Shad
Veteran Member
I really need to trademark "Try again". Thanks for pointing out inappropriate terminology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Scientific Math of the Milky Way
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
I really need to trademark "Try again". Thanks for pointing out inappropriate terminology.
Shad
Veteran Member
Some of the conversion is done due to fusion in the star. You are making an outdated criticism based on outdated data. Super-nova are considered in part the cause of dispersion of elements not the only sources of heavy elements.
Have you consider it could be caused by both in some manner?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I think that some "true believers" (in whatever, astrology, Bigfoot, the Flat Earth) have at least a feeling for the scientific method and know they are not following it. They can't afford to learn it since they would have to drop their cherished beliefs.
Shad
Veteran Member
The step that is typically missing in my experience are the models and tests of those models. Throwing a bunch of math at people on a religious forum is a "splatter" tactic. Throw anything and see what sticks. If no one challenges the claims people are led to believe they are right. It's not like this is a physics forums with a higher chance of finding someone at least educated beyond the basics.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
This idea is based on the assumption that our Sun is kind of "nuclear reactor" with a limited time of formation.
I rather think this is the case:
"The Electric Sun theory (also Electric Star theory, and Electric Sun Model and Electric Sun Hypothesis) is the idea that the Sun (and stars) derives the main sources of its power electrically from its surroundings, rather than from within by nuclear fusion (the mainstream view)".
Read more here - https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/
BTW: What about my asked question here:
"I´m very pleased to read your mythological and religious comments and explanations here, and I`ll like to know into which cosmological and astronomical context you connect the mentioned deities"?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Agreed. And at the same time some "mathemagicians" cannot even grasp the logics when obvious contradictions and alternative explanations are mentioned with plain sentenses.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Shad said: ↑
Some of the conversion is done due to fusion in the star. You are making an outdated criticism based on outdated data. Super-nova are considered in part the cause of dispersion of elements not the only sources of heavy elements.
Have you consider it could be caused by both in some manner?
BTW: "Super-Novaes" seem to "explode" several times in a row, which discard the very assumption in the Standard Cosmology explanations of forming of elements at all.
The "explosions" in "super-novaes" are primarily an electromagnetic discharge of light and nothing more.
Some of the conversion is done due to fusion in the star. You are making an outdated criticism based on outdated data. Super-nova are considered in part the cause of dispersion of elements not the only sources of heavy elements.
Have you consider it could be caused by both in some manner?
BTW: "Super-Novaes" seem to "explode" several times in a row, which discard the very assumption in the Standard Cosmology explanations of forming of elements at all.
The "explosions" in "super-novaes" are primarily an electromagnetic discharge of light and nothing more.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Misuse of the words "assumption" and " theory".
The 'Electric Sun Theory' is clearly false from several different lines of evidence.
The best evidence we have that there are nuclear reactions in the center of the sun is the neutrinos we get from the sun at exactly the energies that derive from the proposed nuclear reactions.
Not to mention we have probes measuring things like the electric and magnetic fields around our solar system and around then sun.
But, some people want to believe scientists don't know anything. They are usually the ones who don't know any science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nor wish to learn any. People that believe in woo woo, Flat Earth believers,creationists, etc. tend not to understand the scientific method, though they almost all claim they do. They take offense and recoil from even a discussion of the topic. Perhaps they know enough to realize that applying the method would negate their beliefs.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Oh yes, just nittpick on grammar and terms. What about factual scientific arguments and sentenses against the EU?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Oh yes. When running out of real argments, just nittpick with downletting personal issues.
This is just PATHETIC and it really should be removed by the moderators in this forum.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
OH yes? What about FINDING and measuring these ghosts before you take anything for granted? It shouldn´t be too difficult according to he assumption that they are there in the billions and billions in the Sky, "coming from the Sun".
We do detect them. And have been for decades.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I was not nit picking. That was a huge error on your part. And you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. None is really needed to refute the EU since they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong again. It is rather apparent that you have no understanding of the scientific method. You could easily show me to be wrong and join in a discussion on it. Instead you claim to understand it and then write countless posts that indicate that you do not.
Why won't you discuss the scientific method?
Shad
Veteran Member
Shad
Veteran Member
You do not know what a Nuclear reactor does or how it functions so your point is nonsense.
Last edited:
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
When the sun uses up all its hydrogen, which it is estimated to do in 5 and half billion years or so, helium and other heavier elements up to Iron are created, through Nucleosynthesis.
When the outwards pressure becomes greater than the gravitational force, it is then that our sun will expand outward as a Red Giant, its radius expanding to some 250 times its present radius, ingulfing the inner planets..
Eventually, when the lighter elements have been fused, and there is not enough energy to fuse the heavier elements that have been created by the fusion of helium; it is then that the gravitational force takes control and the Red Giant contracts extremely fast, an implosion, which causes a tremendous 'crunch' while at the same time, blasting off ionized gases and metals, which expand and are known as a planetary nebula. Once things calm down, a small white dwarf star will remain. This tiny remnant will have a mass of around half that of our present Sun, but will be the size of the Earth.
The end result of anything over one and below one and a third solar masses, and our sun being 1 solar mass, is a white Dwarf. The collapse of a bigger star over one and a third solar masses; results in the creation of a Neutron star, while a star over three solar Masses will create a Black Hole.
The diameter of our sun, is about 1.392 million km. You could line up 109 Earths across the face of the sun. The sun's circumference is about 4,366,813 km.
Can you imagine how dense the White Dwarf, which will be the remnant of our star, and which will be reduced to size of our earth and yet contain at least half of the mass of the present sun? One tea-spoon of material from the White Dwarf, would weigh, "WHAT?"
I wrote this post yesterday, and apparently didn't post it.
When the outwards pressure becomes greater than the gravitational force, it is then that our sun will expand outward as a Red Giant, its radius expanding to some 250 times its present radius, ingulfing the inner planets..
Eventually, when the lighter elements have been fused, and there is not enough energy to fuse the heavier elements that have been created by the fusion of helium; it is then that the gravitational force takes control and the Red Giant contracts extremely fast, an implosion, which causes a tremendous 'crunch' while at the same time, blasting off ionized gases and metals, which expand and are known as a planetary nebula. Once things calm down, a small white dwarf star will remain. This tiny remnant will have a mass of around half that of our present Sun, but will be the size of the Earth.
The end result of anything over one and below one and a third solar masses, and our sun being 1 solar mass, is a white Dwarf. The collapse of a bigger star over one and a third solar masses; results in the creation of a Neutron star, while a star over three solar Masses will create a Black Hole.
The diameter of our sun, is about 1.392 million km. You could line up 109 Earths across the face of the sun. The sun's circumference is about 4,366,813 km.
Can you imagine how dense the White Dwarf, which will be the remnant of our star, and which will be reduced to size of our earth and yet contain at least half of the mass of the present sun? One tea-spoon of material from the White Dwarf, would weigh, "WHAT?"
I wrote this post yesterday, and apparently didn't post it.