Telescopes

  • 226 Replies
  • 35915 Views
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #210 on: July 31, 2009, 07:56:45 AM »
i'm not an expert on fusion but after thinking on that i doubt that it makes sense to speak of actively fusing hydrogen. before fusion of two hydrogen atoms they show normal hydrogen behaviour. the fusion itself sets free a lot of energy and is a very short process and afterwards you heve a helium atom with normal helium behaviour. imo it's not correct to speak of fusing hydrogen cause there's only hydrogen and helium but nothing in between. But as i said i'm not an expert on that one so anybody with more knowledge on that topic might  step in and correct me.

Re: Telescopes
« Reply #211 on: August 01, 2009, 05:16:52 AM »
Soze, it may interest you to learn that helium was first discovered in the Sun by telescopically observing its spectral lines during a solar eclipse.  Only later was it discovered to exist on earth as well when Ramsey and others discovered the same spectral lines in gases trapped in deep mines and in mineral deposits containing radioactive elements such as uranium (helium is one of the by-products of radioactive decay as well as the product of hydrogen fusion occuring in the sun).  This discovery of helium in the sun followed by its discovery on earth was a powerful confirmation of the principle of stellar spectral analysis.

See: http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/C-K/Helium.html

Incidently, helium was named after the sun (helios in Greek) because its existence was first inferred by observing its spectral signature in the sun.

?

JulianDelphiki

Re: Telescopes
« Reply #212 on: August 04, 2009, 03:56:05 PM »
I'm curious as to why people are continually stating that gravity is caused by this, or that, no one knows exactly what gravity is, we just know how to calculate it.  There is a specific formula for calculating the gravitational force on an object.  The formula for gravity is (G*M1*M2)/D^2. 

It is a relationship between the mass of the two objects (ANY TWO OBJECTS, ANY MASS SIZE, ANYTHING) divided by the Distance squared.  If you are sitting X distance away from your desk, you both have a gravitational force upon each other, it is just so minute that it doesn't have much of an effect.  I just skipped from page 2 to page 11 to answer this question because people cannot be bothered to look up a simple physics formula and interpret the relations. 

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #213 on: August 04, 2009, 07:43:39 PM »
hydrogen bombs, however briefly, recreate stellar fusion conditions

Re: Telescopes
« Reply #214 on: August 05, 2009, 02:15:22 AM »
So what are the spectral lines for actively fusing hydrogen?

There aren't any. Fusing hydrogen is just one proton, no electrons involved. The spectral lines would come from the hot gases in the upper layers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

*

Pete

  • 1240
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #215 on: August 08, 2009, 11:46:12 PM »
So what are the spectral lines for actively fusing hydrogen?

There aren't any. Fusing hydrogen is just one proton, no electrons involved. The spectral lines would come from the hot gases in the upper layers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I'm not going to bet on this, but I think your right. At least it looks like that horrible tangent into Doppler shifting is over

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #216 on: August 09, 2009, 09:08:19 AM »
So what are the spectral lines for actively fusing hydrogen?

There aren't any. Fusing hydrogen is just one proton, no electrons involved. The spectral lines would come from the hot gases in the upper layers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I believe that (at least part of) the spectral lines of hydrogen fusing would include neutrinos instead of (or in addition to) photons.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Telescopes
« Reply #217 on: August 09, 2009, 04:14:44 PM »
the fusion that takes place in stars produces neutrinos as a side effect but imo Redingold is correct on the spectral lines

Re: Telescopes
« Reply #218 on: August 10, 2009, 12:03:33 AM »
The fact that helium was first discovered in the sun through spectroscopy, and then later found on earth (and the spectral lines matched) basically takes care of Soze's arguments and Tom's um... *cough* 'arguments'. I have been lurking on this forum for a while and I think that people here forget who the burden of proof is on a bit too much. If a round earth is the general scientific consensus, and some people are proposing a flat earth; they have to give the evidence to back up their assertion. And the evidence should be in a cogent thesis with proper citation etc. If they are serious that is, I mean if there is any real compelling evidence for this then they could easily be published in a journal. Of course I assume that they assume scientific journals are run by a giant conspiracy as well... oh well. I would like to at least see a well done flat earth map. Back on the initial subject of telescopes, do flat earthers think that Hubble does not exist along with all other satellites?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 09:49:20 AM by fauyd »
"Thats not right. It's not even wrong."

