| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
 |
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-C306BF.12011519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <jMKdnTyfWMH3GxzVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:881384hb4do0mkkpv7pn9acqus334vptem@4ax.com...
The physical conditions in the Sun are very well known and understood,
Mark.
All it takes is for TWO atoms or ions to join making them have TWICE
their normal gravity to start collecting star-sized masses.
Maybe so, but what makes them join?
Electrons in the first "shell" about a nucleus like to be in pairs. A
single hydrogen atom has only one electron, but two of them can share
their electrons, filling in their "shells" and thus becoming more
stable. A lot of elements do that: Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen to name
three. Helium, with two protons, has two electrons in its outer shell.
They>re stable, and helium is extremely chemically inert: it does not
form chemical compounds.
[/quote]
Explain the numbers and the math all you want. Fact remains...that put
hydrogen together in any laboratory...and it dissipates.
[quote]
There are yet undiscovered elements, invisible to modern ma
That>s stupid beyond words.
Chemical elements are defined by the numbers of protons; isotopes of
those elements are defined by the numbers of neutrons. It>s a fair bet
to say that all the integers between 1 and, oh, 300 have been
discovered[1].
One can make a 1:1 correspondence between the integers and the chemical
elements with that number of protons. Trust me on this: People far
cleverer than you have though about the question "What is element number
I?" And people even cleverer than that have provided answers. Indeed, if
you open your chemistry textbook[2] to the page with the periodic table
of the elements, you will see that every element up to about 104 (or
more, depending on the date it was printed) has been discovered and
named. Even element number 42.
How, exactly, do you think that an element has not been discovered (or
thought about), or that it would be invisible? And how do you think such
elements would be formed?
[/quote]
I just know it exists. There is no other way to explain how a star can hold
itself together. It must be superheavy, to hold a massive Sun together, and
yes, it must be invisible both to our eyes and to spectroscopes...or it
already
would have been detected.
Except maybe it is visible to the poets and musicians...whom always could
seem to sense the spiritness of stars. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mfb484dibjdjee8bu3blpraaecbnoqi6ir@4ax.com...
[quote]Atoms will stick together, Mark. Not always, but often. It depends
on the circumstances of their meetings.
[/quote]
Not hydrogen. Put hydrogen together, or just about any gas, and it
dissipates.
Try it in a laboratory. That is just what happens. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20114-4881DF37-1476@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
[quote]Mark You are right in thinking What gets things started?. I have a
theory that EM force plays a big part.in the beginning There is some
fudging by astronomers on early star formation out of space being a
vacuum and hydrogen. I have though long hours every day of my life on
this problem. To me I relate it to the mystery of finding the source of
gravity. Bert
[/quote]
IMHO, star formation is just like gravity itself...no explanations at all...
....it is just supernatural...as just about is everything else in this
universe of wonders we live in. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:HI2dnf3MueQ4kx_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@giganews.com...
[quote]
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:trGdnYWLfPQ3sRzVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:veOdnXK3zcNEkRzVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QLidnU14GfziYB3VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25707-48808B92-1334@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net...
What if you had only one word to sum up the Sun? That word has to be
GAS
If the Sun were mostly gas, it would quickly dissipate.
The last time I checked, the Sun contained 71% Hydrogen, 27% Helium and
2% miscellaneous elements, however they are all classified as "Gases".
Sure, that>s what they tell you, but why do you believe them, full well
knowing that unenclosed gases, especially of the lighter gases, tend to
dissipate?
Could it be that it is the same principle, namely gravity, that retains
the Earth>s atmosphere ... just wondering
[/quote]
Even in Earth>s atmosphere, the lighter gases escape into space.
There is no layer of hydrogen in our atmosphere, is there?
And we know it exists here, because we use it sometimes.
So if the Sun were mostly hydrogen...that hydrogen should behave just as it
would on Earth...and escape into space.
I know, it doesn>t. But it should. Unless there is some phenomenon about
the Sun that is yet undiscovered...
....such as maybe...
....the Sun being primarily made of yet undiscovered elements, invisible to
the eye and to the spectrum. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <gtSdnVLbYtBaAx_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-C306BF.12011519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <jMKdnTyfWMH3GxzVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:881384hb4do0mkkpv7pn9acqus334vptem@4ax.com...
The physical conditions in the Sun are very well known and understood,
Mark.
All it takes is for TWO atoms or ions to join making them have TWICE
their normal gravity to start collecting star-sized masses.
Maybe so, but what makes them join?
