Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
^link for people who don't get it

"Ocams's razor", witch in essence says that the theory that requires the least assumptions is usually the more correct one (to be fair, it is more complex than that, but that's what the link is for)

now lets take a look at all the assumptions we have to make for round earth:
1: that science is (mostly) right about gravity, astronomy, and physics

and all the assumptions we have to make for flat earth:
1:that all the governments of the world have organised a conspiracy to convenience the masses of the earths (false) roundness
2:that the earth is either accelerating constantly in a blatant middle finger to thermodynamics, or that "down" is just the intrinsic direction of the universe
3: that the millions of people lied or were wrong about the direction that a hurricane/tornado was spinning
4: that thousands of people who have looked through telescopes and have seen satellites and other planets lied
5: that the millions of people who have looked at the horizon and have seen the curvature of the earth were wrong, or that light "bends"

#On a flat world, you would have to asume that there is something blocking the sun wherever the night is. Round world is fits the model if you asume the planet is rotating, which we would be able to test if true.

#On a flat world, you would have to asume that there is something blocking the sun wherever the night is. Round world is fits the model if you asume the planet is rotating, which we would be able to test if true.

Not if the sun is a naturaly occuring laser & the moon a grammar reflected reflection of earth. Hiding the  flat earth map from you . Keeps the truth about what the moon really is . Once that happens its the end of the people  ever giving any Government , corporation or Bank the ability to Trust again .

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 03:41:28 AM

#On a flat world, you would have to asume that there is something blocking the sun wherever the night is. Round world is fits the model if you asume the planet is rotating, which we would be able to test if true.

Not if the sun is a naturaly occuring laser & the moon a grammar reflected reflection of earth. Hiding the  flat earth map from you . Keeps the truth about what the moon really is . Once that happens its the end of the people  ever giving any Government , corporation or Bank the ability to Trust again .

If i understand you correctly, i beileve you are saying the moon is an illution. Now if it was, it would be impossible to place a lazer reflector on it, which we know the Apollo mission did, you can test this by beeming a lazer at it, if some light gets reflected back, it must be there.

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 03:41:28 AM

#On a flat world, you would have to asume that there is something blocking the sun wherever the night is. Round world is fits the model if you asume the planet is rotating, which we would be able to test if true.

Not if the sun is a naturaly occuring laser & the moon a grammar reflected reflection of earth. Hiding the  flat earth map from you . Keeps the truth about what the moon really is . Once that happens its the end of the people  ever giving any Government , corporation or Bank the ability to Trust again .

I really don't understand what you mean. The moon is grammar? What? Could you please elaborate?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
^link for people who don't get it

"Ocams's razor", witch in essence says that the theory that requires the least assumptions is usually the more correct one (to be fair, it is more complex than that, but that's what the link is for)

now lets take a look at all the assumptions we have to make for round earth:
1: that science is (mostly) right about gravity, astronomy, and physics

and all the assumptions we have to make for flat earth:
1:that all the governments of the world have organised a conspiracy to convenience the masses of the earths (false) roundness
2:that the earth is either accelerating constantly in a blatant middle finger to thermodynamics, or that "down" is just the intrinsic direction of the universe
3: that the millions of people lied or were wrong about the direction that a hurricane/tornado was spinning
4: that thousands of people who have looked through telescopes and have seen satellites and other planets lied
5: that the millions of people who have looked at the horizon and have seen the curvature of the earth were wrong, or that light "bends"

It's worth pointing how much of your post relies on word games, and the fact there is currently no well-defined FE model (not counting the FAQ as it's far too vague on a lot of details).
After all, of the FE assumptions, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not necessarily true: and the notion of light bending, in 5, may just be a result of a physical law not fully acknowledged by RET as it's only needed for FET.
And the RE assumption is in fact multiple assumptions, which you chose to list under just one number for what I can only assume is dishonesty. Occam's Razor would count each theory as an assumption, rather than every possible area of science. Otherwise we could just replace 'right' with 'wrong' and arrive at a bastardized but effective FE model with what would, by your logic, be an equal amount of assumptions.

Further, Occam's razor is intended to sort between two competing hypotheses: in this case, two competing models. You have not specified any model, so how is it you can apply the razor?
Similarly, the fact you have not heard of such a model does not mean there isn't one.

