ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th June 2018, 09:10 AM   #1401
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The differentiation is common in evolved/dead stars. The heavy material sorts itself. So yea, it would be like a jaw breaker with its layers. It is similar to the principle of superposition in geology. The oldest layers are the lowest because they settled in first. With the Earth the iron core is the oldest, because that is the first object to form inside the star as it cools and dies. I went over that many years ago, as well have outlined it in the goldschmidt classification of rocks.
<balance snipped>

Jeffrey, you rather missed my point. I said that using your logic, a jawbreaker would literally be the end product of your stellar evolution.

When I was young, I made a couple of "discoveries" similar to yours. One was a perpetual motion machine that consisted of an electric motor and electric generator whose shafts were connected. All you needed to do was wire the electrical output of the generator to the input of motor, give the thing a spin, and it would run indefinitely. Genius, huh?

The other was that since our solar system had nine planets (this was some 55 years ago) it was probably a fluorine atom in a larger universe that contained ours. You know, planets being the electrons and stars being atomic nuclei in that larger universe.

A few more years of education forced me to abandon this way of thinking. That was somewhat disappointing but it led me to a richer and more satisfying understanding of the natural world.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2018, 02:03 PM   #1402
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Thumbs down Idiocy of planets being old stars made worse by the Sun becoming a red dwarf

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
New paper .....
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Persistent idiocy of planets being old stars (planets are 100,000 times lighter, different composition and we see them formed at the same time as stars) made worse by the Sun becoming a red dwarf.

This is the real Sun and its probable future based on physical laws not ignorant delusions:
Quote:
The Sun is roughly middle-aged; it has not changed dramatically for more than four billion[a] years, and will remain fairly stable for more than another five billion years. It currently fuzes about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium every second, converting 4 million tons of matter into energy every second as a result. This energy, which can take between 10,000 and 170,000 years to escape from its core, is the source of the Sun's light and heat. In about 5 billion years, when hydrogen fusion in its core has diminished to the point at which the Sun is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium, the core of the Sun will experience a marked increase in density and temperature while its outer layers expand to eventually become a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of Mercury and Venus, and render Earth uninhabitable. After this, it will shed its outer layers and become a dense type of cooling star known as a white dwarf, which no longer produces energy by fusion, but still glows and gives off heat from its previous fusion.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2018, 02:06 PM   #1403
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Thumbs down A complete delusion that exoplanet data from TESS has anything to do with stars

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
More to follow later when the TESS data begins rolling in.
5 Jun 2018 jeffreyw: A complete delusion that exoplanet data from TESS has anything to do with the physics of stars, e.g. the Sun.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2018, 02:48 PM   #1404
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Thumbs down A blatant lie of a flaring or contracting star prediction

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
.... if a star will be flaring or contracting ....
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A blatant lie of a flaring or contracting star prediction.

Red dwarf stars are often but not always observed to be flare stars.
Red dwarf stars have a maximum mass of 0.5 solar masses, i.e. are not in his graph !

The PDF is more lying fantasies.
5 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "we see an evolutionary shrink and mass loss" lie.
What really happens is that stars like the Sun lose a physically insignificant fraction of their mass throughout their lifetime. What actually controls their size is simple physics to understand - the balance between thermal pressure and gravitational pressure. When gravitational pressure is decreased by losing mass and thermal pressure remains the same, stars expand. Then thermal pressure increases and gravitational pressure remains the same, stars expand. For a star to shrink, there has to be massive loss of mass or the central fusion has to turn off.

The Sun is very slowly expanding and getting brighter right now
Quote:
It is true that the Sun is very slowly expanding and getting brighter right now. The reason for this is that as it is burning hydrogen to helium in the core the amount of hydrogen there gradually decreases. In order to keep the energy generation rate the same, the temperature and density in the core must rise. This has the effect that the energy can flow to the surface a little faster and it puffs up the outer layers (as well slightly brightening the Sun).
We have proxy records that show that the Sun has increased in temperature and the laws of physics say the Sun must have expanded.

5 June 2018 jeffreyw: An implied lie that astrophysics cannot calculate stellar radii.
Astrophysics has a formula that is valid for all main sequence stars.
Calculating the Radius of a Star
How to Calculate Stellar Radii

5 June 2018 jeffreyw: Probable ignorance that the Kepler data contains measured stellar radii.
The idiocy of a graph with no error bars certainly suggests that he does not know that the radii of host stars are calculated values from the observations in a similar manner as above. They have significant errors of ~30%.
The recent Gaia data release have given much better host star radii:
Revised Radii of Kepler Stars and Planets using Gaia Data Release 2
Quote:
A critical bottleneck for stellar astrophysics and exoplanet science using data from the Kepler mission has been the lack of precise radii and evolutionary states of the observed target stars. Here we present revised radii of 186,813 Kepler stars derived by combining parallaxes from Gaia Data Release 2 with the DR25 Kepler Stellar Properties Catalog. The median radius precision is ≈ 8%, a factor 4-5 improvement over previous estimates for typical Kepler stars.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2018, 01:50 AM   #1405
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,724
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
New paper on a dimensionless quantity to determine if a star will be flaring or contracting based on the Kepler data of stars between 1 and .5 solar masses. This is to re-appropriate the sciences from the false idea of the Sun expanding into a red giant, when clearly it will be contracting into a red dwarf far into its future as it loses mass and contracts.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0018v1.pdf

More to follow later when the TESS data begins rolling in.
Once again, not a paper. No reviewers, no references, no citations, nothing.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 08:50 AM   #1406
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I produce papers daily that have more proof on them than JW's entire collection. Fortunately I flush them away for sanitary reasons.
Interesting.

