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
 


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 7th August 2012, 09:55 PM   #321
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Depends on what part of general relativity is wrong and all Laplace did was calculate based on setting the speed of light equal to the escape velocity. It was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who calculated that there is no stable solution (in those Einstein field equations) for degenerative matter above a certain limit and thus that black holes where an inevitable result of general relativity.
Don't forget that it was Lapace FIRST (John Michell was a few years earlier yet but it was Laplace that published the calculations) and Einstein later. That's not a small feat in the late 17 hundreds.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 10:33 PM   #322
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The quasar model doesn't perhaps need extra material than what can be extracted from the vacuum, i.e. there is then no need for some external source of material.
"doesn't perhaps need"? So, perhaps it does and perhaps you should lookup what accretion mean and why an accretion disc is , well, a disc. Please show your calculations that demonstrate your claim of "doesn't perhaps need" as well as why it ain't an accretion disc.

A link for lurkers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
And the calculation is for the size of the sun. If it's assumed that the amount of energy produced near the black hole is equal to what the sun actually generates, how large will the radius be for where those particles on average are at a point where the outwards velocity of the particles with mass is zero?
Ah, so the calculations should match your speculative assumptions. Please give those calculations and let's see if that assumptive expectation conforms to those calculations.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
It's actually similar to the fusion model where there is a balance point between the expansive force of the fusion process and the gravity holding the sun together, and that determines the size of the sun.
That balance you refer to is called hydrostatic equilibrium . By all means please use such dynamics to calculate your presumptive results and provide them here. I'll even give you a link to get you started. Best of luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 7th August 2012, 10:35 PM   #323
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Don't forget that it was Lapace FIRST (John Michell was a few years earlier yet but it was Laplace that published the calculations) and Einstein later. That's not a small feat in the late 17 hundreds.
Nope, I didn't "forget that it was Lapace FIRST" and certainly made no assertion indicating otherwise. If you think equivocating Laplace's calculations based on just Newtonian mechanics to subsequent calculations based on general relativity and degenerative forces helps your case in any way. Well, that's no small feat in ignorance and were there an Olympic medal for such endeavors you just might win the gold. Though a quick perusal of just this section of this forum gives you some stiff completion.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 7th August 2012, 10:45 PM   #324
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I didn't "forget that it was Lapace FIRST" and certainly made no assertion indicating otherwise. If you think equivocating Laplace's calculations based on just Newtonian mechanics to subsequent calculations based on general relativity and degenerative forces helps your case in any way. Well, that's no small feat in ignorance and were there an Olympic medal for such endeavors you just might win the gold. Though a quick perusal of just this section of this forum gives you some stiff completion.
Well, you seem to think that more complicated theories are more impressive. I don't.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 10:55 PM   #325
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
"doesn't perhaps need"? So, perhaps it does and perhaps you should lookup what accretion mean and why an accretion disc is , well, a disc. Please show your calculations that demonstrate your claim of "doesn't perhaps need" as well as why it ain't an accretion disc.
The idea is that gravitational pull and/or an electromagnetic field is able to extract real particles out of virtual particles in the vacuum of empty space. The amount of energy produced by this process is equal to the energy the sun produces. The extraction is out of a spherical area around the black hole rather than from a disc-shaped area.

A scientific experiment has already shown that it is indeed possible to extract photons out of the vacuum:

"Quantum physics: Shaking photons out of the vacuum

The dynamical Casimir effect the generation of photons out of the quantum vacuum induced by an accelerated body has been experimentally demonstrated using a superconducting circuit that simulates a moving mirror." -- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/479303a.html
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 10:58 PM   #326
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
I must congratulate him on a very successful thread. While the OP is so full of woo, it has caused multiple face palms around the world...it has made people think....and learn. I've come away with some new knowledge about suns from the informed rebuttals to his ludicrous OP.

Long live woo!

Isn't that almost always the case? Some of the best and most informative threads I've read on this forum have been from some of the thickest of trolls. As a bonus, almost none of AL's trolls are out-and-out mean, so that's a rather refreshing course of trolling.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 7th August 2012, 11:04 PM   #327
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
If quasars produce their enormous energy with the same principle as what is generated in stars by black holes, then how can quasars produce huge narrow beams of particles, while the energy radiation from a star is spherical?