Electrons in the first "shell" about a nucleus like to be in pairs. A
single hydrogen atom has only one electron, but two of them can share
their electrons, filling in their "shells" and thus becoming more
stable. A lot of elements do that: Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen to name
three. Helium, with two protons, has two electrons in its outer shell.
They>re stable, and helium is extremely chemically inert: it does not
form chemical compounds.
Explain the numbers and the math all you want. Fact remains...that put
hydrogen together in any laboratory...and it dissipates.
[/quote]
We were discussing the diatomic nature of hydrogen. The *fat* is that
diatomic hydrogen stays that way in any laboratory unless a lot of
energy is applied.
You must face up to the fact that there are people who know more about
these things than you do. You can try to work things out logically in
your head if you want to, but without a solid basis in chemistry and
physics, you will be lost from the first step. And when you insist that
you know something that clearly you don>t, people who do know will
mistake you for a kook.
[quote]There are yet undiscovered elements, invisible to modern ma
That>s stupid beyond words.
Chemical elements are defined by the numbers of protons; isotopes of
those elements are defined by the numbers of neutrons. It>s a fair bet
to say that all the integers between 1 and, oh, 300 have been
discovered[1].
One can make a 1:1 correspondence between the integers and the chemical
elements with that number of protons. Trust me on this: People far
cleverer than you have though about the question "What is element number
I?" And people even cleverer than that have provided answers. Indeed, if
you open your chemistry textbook[2] to the page with the periodic table
of the elements, you will see that every element up to about 104 (or
more, depending on the date it was printed) has been discovered and
named. Even element number 42.
How, exactly, do you think that an element has not been discovered (or
thought about), or that it would be invisible? And how do you think such
elements would be formed?
I just know it exists. There is no other way to explain how a star can hold
itself together.
[/quote]
Sure, there is. Gravity explains it very well.
What>s happening is that you don>t really understand basic chemistry and
physics, and thus will grasp at straws for any explanation that makes
sense to you. That sort of self-imposed delusionism is not healthy.
[quote]It must be superheavy, to hold a massive Sun together,
[/quote]
Well, it has to be "superheavvy" in order not to be one of the known
elements, but it>s very hard to make superheavy elements. You should
read up on nucleosynthesis.
[quote]and
yes, it must be invisible both to our eyes and to spectroscopes...or it
already
would have been detected.
[/quote]
Clearly you don>t understand how spectroscopy works. Remember the
electron shells I was talking about earlier when explaining diatomic
hydrogen? Each atom has concentric shells. If an electron receives
enough energy, it will move into a higher shell ... and absorb a photon.
If it later drops back to its original shell, it emits a photon. By an
unremarkable coincidence, the absorbed and emitted photons have the same
wavelength. So whether a chemical element actively emits photons from
being hot or absorbs them from being cool and in between you and a
source of light, it shows the same spectrum curve.
*Every* chemical element has electrons and characteristic patterns of
electrons moving up and down between shells. Thus *every* element has
its characteristic spectrum curve. It turns out that elementary quantum
physics can properly calculate what the emission/absorption spectra of
chemical elements are. So in other words, "it must be invisible" is
wrong.
[quote]Except maybe it is visible to the poets and musicians...whom always could
seem to sense the spiritness of stars.
[/quote]
Poets and musicians see lots of things, but they generally don>t pretend
to have scientific knowledge.
(BTW, it>s " Š who always could seem to sense," not " Š whom could
always seem to sense". The way to tell whether it>s who or whom is to
rewrite the sentence with he or him. You would not write, "Him could
always sense". You would write, "He could always sense". Here are more
examples:
Who owns this sweater? He owns the sweater.
The sweater belongs to whom? The sweater belongs to him.)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <2fudneHkerT4AB_VnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mfb484dibjdjee8bu3blpraaecbnoqi6ir@4ax.com...
Atoms will stick together, Mark. Not always, but often. It depends
on the circumstances of their meetings.
Not hydrogen. Put hydrogen together, or just about any gas, and it
dissipates.
Try it in a laboratory. That is just what happens.
[/quote]
But the environment of a star is different from what you find in a
laboratory. There>s a bigger gravitational field.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <3JCdnV9ai5-BAB_VnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20114-4881DF37-1476@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
Mark You are right in thinking What gets things started?. I have a
theory that EM force plays a big part.in the beginning There is some
fudging by astronomers on early star formation out of space being a
vacuum and hydrogen. I have though long hours every day of my life on
this problem. To me I relate it to the mystery of finding the source of
gravity. Bert
IMHO, star formation is just like gravity itself...no explanations at all...
