The Sun's power source.

The sun's power source is mysterious.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:17:41 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.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 05:58:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:17:41 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.

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

But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

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!

But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

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!

Quote from: 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 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).

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2011, 10:55:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 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).

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 12:37:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2011, 10:55:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 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).

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: James on May 25, 2011, 05:36:16 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?

Quote from: markjo on May 25, 2011, 06:17:38 AM

Quote from: James on May 25, 2011, 05:36:16 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? 

Quote from: 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?

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.

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.