Most of the particles generated near the black hole are electrically charged. This means that their travel path is affected by the shape of the electromagnetic field in which they travel. In the case of quasars, a very strong electromagnetic field moves the particles into beams, and in stars the electromagnetic field is much weaker and allows the particles to travel more or less radially out from the area around the black hole.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 11:20 PM   #328
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Well, you seem to think that more complicated theories are more impressive. I don't.
I never said anything of the sort, don't try to presume what I think, much like you evidently do everything else.


Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The idea is that gravitational pull and/or an electromagnetic field is able to extract real particles out of virtual particles in the vacuum of empty space. The amount of energy produced by this process is equal to the energy the sun produces. The extraction is out of a spherical area around the black hole rather than from a disc-shaped area.

A scientific experiment has already shown that it is indeed possible to extract photons out of the vacuum:

"Quantum physics: Shaking photons out of the vacuum

The dynamical Casimir effect the generation of photons out of the quantum vacuum induced by an accelerated body has been experimentally demonstrated using a superconducting circuit that simulates a moving mirror." -- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/479303a.html
Fine, then show how your calculations of such 'extraction' for your 'black hole sun'* match the energy output of the sun. Again, you have a seriously hard row to hoe.



*Wait a second did you just get this whole idea from the Soundgarden song?


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Perhaps we've found the problem!!!!
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 7th August 2012, 11:30 PM   #329
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
If stars are black holes generating huge amounts of energy, then why aren't planets generating huge amounts of energy?

Take Earth, for example. The reason Earth doesn't have a black hole in the center is that the compressibility of Earth isn't enough to allow a collapse into a black hole. However, there may be a gravitational/electromagnetic effect in the Earth's core that generates heat by extracting energy from the quantum vacuum, but not to the same extent as a black hole does.

Then what about the gas giant planets? Here the idea is the same. Their mass isn't enough to cause a collapse of the gases into a black hole. A prediction that can be made is that if a planet becomes about 15 times the mass of Jupiter (that's the size of the smallest known stars), then that will be enough to collapse the gases into a black hole and the gas giant turns into a star.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 11:33 PM   #330
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The Internet.

So if someone seriously described the internet like this....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

...you'd consider their position to be a valid one?
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M 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 7th August 2012, 11:40 PM   #331
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
So if someone seriously described the internet like this....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

...you'd consider their position to be a valid one?
Yep, the claim is valid. He said the box was the entire Internet. And that it was wireless. A device wirelessly connected to the Internet is the whole Internet! Because the Internet is a network, and any of its nodes is connected to all the other nodes. And the Internet is an abstract layer on top of the physical stuff, so yeah, that box is the whole Internet.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 11:47 PM   #332
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
Isn't that almost always the case? Some of the best and most informative threads I've read on this forum have been from some of the thickest of trolls. As a bonus, almost none of AL's trolls are out-and-out mean, so that's a rather refreshing course of trolling.
While I will and have agreed to the former, the latter, well... while technically true just for most here, I can't see how this assertion....

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.

is anything but just out-and-out mean (and as mentioned before liable) against the people it is directed. Well you did say "almost".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 12:01 AM   #333
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Yep, the claim is valid. He said the box was the entire Internet. And that it was wireless. A device wirelessly connected to the Internet is the whole Internet! Because the Internet is a network, and any of its nodes is connected to all the other nodes. And the Internet is an abstract layer on top of the physical stuff, so yeah, that box is the whole Internet.
You may not be aware that - even within the fictional universe of the TV show - he is lying, and it's just a box with a blinking LED. Does this change the validity of the claim?
uvar 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 8th August 2012, 12:04 AM   #334
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by uvar View Post
You may not be aware that - even within the fictional universe of the TV show - he is lying, and it's just a box with a blinking LED. Does this change the validity of the claim?
If it really was a fake box, then yes. And it most likely was a fake box. BUT, the possibility that it was ACTUALLY wirelessly connected cannot be ruled out without knowing the situation first hand.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 12:12 AM   #335
PHLeal
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments

Last edited by kmortis; 8th August 2012 at 06:29 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
PHLeal 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 8th August 2012, 12:12 AM   #336
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
If stars are black holes generating huge amounts of energy, then why aren't planets generating huge amounts of energy?
Some are, for example Jupiter emits about twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Take Earth, for example. The reason Earth doesn't have a black hole in the center is that the compressibility of Earth isn't enough to allow a collapse into a black hole. However, there may be a gravitational/electromagnetic effect in the Earth's core that generates heat by extracting energy from the quantum vacuum, but not to the same extent as a black hole does.
What makes you think that " the compressibility of Earth isn't enough to allow a collapse into a black hole"? Please show your calculations.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Then what about the gas giant planets? Here the idea is the same. Their mass isn't enough to cause a collapse of the gases into a black hole. A prediction that can be made is that if a planet becomes about 15 times the mass of Jupiter (that's the size of the smallest known stars), then that will be enough to collapse the gases into a black hole and the gas giant turns into a star.
The calculation was already made by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, not all stars can become a black hole. Is that it? "15 times the mass of Jupiter" "the size of the smallest known stars"? Please show your work, oh wait perhaps just "the size of the smallest known stars" was your work. You've got a really hard row to hoe then.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 8th August 2012 at 12:24 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 12:21 AM   #337
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

Last edited by kmortis; 8th August 2012 at 06:30 AM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content and response to same
Macgyver1968 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 8th August 2012, 12:25 AM   #338
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Who of those people questioned Einstein's relativity AFTER that theory had become mainstream?
The theory became mainstream because it was exceptionally good at describing observed reality. Vast amounts of observation agree with relativity. The consequence of this is unless you can find instances where reality and relativity can be demonstrated to conflict, or have an alternate theory that also describes observed reality to a similar degree, denying relativity is tantamount to denying observed reality.

But many have worked on alternatives or embellishments to relativity, such as string theory or MOND. Lots of researchers are looking for something better than what relativity has to offer.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
As I said, a sound theory should PREDICT the facts, not be modified like some epicycle theory into ever more complicated special cases and add-ons.
What are you talking about? Take relativity, for example. It's been around for almost a hundred years now. Can you list some of the modifications, complicated special cases and add-ons you're referring to?

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I don't claim I have a valid theory! I'm just throwing hypotheses around. The standard model is supposed to be scientifically solid as can be, yet instead of making accurate predictions, the model is altered into ever more messy special cases when the predictions fail one after another.
Examples please.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
After the standard theories in physics have been modified umpteenth times to fit the facts, they are still not adequate enough to explain how the sun works. Did you miss this elephant in the living room: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=51
The coronal heating problem?

Just because we don't understand why something happens yet does not necessarily means that it contradicts the accepted laws of physics. The surface of the sun is an incredibly vast and complex physical environment. The computing power needed to accurately model this behavior from first principles does not exist, so you can't say that this behavior contradicts standard physical theories.

(NASA's most successful computer models are based largely on observed behavior of the sun's surface, not predicting everything from first principles.)

Besides which, your hypothesis does not address this problem either, so it's a hardly an argument in favor of your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet, but to me that's effective enough.
How is producing complete rubbish ideas due to inadequate information and understanding in any way effective?

Unless your goal is to annoy lots of people into explaining why you're wrong, in which case it does appear to be a very effective technique.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, but with the Internet it's possible to pull out all kinds of information within minutes!
But fully understanding that information can require a great deal of time and research, especially if its an over-simplified (dumbed-down) version intended for the average person who doesn't really need accurate or highly detailed information.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Nope. Compare with the epicycle theories again. They became more and more messy and sure enough, they became more accurate, but alas, they were based on the false assumption that Earth was stationary and everything else orbiting around it in ever more complicated special cases of epicycles.

If the exceptions are so few, then why did the standard model start so simple and today is such a colossal monstrosity?
And how can you conclude that the standard model of particle physics a complex colossal monstrosity without taking the time and effort to try and understand even the basics?

Sure, it's counter-intuitive and requires advanced mathematics to fully fully explain, but that doesn't necessarily make it a colossal monstrosity. Can you think of any simpler theory that describes all known behavior of subatomic particles with a high degree of mathematical precision?

If it's complex theory, that's only because reality is complex. It has to explain the behavior of 61 elementary particles with different properties. While some of them are only inferred to exist, most have been observed and measured.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
My idea was that black holes can be formed out of all kinds of matter, including out of hydrogen and helium. Have I missed something that makes that impossible?
No, but that was not the point he was making. The point was that if suns are black-holes and not massive fusion reactions, where do all the heavy elements that could only have been formed by fusion come from?

Your suggestion that black-holes also extract heavier particles from the vacuum doesn't explain this because atoms/elements are assemblages of many particles, they don't spring fully formed from the vacuum as particle-antiparticle pairs like Hawking radiation.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The point yes, but what is the situation in reality? What if some gatekeeper scientists (in what Richard Dolan calls the breakaway civilization) hide the real science (in black op projects etc) and give the public community false science to chew on endlessly?