...it is just supernatural...as just about is everything else in this
universe of wonders we live in.
[/quote]
Supernatural means it can>t be explained in terms of natural processes.
The things is that gravity, matter, chemistry, physics and so forth are
all very well-understood natural processes. It>s not supernatural. It>s
in high-school chemistry and physics textbooks.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <H7udnQtXHv01AR_VnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:HI2dnf3MueQ4kx_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@giganews.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:trGdnYWLfPQ3sRzVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:veOdnXK3zcNEkRzVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QLidnU14GfziYB3VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25707-48808B92-1334@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net...
What if you had only one word to sum up the Sun? That word has to be
GAS
If the Sun were mostly gas, it would quickly dissipate.
The last time I checked, the Sun contained 71% Hydrogen, 27% Helium and
2% miscellaneous elements, however they are all classified as "Gases".
Sure, that>s what they tell you, but why do you believe them, full well
knowing that unenclosed gases, especially of the lighter gases, tend to
dissipate?
Could it be that it is the same principle, namely gravity, that retains
the Earth>s atmosphere ... just wondering
Even in Earth>s atmosphere, the lighter gases escape into space.
There is no layer of hydrogen in our atmosphere, is there?
And we know it exists here, because we use it sometimes.
[/quote]
Hydrogen is chemically active and mixes readily with other gases. The
air you breathe is diatomic nitrogen, diatomic oxygen, argon, and traces
of other things, all mixed up regardless of molecular weight.
[quote]So if the Sun were mostly hydrogen...that hydrogen should behave just as it
would on Earth...and escape into space.
[/quote]
Well, no, because the sun is a lot more massive and thus has a lot more
gravity than the Earth.
[quote]I know, it doesn>t. But it should. Unless there is some phenomenon about
the Sun that is yet undiscovered...
...such as maybe...
...the Sun being primarily made of yet undiscovered elements, invisible to
the eye and to the spectrum.
[/quote]
Or being very big. I>d suggest another phenomenon at work: Ignorance.
But ignorance can be cured; stupidity cannot.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-F5D6F4.22502519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <3JCdnV9ai5-BAB_VnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20114-4881DF37-1476@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
Mark You are right in thinking What gets things started?. I have a
theory that EM force plays a big part.in the beginning There is some
fudging by astronomers on early star formation out of space being a
vacuum and hydrogen. I have though long hours every day of my life on
this problem. To me I relate it to the mystery of finding the source
of
gravity. Bert
IMHO, star formation is just like gravity itself...no explanations at
all...
...it is just supernatural...as just about is everything else in this
universe of wonders we live in.
Supernatural means it can>t be explained in terms of natural processes.
The things is that gravity, matter, chemistry, physics and so forth are
all very well-understood natural processes. It>s not supernatural. It>s
in high-school chemistry and physics textbooks.
[/quote]
So what if these phenomenon are "explained" in school books?
People think that they have explained things all the time.
But still, not one person knows why gravity exists.
And they will continue to not know, until they acknowledge the supernatural. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-5A2AD9.22485119072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <2fudneHkerT4AB_VnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mfb484dibjdjee8bu3blpraaecbnoqi6ir@4ax.com...
Atoms will stick together, Mark. Not always, but often. It depends
on the circumstances of their meetings.
Not hydrogen. Put hydrogen together, or just about any gas, and it
dissipates.
Try it in a laboratory. That is just what happens.
But the environment of a star is different from what you find in a
laboratory. There>s a bigger gravitational field.
[/quote]
But that doesn>t make any sense. How does the very thing that is supposedly
causing the gravity...hold itself together by what it is causing?
What you are saying is similar to saying the gun shot itself. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Earnest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-77DCEC.22474619072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <gtSdnVLbYtBaAx_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-C306BF.12011519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <jMKdnTyfWMH3GxzVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:881384hb4do0mkkpv7pn9acqus334vptem@4ax.com...
The physical conditions in the Sun are very well known and
understood,
Mark.
All it takes is for TWO atoms or ions to join making them have TWICE
their normal gravity to start collecting star-sized masses.
Maybe so, but what makes them join?
Electrons in the first "shell" about a nucleus like to be in pairs. A
single hydrogen atom has only one electron, but two of them can share
their electrons, filling in their "shells" and thus becoming more
stable. A lot of elements do that: Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen to name
three. Helium, with two protons, has two electrons in its outer shell.