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 04:26:33 AM

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

False, if the sun was burning yes it would. But we know hydrogen fusion drives it, and we can recreate the conditions in a lab. Btw if you anslyse the light spectre which is emitted, you will see it contains mainly of hydrogen, to burn you also need oxygen, it's basic chemistry.

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:08:20 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 04:26:33 AM

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

False, if the sun was burning yes it would. But we know hydrogen fusion drives it, and we can recreate the conditions in a lab. Btw if you anslyse the light spectre which is emitted, you will see it contains mainly of hydrogen, to burn you also need oxygen, it's basic chemistry.

Two problems here:

1. By recreating similar conditions in the lab the experiment could not have lasted 4.5 billion years, thus there is no way to verify the age of the sun or the exact composition of it.

2. These conditions have not been recreated in space.

1. I dont know the Age of the sun, but that was not the debate. Pretty sure they use Carbon dating to measure the Age of the solar system tho.

2. you must know, nothing special about our atmosphere, it's just a collection of gasses within space itself. But inside fusion reactors, conditions are similar to something we could expect to see inside a star.

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 05:15:04 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:08:20 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 04:26:33 AM

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

False, if the sun was burning yes it would. But we know hydrogen fusion drives it, and we can recreate the conditions in a lab. Btw if you anslyse the light spectre which is emitted, you will see it contains mainly of hydrogen, to burn you also need oxygen, it's basic chemistry.

Two problems here:

1. By recreating similar conditions in the lab the experiment could not have lasted 4.5 billion years, thus there is no way to verify the age of the sun or the exact composition of it.

2. These conditions have not been recreated in space.

As long as there is no oxidizer the hydrogen won't combust. And the sun is mainly hydrogen. Also, the temperatures required for fusion keeps all the substances in a star in plasma form. As plasma, individual atoms won't bind with other atoms. It's like a soup of atom nucleus' and electrons. If it cooled down then the hydrogen would react with whatever oxidizers have been created through fusion, but because the fusion is sustained there is no combustion. The age of the sun is estimated based on it's composition, and it's composition can be detected by measuring the EM radiation coming from the sun. We can start fusion ourselves, but we cannot sustain it, because we cannot use very much fuel at a time and the energy from the fusion scatters all the particles.

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 04:26:33 AM

Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

First of all, we know the composition of the sun thanks to spectroscopy. In fact, with the right equipment and a bit of knowledge, you can do spectroscopy yourself. As I've said before many times, there are plenty of amateur spectroscopers (is that the right word? I don't know... My English is failing me... Or is it "are failing me"?" out there, including some that I personally know.

Now I'd like you to research "hydrogen fusion". It's not the same as "burning" hydrogen, because there's no oxygen. Hydrogen fusion, especially when the body that is fusing it is so large, can be sustained for billions of years.

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

We can't "know" the composistion of the sun, however the properties we do know about it (spectrum, density, fusion power) matches that of hydrogen. If it is made of something else, then the something else is at least quite similar to hydrogen.

1. I dont know the Age of the sun, but that was not the debate. Pretty sure they use Carbon dating to measure the Age of the solar system tho.

Carbon dating is used to date things that have lived. It cannot date anything older than 50,000 years (or maybe 100,000 years). Yet, a lot of stuff supposedly millions of years old still contains C14, such as diamonds and dinosaur bones. In fact, dinosaurs date just as old as mammoths. See: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

I do not believe scientists are right about the age of the solar system, but the evidence that is used to conclude the age is radiometric dating (not carbon dating) of astroids. And all is based on the assumption that the earth is made from clumped astroids. Even though simulations refute that... As soon as astroids clump together to the size of boulders, two colliding boulders would crash into tiny bits, because of the high velocities in space. There is no way planets could have formed that way. Scientists believe that despite of the evidence...

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

We can't "know" the composistion of the sun, however the properties we do know about it (spectrum, density, fusion power) matches that of hydrogen. If it is made of something else, then the something else is at least quite similar to hydrogen.

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 05:37:23 AM

1. I dont know the Age of the sun, but that was not the debate. Pretty sure they use Carbon dating to measure the Age of the solar system tho.