Knowledge is power, and if a group can mislead the public community to pursue false science in key areas the group can maintain and keep great power to themselves.
And everybody who studies physics or takes up a science-based career is either indoctrinated into this secret society or are idiots who never notice that what they've been taught is garbage that doesn't fit the facts?

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
Ah, so you are advocating conspiracy nutjobbery.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M 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 8th August 2012, 12:29 AM   #339
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The coronal heating problem remains unsolved!!! And that's a massive flaw in the standard models in physics when it comes to explaining how the sun works.
A flaw in the standard model of the sun perhaps, but not a flaw in the standard model of particle physics, nor a flaw in relativity, nor a flaw in anything else for that matter.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ok, but did you notice this part of my post: "extracting particles out of the vacuum"

Is that how quasars produce their energy?
No, the particles already exist in stellar gasses drawn into an accretion disk around the black hole by gravity. Gravitational compression of the gas causes it to emit energy.

Black holes without accretion disks are not quasars.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
A black hole with the mass of the sun would only have a diameter of 6 km (3.8 miles). That's tiny compared to the size of the sun. But I came to think of a possible solution to the size of the sun:

Let's say that there is a small black hole inside the sun spinning in an electromagnetic field and that it produces huge amounts of radiation and particles moving outwards with explosive force. Even though the particles are moving outwards at great velocities, the particles with mass will be effected by the gravitational field of the black hole. At a certain distance from the surface (event horizon) of the black hole there will be a point of equilibrium between the average outflow of particles and the gravity pull of the black hole. That distance is marked by the surface of the sun! If the actual calculations for this will support this. Then that would explain the size of the sun, even though the black hole is very small compared to it.
Um.... Pretending all that made sense for a moment, what about the poles of the black hole? Since they're barely moving compared to the equator, the particles would be released at much lower speeds, making the sun more disk-shaped (flying-saucer shaped) than round.

I'll leave the rest of the objections about this to everyone else.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M 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 8th August 2012, 01:14 AM   #340
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
Why are smart people so easy to troll?

I've been trying to work that one out too. If I see a post or thread written by Anders or anyone of the other people you'd avoid sitting next to on the bus, I just ignore it knowing full well that it will be complete nonsense. Yet others will happily jump in time after time knowing that their efforts will be totally fruitless. Is this a form of civic care in the community?

Next topic: Is the sea a lemon? Maybe it's time for a sock-puppet.
Sunstealer 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 8th August 2012, 01:24 AM   #341
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
To address the coronal heating problem.


Current theories are centered in resistive magneto-hydrodynamics. Much like hydrodynamic equilibrium it is based on fluid dynamics. Although the "fluid" in this case is a conductive or highly (super) conductive plasma (disassociated electrons and nuclei) and thus is influenced by magnetic fields (sun's got them in spades). Much like the membrane paradigm for black holes those magnetic fields become "frozen" in the highly conductive plasma. However unlike that paradigm resistive areas can (no such areas on the membrane) produce a magnetic reconnection. Take two (business card type) refrigerator magnets and slide then against each other. The resistance and the release that you feel is magnetic reconnection (the magnets may be produced differently so rotate one 90 degrees if you don't feel the stop and slip). That's magnetic reconnection, just like a compass can be aligned to the Earth's magnetic field but when you bring, say, a bar magnet close it aligns to that. The fields have reconnected, remove the bar magnet and the compass reconnects to the Earth's magnetic field.


Currently theories of resistive magneto-hydrodynamics don't match the time scales we see in coronal activity (I forget what the current discrepancy is, 2 or 3X but I might be wrong) but the relation to magnetic dynamo activity in the sun and current laboratory experimentation demonstrates that the application of fundamentally observable (you can do it with refrigerator magnets in your own home) interaction has the potential to transfer solar energy from the internal magnetic dynamo directly to the corona where coronal mass ejections result from the turbulent reconnection of magnetic field lines.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 8th August 2012 at 01:30 AM. Reason: added "interaction" that I forgot
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 01:38 AM   #342
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PHLeal View Post
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed personal comments
If I were satisfied with the standard models, then I would not come up with something as radical as this hypothesis. I'm not satisfied with the current standard models.