They>re stable, and helium is extremely chemically inert: it does not
form chemical compounds.
Explain the numbers and the math all you want. Fact remains...that put
hydrogen together in any laboratory...and it dissipates.
We were discussing the diatomic nature of hydrogen. The *fat* is that
diatomic hydrogen stays that way in any laboratory unless a lot of
energy is applied.
[/quote]
Now that is rediculous. If you can>t even tell that gases dissipate, there
is no possibility of talking any sense to you at all.
There is a thing in reality called the ultimate premise, and if you can>t
conclude back from one of those, your attempts at proving such things is
impossible.
[quote]
You must face up to the fact that there are people who know more about
these things than you do.
[/quote]
Sure I do. But I also know that I know some things about these things,
enough in some cases to make logical deductions about them.
You can try to work things out logically in
[quote]your head if you want to, but without a solid basis in chemistry and
physics, you will be lost from the first step. And when you insist that
you know something that clearly you don>t, people who do know will
mistake you for a kook.
There are yet undiscovered elements, invisible to modern ma
That>s stupid beyond words.
Chemical elements are defined by the numbers of protons; isotopes of
those elements are defined by the numbers of neutrons. It>s a fair bet
to say that all the integers between 1 and, oh, 300 have been
discovered[1].
One can make a 1:1 correspondence between the integers and the chemical
elements with that number of protons. Trust me on this: People far
cleverer than you have though about the question "What is element
number
I?" And people even cleverer than that have provided answers. Indeed,
if
you open your chemistry textbook[2] to the page with the periodic table
of the elements, you will see that every element up to about 104 (or
more, depending on the date it was printed) has been discovered and
named. Even element number 42.
How, exactly, do you think that an element has not been discovered (or
thought about), or that it would be invisible? And how do you think
such
elements would be formed?
I just know it exists. There is no other way to explain how a star can
hold
itself together.
Sure, there is. Gravity explains it very well.
[/quote]
Just the word "gravity" by itself explains nothing, especially since gravity
itself still has yet to be explained.
[quote]
What>s happening is that you don>t really understand basic chemistry and
physics, and thus will grasp at straws for any explanation that makes
sense to you. That sort of self-imposed delusionism is not healthy.
[/quote]
I took physics in college and chemistry in high school. It is enough to
make
the deductions I have made of them.
[quote]
It must be superheavy, to hold a massive Sun together,
Well, it has to be "superheavvy" in order not to be one of the known
elements, but it>s very hard to make superheavy elements. You should
read up on nucleosynthesis.
[/quote]
No one needs to make them. They occur naturally in the universe.
In fact, you are made of some of them, as are all life on this planet.
[quote]
and
yes, it must be invisible both to our eyes and to spectroscopes...or it
already
would have been detected.
Clearly you don>t understand how spectroscopy works. Remember the
electron shells I was talking about earlier when explaining diatomic
hydrogen? Each atom has concentric shells. If an electron receives
enough energy, it will move into a higher shell ... and absorb a photon.
If it later drops back to its original shell, it emits a photon. By an
unremarkable coincidence, the absorbed and emitted photons have the same
wavelength. So whether a chemical element actively emits photons from
being hot or absorbs them from being cool and in between you and a
source of light, it shows the same spectrum curve.
*Every* chemical element has electrons and characteristic patterns of
electrons moving up and down between shells. Thus *every* element has
its characteristic spectrum curve. It turns out that elementary quantum
physics can properly calculate what the emission/absorption spectra of
chemical elements are. So in other words, "it must be invisible" is
wrong.
[/quote]
Thank you for the illumination. See, I can be taught.
[quote]
Except maybe it is visible to the poets and musicians...whom always could
seem to sense the spiritness of stars.
Poets and musicians see lots of things, but they generally don>t pretend
to have scientific knowledge.
(BTW, it>s " Š who always could seem to sense," not " Š whom could
always seem to sense". The way to tell whether it>s who or whom is to
rewrite the sentence with he or him. You would not write, "Him could
always sense". You would write, "He could always sense". Here are more
examples:
Who owns this sweater? He owns the sweater.
The sweater belongs to whom? The sweater belongs to him.)