Well anyways, I have new paper on Ganymede, as it is placed on the Wolynski-Taylor diagram:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0163v1.pdf

This should help to predict how old objects are as opposed to the dogma's take of it forming in 10,000 years, which is on par with creationism. It shouldn't be a surprise because creationists also believe the universe was smaller than a watermelon, which exploded without cause into everything... Which is patently absurd.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 11:27 AM   #1407
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,320
How silly. At least the papers I produce can be used for fertilizer after they break down. Yours are virtual fertilizer as soon as you hit enter.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 01:55 PM   #1408
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Thumbs down Stupidity of the lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon yet again

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Interesting....
Very dull - one of thousands of ignorant physics internet cranks makes up yet another ignorant delusion.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Stupidity of the lying Wolynski-Taylor cartoon yet again

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: Usual "dogma" insanity has "creationism" added to it.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A total delusion that "forming" is age.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A "creationists also believe the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A " the universe was smaller than a watermelon" lie about cosmology.

For others:
The overwhelming physical evidence is that the universe was once in a hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago. The observable universe would have had a much smaller radius than today.
The Universe as a Watermelon is the observable universe having the shape of a watermelon some 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
The observable universe at the end of the inflation epoch had a size between 17 centimeters and 168 meters depending on when the epoch ended. Inflation means that we cannot measure the size of the observable universe because we do not know the length of the inflation.

And that is even before looking at the paper !

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that there are no theories explaining how life began on planets.
Abiogenesis is the application of working laws of physics and chemistry to the environment of the early Earth and thus other planets to give plausible mechanisms for the beginning of life.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A lie that "GTSM" explains how life began on planets, e.g. it starts with the insanity that planets are old stars.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A deluded and ignorant comparison between the moon Ganymede and planet Mercury.

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A insane delusion that Ganymede orbited "least 2 different hosts".

17 June 2018 jeffreyw: A delusion that only the position on his cartoon determines whether a planet or moon can support life.
The sub-surface ocean allows speculation that life could exist there because a fundamental requirement for life to exist is liquid water.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th June 2018 at 02:14 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2018, 05:52 PM   #1409
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Remnants Of Our Solar System’s Formation Found In Our Interplanetary Dust
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2018, 06:51 PM   #1410
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,153
Ask Ethan: How Do We Know The Age Of The Solar System?
Quote:
We’ve all heard the number: 4.5 billion years. But how do we know, and how certain are we that the Earth and Sun are the same age?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 05:31 AM   #1411
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,403
Nascent planet seen carving a path through the disc of gas and dust surrounding the very young star PDS70

Quote:
It is a moment of birth that has previously proved elusive, but astronomers say they now have the first confirmed image of the formation of a planet.

The startling snapshot shows a bright blob – the nascent planet – travelling through the dust and gas surrounding a young star, known as PDS70, thought to be about 370 light years from Earth.

The black circle in the centre of the image, to the left of the planet, is a filter to block the light from the star, enabling other features of the system to be seen.

Captured by the Sphere instrument of the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, the planet – a gas giant with a mass greater than Jupiter – is about as far from its star as Uranus is from our sun, with further analyses revealing that it appears to have a cloudy atmosphere and a surface temperature of 1000C.

“These discs around young stars are the birthplaces of planets, but so far only a handful of observations have detected hints of baby planets in them,” said Miriam Keppler of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany, a lead author of the research published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. However, other ground-based observations have not yielded conclusive evidence.

“The problem is that until now, most of these planet candidates could just have been features in the disc,” she said. “The advantage of our detection is that we have detected [the new planet] with several different observing instruments, different filter bands and different years,” she added.

Young planets have also previously been identified using the orbiting Kepler telescope. But that method, said Keppler, also has limitations, relying on a dimming of the star’s light as a body moves in between it and the telescope

“The special thing about this new planet is that we can directly image it, so the ones by Kepler, for example, they were derived by indirect techniques,” she told the Guardian. “In this case we now have a direct image [of the planet] in its “birthplace”, which is the circumstellar disc. This is especially important because people have been wondering [for a long time], how these planets actually form and how the dust and the material in this disc forms [into] a planet, and now we can directly observe this.”
/Thread ?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 07:17 AM   #1412
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,320
Like evidence will make any difference!
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 07:29 AM   #1413
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,320
All JW has to do is produce evidence that any star is turning into a planet and that the new central star is decelerating and maneuvering into the plane of that systems ecliptic and the mechanism as to how the hell it can ever happen.
As the new star comes in, all the planets must move to new orbits. His work is cut out for him.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 05:20 PM   #1414
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,313
I did post the same info as Pixal42 but deleted it.

Last edited by Steve001; 4th July 2018 at 05:45 PM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.