Last edited by kmortis; 8th August 2012 at 06:30 AM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 01:40 AM   #343
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I've been trying to work that one out too. If I see a post or thread written by Anders or anyone of the other people you'd avoid sitting next to on the bus, I just ignore it knowing full well that it will be complete nonsense. Yet others will happily jump in time after time knowing that their efforts will be totally fruitless. Is this a form of civic care in the community?

Next topic: Is the sea a lemon? Maybe it's time for a sock-puppet.
It's the kind of error I'd prefer to make in a public forum since some of it might at least interesting for others, and regardless I'd far sooner make the error that way round than not explain something when maybe I should have done.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 8th August 2012, 01:46 AM   #344
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Some are, for example Jupiter emits about twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.



What makes you think that " the compressibility of Earth isn't enough to allow a collapse into a black hole"? Please show your calculations.



The calculation was already made by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, not all stars can become a black hole. Is that it? "15 times the mass of Jupiter" "the size of the smallest known stars"? Please show your work, oh wait perhaps just "the size of the smallest known stars" was your work. You've got a really hard row to hoe then.
I saw a list somewhere of the masses of known stars (I don't have the link) where it mentions 15 times the mass of Jupiter for the stars with smallest mass (if I remember correctly).

Jupiter generating a lot of energy is consistent with what I wrote. I mentioned that even the core of the Earth may generate energy similar to how black holes generate energy in stars. The black holes generate a lot more energy though according to my hypothesis. Why? Because of a larger gravitational field and only the vacuum of space surrounding the black hole, and possibly dependent on what kind of electromagnetic field surrounds the black hole.

Why doesn't Earth collapse into a black hole? Because its mass is not enough to compress the elements that make up Earth into a black hole. It should be fairly easy for an expert to calculate that. I'm not an expert on physics.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 01:47 AM   #345
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I've been trying to work that one out too. If I see a post or thread written by Anders or anyone of the other people you'd avoid sitting next to on the bus, I just ignore it knowing full well that it will be complete nonsense. Yet others will happily jump in time after time knowing that their efforts will be totally fruitless. Is this a form of civic care in the community?

Next topic: Is the sea a lemon? Maybe it's time for a sock-puppet.
Ignorance is their forte and where they excel. While sitting on a bus I'd probably avoid them as well. However, the entire point of this forum is to specifically and directly address ignorance. The purpose of me being on a bus is to get to my destination, thus the two goals ain't the same.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 01:54 AM   #346
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
What are you talking about? Take relativity, for example. It's been around for almost a hundred years now. Can you list some of the modifications, complicated special cases and add-ons you're referring to?

No, but that was not the point he was making. The point was that if suns are black-holes and not massive fusion reactions, where do all the heavy elements that could only have been formed by fusion come from?

Your suggestion that black-holes also extract heavier particles from the vacuum doesn't explain this because atoms/elements are assemblages of many particles, they don't spring fully formed from the vacuum as particle-antiparticle pairs like Hawking radiation.
If Einstein's relativity would be consistent with the other theories in physics it would be less of a problem. The problem is that it isn't. Take the horrendous superstring/M-theories for example. Another case of 'epicycle theories'.

Yes, I suggest that even heavier elements can be extracted from the vacuum. I admit that stars of the same mass showing different chemical compositions in their spectra is a huge problem for my hypothesis. At the moment the thing I will do is to make a bold prediction that it will turn out that stars with the same mass will have essentially identical spectra and be of equal size.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:00 AM   #347
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Um.... Pretending all that made sense for a moment, what about the poles of the black hole? Since they're barely moving compared to the equator, the particles would be released at much lower speeds, making the sun more disk-shaped (flying-saucer shaped) than round.
Say hello to my double black hole energy generator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP6MYU-Igk
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:02 AM   #348
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I saw a list somewhere of the masses of known stars (I don't have the link) where it mentions 15 times the mass of Jupiter for the stars with smallest mass (if I remember correctly).
I have no doubt of that or interest in its accuracy.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Jupiter generating a lot of energy is consistent with what I wrote. I mentioned that even the core of the Earth may generate energy similar to how black holes generate energy in stars. The black holes generate a lot more energy though according to my hypothesis. Why? Because of a larger gravitational field and only the vacuum of space surrounding the black hole, and possibly dependent on what kind of electromagnetic field surrounds the black hole.
Fine, then just show your calculations that demonstrate that "the Earth may generate energy similar to how black holes generate energy".