[/quote]
Thank you for the grammar lesson, too. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <LYmdnQMMDOn-Sh_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-F5D6F4.22502519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <3JCdnV9ai5-BAB_VnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20114-4881DF37-1476@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
Mark You are right in thinking What gets things started?. I have a
theory that EM force plays a big part.in the beginning There is some
fudging by astronomers on early star formation out of space being a
vacuum and hydrogen. I have though long hours every day of my life on
this problem. To me I relate it to the mystery of finding the source
of
gravity. Bert
IMHO, star formation is just like gravity itself...no explanations at
all...
...it is just supernatural...as just about is everything else in this
universe of wonders we live in.
Supernatural means it can>t be explained in terms of natural processes.
The things is that gravity, matter, chemistry, physics and so forth are
all very well-understood natural processes. It>s not supernatural. It>s
in high-school chemistry and physics textbooks.
So what if these phenomenon are "explained" in school books?
People think that they have explained things all the time.
But still, not one person knows why gravity exists.
And they will continue to not know, until they acknowledge the supernatural.
[/quote]
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Naturalistic explanations for
the behavior of matter, which have worked astonishingly well as the
foundations of the technology you>re using to communicate with me are
unacceptable to you because they don>t explain why gravity exists.
Therefore you>d rather substitute your own hocus-pocus ignorant drivel
and come to entirely wrong conclusions about how stars form.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Landy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:H7udnQtXHv01AR_VnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
[quote]
"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:HI2dnf3MueQ4kx_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@giganews.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:trGdnYWLfPQ3sRzVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:veOdnXK3zcNEkRzVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QLidnU14GfziYB3VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25707-48808B92-1334@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net...
What if you had only one word to sum up the Sun? That word has to be
GAS
If the Sun were mostly gas, it would quickly dissipate.
The last time I checked, the Sun contained 71% Hydrogen, 27% Helium and
2% miscellaneous elements, however they are all classified as "Gases".
Sure, that>s what they tell you, but why do you believe them, full well
knowing that unenclosed gases, especially of the lighter gases, tend to
dissipate?
Could it be that it is the same principle, namely gravity, that retains
the Earth>s atmosphere ... just wondering
Even in Earth>s atmosphere, the lighter gases escape into space.
There is no layer of hydrogen in our atmosphere, is there?
[/quote]
Ah well, yes, there is actually. The upper part of the Exosphere (from 3500
km upwards) is dominated by atomic hydrogen.
Mind you, there>s not much of it there, since it is very rarefied. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <1KudneBTJ4cnSh_VnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-5A2AD9.22485119072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <2fudneHkerT4AB_VnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mfb484dibjdjee8bu3blpraaecbnoqi6ir@4ax.com...
Atoms will stick together, Mark. Not always, but often. It depends
on the circumstances of their meetings.
Not hydrogen. Put hydrogen together, or just about any gas, and it
dissipates.
Try it in a laboratory. That is just what happens.
But the environment of a star is different from what you find in a
laboratory. There>s a bigger gravitational field.
But that doesn>t make any sense. How does the very thing that is supposedly
causing the gravity...hold itself together by what it is causing?
[/quote]
Sure it makes sense. Molecules in gases bounce off each other, which is
a repulsive force, and they have mass which creates gravity, an
attractive force. When these are in equilibrium, the system is stable.
If gravity gets an edge, the gas compresses.
[quote]What you are saying is similar to saying the gun shot itself.
[/quote]
No, I>m not. You just lack the fundamental understanding of physics that
it takes to understand, and so out of ignorance you argue against
everything I say.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: What if (on Sun) |
|
|
In article <W8udncT0jb5uRB_VnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-77DCEC.22474619072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <gtSdnVLbYtBaAx_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-C306BF.12011519072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <jMKdnTyfWMH3GxzVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:881384hb4do0mkkpv7pn9acqus334vptem@4ax.com...
The physical conditions in the Sun are very well known and
understood,
Mark.
All it takes is for TWO atoms or ions to join making them have TWICE
their normal gravity to start collecting star-sized masses.
Maybe so, but what makes them join?
Electrons in the first "shell" about a nucleus like to be in pairs. A
single hydrogen atom has only one electron, but two of them can share
their electrons, filling in their "shells" and thus becoming more
stable. A lot of elements do that: Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen to name
three. Helium, with two protons, has two electrons in its outer shell.
They>re stable, and helium is extremely chemically inert: it does not
form chemical compounds.
Explain the numbers and the math all you want. Fact remains...that put
hydrogen together in any laboratory...and it dissipates.
We were discussing the diatomic nature of hydrogen. The *fat* is that
diatomic hydrogen stays that way in any laboratory unless a lot of
energy is applied.
