, the sun's core only needs to be about 10 million degrees to sustain a fusion reaction.  Because scientists cannot match those gravitational conditions on earth, the temperature must be 100 million degrees to initiate the fusion reaction. 

What is your point?

BTW, if you're looking for more energy out that in, you need look no farther than a hydrogen bomb.

Can a hydrogen bomb explosion be sustained indefinitely?

Doesn't matter. And how does our ability to create sustainable protium fusion proves that it is possible or not? You really claim that these things which we can't do itself are impossible and don't exist in universe?

I didn't say it was impossible, I only said it had never been shown to be possible.

Quote from: zork on April 02, 2009, 11:29:09 AM

Doesn't matter. And how does our ability to create sustainable protium fusion proves that it is possible or not? You really claim that these things which we can't do itself are impossible and don't exist in universe?

I didn't say it was impossible, I only said it had never been shown to be possible.

So, you accept then that it is possible in conditions which we can't recreate in earth at moment with our technological abilities.

Quote from: markjo on April 01, 2009, 06:33:38 AM

The problem is that lab conditions still wouldn't match the conditions in the sun.  Because of its gravitational conditions, the sun's core only needs to be about 10 million degrees to sustain a fusion reaction.  Because scientists cannot match those gravitational conditions on earth, the temperature must be 100 million degrees to initiate the fusion reaction. 

What is your point?

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

Quote from: markjo on April 01, 2009, 06:33:38 AM

BTW, if you're looking for more energy out that in, you need look no farther than a hydrogen bomb.

Can a hydrogen bomb explosion be sustained indefinitely?

Nope, and neither can the sun.  Eventually, the sun's supply of hydrogen will diminish to the point where heavier elements begin to fuse.  After a while, fusion of those heavier elements will no longer be sustainable either, at which point the sun will go nova, take most of the inner solar system with it (including the Earth) and this discussion won't matter any more.

So, you accept then that it is possible in conditions which we can't recreate in earth at moment with our technological abilities.

I don't think I said that.

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

Nope, and neither can the sun.  Eventually, the sun's supply of hydrogen will diminish to the point where heavier elements begin to fuse.  After a while, fusion of those heavier elements will no longer be sustainable either, at which point the sun will go nova, take most of the inner solar system with it (including the Earth) and this discussion won't matter any more.

By "indefinitely" I meant fed with more fuel to propagate the reaction. Can more protium be somehow injected into an H-bomb explosion to keep it going?

Quote from: zork on April 04, 2009, 01:03:00 AM

So, you accept then that it is possible in conditions which we can't recreate in earth at moment with our technological abilities.

I don't think I said that.

If you said - I didn't say it was impossible - what that means then? I know that if thing isn't impossible then it is possible. As I see it you then accept that "sustainable protium fusion" is possible because you itself stated that it isn't impossible.

If you said - I didn't say it was impossible - what that means then? I know that if thing isn't impossible then it is possible. As I see it you then accept that "sustainable protium fusion" is possible because you itself stated that it isn't impossible.

I didn't say it wasn't impossible.

 So, which is it then, possible or impossible? Or is there third option?

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

Nope, and neither can the sun.  Eventually, the sun's supply of hydrogen will diminish to the point where heavier elements begin to fuse.  After a while, fusion of those heavier elements will no longer be sustainable either, at which point the sun will go nova, take most of the inner solar system with it (including the Earth) and this discussion won't matter any more.

By "indefinitely" I meant fed with more fuel to propagate the reaction. Can more protium be somehow injected into an H-bomb explosion to keep it going?

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

And I don't see how not being able to create sustained fusion in the lab has anything to do with the readily observable sustained fusion in the sun.  BTW, proton-proton chain reaction is not the only form of fusion occurring in the sun.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_reactions  I'm guessing that none of those forms of fusion have been demonstrated in the lab as sustained reactions either.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

I never said that it was sustainable.  I just said that you get more energy out of an H-bomb fusion reaction than you put into it.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

And I don't still understand what you are trying to say. Is sustainable protium nuclear fusion possible or is it impossible?

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 11:37:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

Good thing the Flat Earth isn't millions of years old.

Quote from: jargo on April 05, 2009, 12:33:30 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 11:37:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

Good thing the Flat Earth isn't millions of years old.

How old exactually is it? I never really got that.

Quote from: jargo on April 05, 2009, 12:33:30 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 11:37:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 08:11:16 AM

My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

Good thing the Flat Earth isn't millions of years old.

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

Good thing the Flat Earth isn't millions of years old.

How old is it? You're not going to whip your Bible out on us are you?

...Under the assumption that celestial gears are true, how does that work for the planets? Are the huge things completely transparent or what? Because there is no way these gears could possibly be able to have each of the planes on it. Also, how does it explain exploding stars? I would expect that celestial gears retain the same image on themselves year round.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14414;sa=showPosts;start=10000

Entry 10010

where he states "I'm a RE'er, and even I can answer most of these points in favour of FE:"

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14414;sa=showPosts;start=10000

Entry 10010

where he states "I'm a RE'er, and even I can answer most of these points in favour of FE:"

Wow, that's a neat trick.  Can you find where Tom Bishop admits to not believing in FE?

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

Most of the FE:rs probably are.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

FET has one source of unexplained energy, RET has billions upon billions. Which is the simpler theory?

And I don't still understand what you are trying to say. Is sustainable protium nuclear fusion possible or is it impossible?

We cannot know.

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

My personal theory is that it has a mechanism by which it converts matter completely into energy.