Carbon dating is used to date things that have lived. It cannot date anything older than 50,000 years (or maybe 100,000 years). Yet, a lot of stuff supposedly millions of years old still contains C14, such as diamonds and dinosaur bones. In fact, dinosaurs date just as old as mammoths. See: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

I do not believe scientists are right about the age of the solar system, but the evidence that is used to conclude the age is radiometric dating (not carbon dating) of astroids. And all is based on the assumption that the earth is made from clumped astroids. Even though simulations refute that... As soon as astroids clump together to the size of boulders, two colliding boulders would crash into tiny bits, because of the high velocities in space. There is no way planets could have formed that way. Scientists believe that despite of the evidence...

Paleontologists don't use carbon dating for dinosaur bones, that's ridiculous. They use radiometric dating. Now I don't really know if there's strong evidence against the formation of planets by asteroids, but it doesn't seem bizarre to me at all. I mean, when those tiny bits spread out, where would they eventually get attracted to? In larger asteroids. The larger the asteroid, the more pieces it would attract. Now if a much smaller asteroid crashed into it, they wouldn't both be destroyed, the larger one would gain some more mass and attract even more of those pieces. It makes perfect sense to me.

Oh. I actually read the article, and it does pose some very interesting points. However, I'm not a paleontologist or a geologist and I can't comment on that. It does seem really ridiculous to me though that dinosaurs lived alongside primitive humans and mammoths. A very important problem would be the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have evidence of theropod dinosaur bite marks on any pleistocene fossils.

Quote from: geodetective on September 07, 2015, 06:11:46 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 05:37:23 AM

1. I dont know the Age of the sun, but that was not the debate. Pretty sure they use Carbon dating to measure the Age of the solar system tho.

Carbon dating is used to date things that have lived. It cannot date anything older than 50,000 years (or maybe 100,000 years). Yet, a lot of stuff supposedly millions of years old still contains C14, such as diamonds and dinosaur bones. In fact, dinosaurs date just as old as mammoths. See: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

I do not believe scientists are right about the age of the solar system, but the evidence that is used to conclude the age is radiometric dating (not carbon dating) of astroids. And all is based on the assumption that the earth is made from clumped astroids. Even though simulations refute that... As soon as astroids clump together to the size of boulders, two colliding boulders would crash into tiny bits, because of the high velocities in space. There is no way planets could have formed that way. Scientists believe that despite of the evidence...

Paleontologists don't use carbon dating for dinosaur bones, that's ridiculous. They use radiometric dating.

Paleontologists should. That's called "verification". Yet they don't, because they believe there is no C14. Those very few that do are surprised to find it.

They have also, for a very long time, not been looking for soft tissue, because it is "rediculous". But too bad, it's there. It's now "finally explained" by "iron in red blood cells". (http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html)
 
Yes, if you put blood cells in a centrifuge, to concentrate iron from it, put it in an oxygen free box, and freeze it to 18 degrees below celsius, and then put the soft tissue together with it, you can get a conservation process similar to formeldahyde. You could maintain a big lump of soft tissue that way, and then maybe a microscopical piece can stay preserved for 7 million years using this method...

That story "explains" 3 cm large pieces of stretchy collagen, inside a bone where hardly any blood could have come. And the dinosaur bones were found at room temperature conditions...

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:25:27 AM

Quote from: geodetective on September 07, 2015, 06:11:46 AM

Quote from: sircool on September 07, 2015, 05:37:23 AM

1. I dont know the Age of the sun, but that was not the debate. Pretty sure they use Carbon dating to measure the Age of the solar system tho.

Carbon dating is used to date things that have lived. It cannot date anything older than 50,000 years (or maybe 100,000 years). Yet, a lot of stuff supposedly millions of years old still contains C14, such as diamonds and dinosaur bones. In fact, dinosaurs date just as old as mammoths. See: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

I do not believe scientists are right about the age of the solar system, but the evidence that is used to conclude the age is radiometric dating (not carbon dating) of astroids. And all is based on the assumption that the earth is made from clumped astroids. Even though simulations refute that... As soon as astroids clump together to the size of boulders, two colliding boulders would crash into tiny bits, because of the high velocities in space. There is no way planets could have formed that way. Scientists believe that despite of the evidence...

Paleontologists don't use carbon dating for dinosaur bones, that's ridiculous. They use radiometric dating.

Paleontologists should. That's called "verification". Yet they don't, because they believe there is no C14. Those very few that do are surprised to find it.