Now that is rediculous. If you can>t even tell that gases dissipate, there
is no possibility of talking any sense to you at all.
[/quote]
I don>t expect you to talk sense to me.
[quote]There is a thing in reality called the ultimate premise, and if you can>t
conclude back from one of those, your attempts at proving such things is
impossible.
[/quote]
There is more than just one "ultimate premise". I note that you didn>t
define it.
[quote]You must face up to the fact that there are people who know more about
these things than you do.
Sure I do. But I also know that I know some things about these things,
enough in some cases to make logical deductions about them.
[/quote]
However, the conclusions you>ve come to are wrong, and some of the
things you>ve said show that you don>t know as much as you think you
do.
[quote]You can try to work things out logically in
your head if you want to, but without a solid basis in chemistry and
physics, you will be lost from the first step. And when you insist that
you know something that clearly you don>t, people who do know will
mistake you for a kook.
There are yet undiscovered elements, invisible to modern ma
That>s stupid beyond words.
Chemical elements are defined by the numbers of protons; isotopes of
those elements are defined by the numbers of neutrons. It>s a fair bet
to say that all the integers between 1 and, oh, 300 have been
discovered[1].
One can make a 1:1 correspondence between the integers and the chemical
elements with that number of protons. Trust me on this: People far
cleverer than you have though about the question "What is element
number
I?" And people even cleverer than that have provided answers. Indeed,
if
you open your chemistry textbook[2] to the page with the periodic table
of the elements, you will see that every element up to about 104 (or
more, depending on the date it was printed) has been discovered and
named. Even element number 42.
How, exactly, do you think that an element has not been discovered (or
thought about), or that it would be invisible? And how do you think
such
elements would be formed?
I just know it exists. There is no other way to explain how a star can
hold
itself together.
Sure, there is. Gravity explains it very well.
Just the word "gravity" by itself explains nothing, especially since gravity
itself still has yet to be explained.
[/quote]
How gravity works, however, is very well described.
[quote]What>s happening is that you don>t really understand basic chemistry and
physics, and thus will grasp at straws for any explanation that makes
sense to you. That sort of self-imposed delusionism is not healthy.
I took physics in college and chemistry in high school. It is enough to
make
the deductions I have made of them.
[/quote]
I>m surprised.
[quote]It must be superheavy, to hold a massive Sun together,
Well, it has to be "superheavvy" in order not to be one of the known
elements, but it>s very hard to make superheavy elements. You should
read up on nucleosynthesis.
No one needs to make them. They occur naturally in the universe.
In fact, you are made of some of them, as are all life on this planet.
[/quote]
You>re free to explain what you mean. I>m not going to try to read any
meaning into that.
[quote]and
yes, it must be invisible both to our eyes and to spectroscopes...or it
already
would have been detected.
Clearly you don>t understand how spectroscopy works. Remember the
electron shells I was talking about earlier when explaining diatomic
hydrogen? Each atom has concentric shells. If an electron receives
enough energy, it will move into a higher shell ... and absorb a photon.
If it later drops back to its original shell, it emits a photon. By an
unremarkable coincidence, the absorbed and emitted photons have the same
wavelength. So whether a chemical element actively emits photons from
being hot or absorbs them from being cool and in between you and a
source of light, it shows the same spectrum curve.
*Every* chemical element has electrons and characteristic patterns of
electrons moving up and down between shells. Thus *every* element has
its characteristic spectrum curve. It turns out that elementary quantum
physics can properly calculate what the emission/absorption spectra of
chemical elements are. So in other words, "it must be invisible" is
wrong.
Thank you for the illumination. See, I can be taught.
[/quote]
If you had taken chemistry and physics in college, you>d know that.
[quote]Except maybe it is visible to the poets and musicians...whom always could
seem to sense the spiritness of stars.
Poets and musicians see lots of things, but they generally don>t pretend
to have scientific knowledge.
(BTW, it>s " Š who always could seem to sense," not " Š whom could
always seem to sense". The way to tell whether it>s who or whom is to
rewrite the sentence with he or him. You would not write, "Him could
always sense". You would write, "He could always sense". Here are more
examples:
Who owns this sweater? He owns the sweater.
The sweater belongs to whom? The sweater belongs to him.)
Thank you for the grammar lesson, too.
[/quote]
You>re welcome. By the way, it>s spelled "ridiculous", not "rediculous".
The root word is ridicule, not dicule. "Ridiculous" means "worthy of
ridicule", not "worthy of dicule again".
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