-Wolfgang Pauli

*

Pete

  • 1240
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #219 on: August 10, 2009, 02:31:11 AM »
I have been lurking on this forum for a while and I think that people here forget who the burden of proof is on a bit too much. If a round earth is the general scientific consensus, and some people are proposing a flat earth; they have to give the evidence to back up their assertion. And the evidence should be in a cogent thesis with proper citation etc.
(emphasis mine)


Oh my God, I love you. *hug*

There are too many people here who think that an undocumented experiment by Rowbotham and Blount over 100 years ago, and a few books counts as science. And that amateur theorizing is somehow more sounds science then the accepted works of Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo and Kepler.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #220 on: August 10, 2009, 03:04:18 AM »
And that amateur theorizing is somehow more sounds science then the accepted works of Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo and Kepler.
It surely may seem to someone more sound sometimes
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Pete

  • 1240
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #221 on: August 10, 2009, 03:57:36 AM »
And that amateur theorizing is somehow more sounds science then the accepted works of Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo and Kepler.
It surely may seem to someone more sound sometimes

Interestingly, reading that thread, why does it seem that the Flat Earther's are flaming people a disproportionate amount? I think I'll tally it all up


Proleg called Round Earthers "Inbred"Linkage

General Douchbag told Lupey to "GTFO" and called him a "cretin"Linkage

Robosteve called Conanana a "dipshit" Linkage

This isn't a flame, but General Douchbag wasn't called on making the rather unhelpful and low-content post of "FAQ" Linkage

Robosteve gave the wonderfully respectful response to Conanna:
Do you understand what "infinitesimal" means, or do you just like to throw big words around and hope to sound intelligent?
Linkage

General Douchbag consider's Zork's response "Bull" Linkage

General Douchbag unilaterally orders Zork to stop posting for the crime of disagreeing with him
Linkage

Euclid calls Robosteve a troll Linkage

Robosteve calls Zork's post unintelligible Linkage

Robosteve breaks forum rules by using profanity in Debate and Discussion.  :-X Linkage


Robo steve, the ocean has already occupied the spaces of where the gravity is stronger thus it can't all move to that one spot LOL.

He already gave examples of places with higher gravity that were not occupied by the ocean according to round earth theory. Please pay attention.

I don't understand.. So if one part of the ocean has a higher gravity than another then you'll find more water in that spot? That's sounds ridiculous, and if there were places that the ocean didn't occupy, us RET call it LAND.

...... You are a miracle of evolution. And no, I don't mean that in a good way.
(emphasis mine)

And that was a post by a moderator that looks suspiciously like a personal attack....  :'(


Proleg asks a question which is answered in the immediately previous post. When he is directed to it he claims he has "Better ways of killing brain cells" and refuses. Linkage


I'm sorry, but that was WAAAYYY too much fun, and I find the ratio of FE'ers to RE'ers who name-call quite interesting.


Anyways, Robosteve would have probably been a lot more convincing if he hadn't been so obsessed with nit-picking semantics. I had a hard time following the discussion because every other post by Robosteve kept refusing to answer questions because people hadn't defined their terms perfectly

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #222 on: August 10, 2009, 04:04:42 AM »
Trust me, RE'ers 'flame' FE'ers a lot more that FE'ers do RE'ers. You're pulling up posts from a single thread made back in April. I can show you any number of threads started by RE'ers this week where their first post consists of telling us how stupid we are.


In any event, if you have an issue with the rules or the enforcement of the rules, take it to the 'Issues and Concerns' thread in General Discussion. I don't mean to sound rude, but D&D is not the place.


EDIT: Missing words.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 04:30:16 AM by Lord Wilmore »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Pete

  • 1240
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #223 on: August 10, 2009, 04:23:29 AM »
I can show you any number of threads started by RE'ers this week where their first post consists of telling us how stupid we are.


Thats true, I've seen those too. Since they're rather new, hopefully they'll rapidly grow bored and leave.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #224 on: August 10, 2009, 05:10:57 AM »
Trust me, RE'ers 'flame' FE'ers a lot more that FE'ers do RE'ers.
Statistics is fine science and you can get anything out it. For you cause the RE'ers who 'flame' are newbies. If we look at the ratio for persons who have posted and lurked more then the FE ones prevail.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #225 on: August 10, 2009, 06:28:49 AM »
Trust me, RE'ers 'flame' FE'ers a lot more that FE'ers do RE'ers.
Statistics is fine science and you can get anything out it. For you cause the RE'ers who 'flame' are newbies. If we look at the ratio for persons who have posted and lurked more then the FE ones prevail.


Look, first of all, I didn't bring this up. Secondly:


In any event, if you have an issue with the rules or the enforcement of the rules, take it to the 'Issues and Concerns' thread in General Discussion. I don't mean to sound rude, but D&D is not the place.


Any further discussion is to be on topic. A post from a moderator telling one person to stay on topic is not an invitation to other members to discuss the matter further. I am frankly sick of this, and from now on I will be suspending people for such offences, instead of warning them until I get my point across.


EDIT: Typo.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 07:10:05 AM by Lord Wilmore »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #226 on: August 10, 2009, 07:07:39 AM »
Trust me, RE'ers 'flame' FE'ers a lot more that FE'ers do RE'ers.
Statistics is fine science and you can get anything out it. For you cause the RE'ers who 'flame' are newbies. If we look at the ratio for persons who have posted and lurked more then the FE ones prevail.
Look, first of all, I didn't bring this up. Secondly:
Sorry for offtopic, but I just didn't see it fair that you put the the more lurked and quite civil RE people on the same boat with the angry noobs.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.