They have also, for a very long time, not been looking for soft tissue, because it is "rediculous". But too bad, it's there. It's now "finally explained" by "iron in red blood cells". (http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html)
 
Yes, if you put blood cells in a centrifuge, to concentrate iron from it, put it in an oxygen free box, and freeze it to 18 degrees below celsius, and then put the soft tissue together with it, you can get a conservation process similar to formeldahyde. You could maintain a big lump of soft tissue that way, and then maybe a microscopical piece can stay preserved for 7 million years using this method...

That story "explains" 3 cm large pieces of stretchy collagen, inside a bone where hardly any blood could have come. And the dinosaur bones were found at room temperature conditions...

Oh, I really don't know. My knowledge of geology and paleontology is very limited. You might be right. But I'm not fully convinced by it. It seems to me like an excuse made by creationists. It also seems to me ridiculous that they would live alongside pleistocene animals. Neither the food chain or the fact that we have no evidence of interaction between them makes sense to me. But that's pretty much it, I don't want to discuss it further, because I lack the knowledge. I will look into it though.

Oh. I actually read the article, and it does pose some very interesting points. However, I'm not a paleontologist or a geologist and I can't comment on that. It does seem really ridiculous to me though that dinosaurs lived alongside primitive humans and mammoths. A very important problem would be the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have evidence of theropod dinosaur bite marks on any pleistocene fossils.

Well, we do have the palluxy tracks: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm. Though it is highly controversial of course...
Less old, but still too old, ar the Laetoli footprints... Modern human footprints, while this should not have evolved yet...

And here are footprints of a species, that are older than their ancestor tiktaalik:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/07/tetrapods-are-older-than-we-th/

Well, I could go on for a while. You may like to see some movies about it: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlMdh2EGHepWAjJ7HJs53Btm1AuOtpv_k

And yes, I'm a YEC 

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:35:07 AM

Oh. I actually read the article, and it does pose some very interesting points. However, I'm not a paleontologist or a geologist and I can't comment on that. It does seem really ridiculous to me though that dinosaurs lived alongside primitive humans and mammoths. A very important problem would be the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have evidence of theropod dinosaur bite marks on any pleistocene fossils.

Well, we do have the palluxy tracks: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm. Though it is highly controversial of course...
Less old, but still too old, ar the Laetoli footprints... Modern human footprints, while this should not have evolved yet...

And here are footprints of a species, that are older than their ancestor tiktaalik:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/07/tetrapods-are-older-than-we-th/

Well, I could go on for a while. You may like to see some movies about it: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlMdh2EGHepWAjJ7HJs53Btm1AuOtpv_k

And yes, I'm a YEC 

Ooooooooh, now it makes sense! Well, although as an agnostic, I do not oppose to the idea of intelligent design, I really don't think creationism is right, and I've got various reasons for that that I am willing to discuss. Also, I've heard of the paluxy tracks, and they really don't seem like proof to me. The website you posted a link to was interesting though, and I will watch your videos. I'm a bit reluctant to believe what they say though, because it's only one source, and a biased one. At least you provide evidence, compared to flat earthers. Anyway, this is not the forum to discuss all of that. Do you have somewhere where we can discuss all that, preferably privately? Maybe Google+ or something? Although I really, really, really don't think I will be convinced that creationism is right and evolution false, I might learn a couple stuff, and it will be very interesting.

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 08:14:36 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that. 

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 09:08:03 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 08:14:36 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 10:13:34 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 09:08:03 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 08:14:36 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

Nope, science believes that the sun is composed of plasma. And by examining the temperature of the sun and the behaviour of it it can be concluded that it is composed of plasma.

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 11:57:15 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 10:13:34 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 09:08:03 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 08:14:36 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

Nope, science believes that the sun is composed of plasma. And by examining the temperature of the sun and the behaviour of it it can be concluded that it is composed of plasma.

  How is that any different from a best guess? Science thinks it behaves like plasma so it is plasma?? 

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 07, 2015, 01:00:46 PM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 11:57:15 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 10:13:34 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 09:08:03 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 08:14:36 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 07, 2015, 06:18:39 AM

Quote from: Serulian on September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM

It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

Nope, science believes that the sun is composed of plasma. And by examining the temperature of the sun and the behaviour of it it can be concluded that it is composed of plasma.

  How is that any different from a best guess? Science thinks it behaves like plasma so it is plasma??

Science believes that because it has a plasma's propreties, by the definition of a plasma, it is a plasma.