...Under the assumption that celestial gears are true, how does that work for the planets? Are the huge things completely transparent or what? Because there is no way these gears could possibly be able to have each of the planes on it. Also, how does it explain exploding stars? I would expect that celestial gears retain the same image on themselves year round.

Stop taking the "gears" metaphor so literally. It's a way of visualising what happens; there are no physical gears in the sky.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14414;sa=showPosts;start=10000

Entry 10010

where he states "I'm a RE'er, and even I can answer most of these points in favour of FE:"

Please check the timestamp on that post. You'll notice it is more than nine months old. In fact, that was one of the first posts I made on this site. I would say that most newcomers here are probably REers.

Quote from: zork on April 05, 2009, 06:40:21 AM

And I don't still understand what you are trying to say. Is sustainable protium nuclear fusion possible or is it impossible?

We cannot know.

 If you don't know then why you argue against the possibility of it? If you bother to argue about it then you must know if it is possible or not because people argue about something when they know something about something. So, what do you know about sustainable protium nuclear fusion being possible in conditions not replicable on earth?

Quote from: jargo on April 05, 2009, 12:33:30 AM

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

FET has one source of unexplained energy, RET has billions upon billions. Which is the simpler theory?

No it does not. It only has one called fusion power and that is not unexplained unlike the mysterious powersource of the FE-sun.

BTW. FET have a lot more unexplained phenomenons than RE.

Quote from: jargo on April 06, 2009, 12:14:13 AM

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

My personal theory is that it has a mechanism by which it converts matter completely into energy.

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion the is the powersource of the sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.

If you don't know then why you argue against the possibility of it?

I didn't.

If you bother to argue about it then you must know if it is possible or not because people argue about something when they know something about something. So, what do you know about sustainable protium nuclear fusion being possible in conditions not replicable on earth?

I know that it has never been experimentally verified.

No it does not. It only has one called fusion power and that is not unexplained unlike the mysterious powersource of the FE-sun.

Which is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion the is the powersource of the sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.

No. FET requires only one manifestation of an unverified process; RET requires billions. Which is the simpler theory?

Quote from: jargo on April 09, 2009, 03:19:24 AM

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion the is the powersource of the sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.

No. FET requires only one manifestation of an unverified process; RET requires billions. Which is the simpler theory?

Did I say I was talking only about RET-sun?

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion is the powersource of the FET-sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.


The biggest mistake you are making is that you are thinking that RET and sustainable fusion power are a same thing which they are not.
Fusion power could just as well be powering the FET-sun and your mystical power source could just as well be powering the billions of stars in the RE-theory.

Quote from: jargo on April 09, 2009, 03:19:24 AM

No it does not. It only has one called fusion power and that is not unexplained unlike the mysterious powersource of the FE-sun.

Which is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

With your logic it is easier to believe that Barack Obama can fly than Moller aerospace has made 10 working flying cars costing only 100000$.

Quote from: zork on April 09, 2009, 02:39:31 AM

If you bother to argue about it then you must know if it is possible or not because people argue about something when they know something about something. So, what do you know about sustainable protium nuclear fusion being possible in conditions not replicable on earth?

I know that it has never been experimentally verified.

  So what? If you don't say that it is impossible then there is quite a good possibility that it is possible. Only not with our current technology. Fact that it is not experimentally verified here on earth doesn't show absolutely anything.

Quote from: jargo on April 06, 2009, 12:14:13 AM

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

My personal theory is that it has a mechanism by which it converts matter completely into energy.

Then in that case, the sun should be "evaporating" as the amount of matter steadily declines.

No. FET requires only one manifestation of an unverified process; RET requires billions. Which is the simpler theory?

The RE theory, as the process has theoretical backing and doesn't require completely undiscovered methods of generating energy, like the FE sun.

So why consider the FE model over the RE one?

Quote from: Taurondir on April 08, 2009, 10:55:49 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 04, 2009, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2009, 01:46:32 PM

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14414;sa=showPosts;start=10000

Entry 10010

where he states "I'm a RE'er, and even I can answer most of these points in favour of FE:"

Wow, that's a neat trick.  Can you find where Tom Bishop admits to not believing in FE?

If I thought he was real, maybe Id bother looking. If hes such an outspoken believer, maybe he can enlighten us with more information about himself.

But funny enough, I can prove YOU dont believe.

----

Roundy the Truthinessist:

10029

Flat Earth Discussion / Flat Earth Debate & Discussion / Final Comment on the Grand Unified Flat Earth Theory

on: June 08, 2007, 10:49:35 AM

It is impossible. I've concluded that the reason why there are so many conflicting aspects of FET is that no one model could possibly explain everything FET lacks compared to RET. And there is simply too much that RET explains perfectly that FET has to strain to explain (and often in a completely illogical manner).

I've decided that the search for such a concept is entirely vain, and I don't want to go down the route of Ponce de Leon, searching my whole life for something that in all likelihood does not exist. So it is with great sadness and exhaustion that I give up.

I've also come to the conclusion that much of the ?evidence? purportedly backing up FET is taken as dogma by the FEers on this site, which ironically is what they were claiming to rail against in the first place. A round earth has tons of evidence backing it up. A flat earth has only appearances and the flawed experiments of an irrelevant ?scientist? 150 years ago backing it up.

I am an REer once again, and will be until an FEer (any FEer, including Tom) can provide something conclusive that disproves RET. For the time being, though, RET is elegant, it explains a lot that FET can't explain, and it makes perfect sense. Unless that changes I can't in good conscience call myself an FEer.

I will still mess with the noobs.