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Why doesn't Earth collapse into a black hole? Because its mass is not enough to compress the elements that make up Earth into a black hole. It should be fairly easy for an expert to calculate that. I'm not an expert on physics.
Hence your problem, become "an expert on physics" or at least gain some knowledge of mechanics of materials. The choice is yours, no one can do it for you, you've got to choose to educate yourself. So far all evidence indicates you haven't.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 02:18 AM   #349
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Fine, then just show your calculations that demonstrate that "the Earth may generate energy similar to how black holes generate energy".
I'm taking a birds-eye view of it at the moment. Otherwise there's a risk that I spin off on a tangent that may lead nowhere. Plus it would probably take a long for me to do any calculations like that.

Ok, I will do some searches for the compressibility of hydrogen. That's a simple enough start. My hypothesis is that when enough hydrogen has lumped together and accumulated enough mass it will always collapse into a black hole. (Maybe some helium can be needed but I will start with only hydrogen.)
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:19 AM   #350
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
If I were satisfied with the standard models, then I would not come up with something as radical as this hypothesis. I'm not satisfied with the current standard models.
Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for everyone else, your satisfaction (or anyone's) ain't a prerequisite.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 02:22 AM   #351
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I'm taking a birds-eye view of it at the moment.
LOL @ "at the moment".

I think the seagull approach pretty much sums up all your threads whatever their topic: skim over making lots of noise, crap over everything and leave.
Jack by the hedge 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 8th August 2012, 02:23 AM   #352
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Whoa. This is far above my head:

"The ground-state energy, the pressure, and the compressibility of solid molecular hydrogen is calculated by means of a modified Brueckner theory. The Bethe-Goldstone equation is solved to give the reaction matrix or an effective interaction in coordinate space; the ground-state energies for normal hydrogen and deuterium are calculated. Also, the pressure and the compressibility is estimated from the dependence of the ground-state energy on density or molar volume. Both hcp and fcc structures are considered. Theoretical results for the ground-state energy per particle are 82 K for solid hydrogen at a molar volume of 22 cm3/mole and 135 K for solid deuterium at a molar volume of 19 cm3/mole." -- http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8864u5242006763/

Does anyone of you understand anything of that? lol.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:29 AM   #353
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I'm taking a birds-eye view of it at the moment. Otherwise there's a risk that I spin off on a tangent that may lead nowhere. Plus it would probably take a long for me to do any calculations like that.

Ok, I will do some searches for the compressibility of hydrogen. That's a simple enough start. My hypothesis is that when enough hydrogen has lumped together and accumulated enough mass it will always collapse into a black hole. (Maybe some helium can be needed but I will start with only hydrogen.)
I don't think you need to waste your time on it - it's true. The bigger the hole you try to make the less density you need to make it, so put enough hydrogen (or helium, or uranium, or bananas or anything else) in one place and you're guaranteed a hole.

This will be a lot of hydrogen though, for the sorts of densities you probably have in mind - lots of stars worth.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 8th August 2012, 02:33 AM   #354
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
This will be a lot of hydrogen though, for the sorts of densities you probably have in mind - lots of stars worth.
I imagine that the collapse of the hydrogen begins in the surface of the mass. And when the first amount of hydrogen collapses it leads to a slight reduction in volume for the ball of hydrogen, which in turn increases the gravitational internal force, leading to faster and faster collapse until the whole mass forms a black hole.

Last edited by Anders Lindman; 8th August 2012 at 02:35 AM.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:35 AM   #355
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I'm taking a birds-eye view of it at the moment. Otherwise there's a risk that I spin off on a tangent that may lead nowhere.
Oh no need to worry about that risk, it has long passed.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Plus it would probably take a long for me to do any calculations like that.
Take all the time you need, we'll still be here.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ok, I will do some searches for the compressibility of hydrogen. That's a simple enough start. My hypothesis is that when enough hydrogen has lumped together and accumulated enough mass it will always collapse into a black hole. (Maybe some helium can be needed but I will start with only hydrogen.)
Well once you start compressing hydrogen passing the coulomb barrier you get more expansive forces from inertial confinement fusion (proton-proton chain). That's hydrogen bomb type expansive forces, mind you, and we've done that here (Carbon-Oxygen-Nitrogen cycle fusion dominates in stars 1.3 or more solar mass). You really do have to consider degenerate matter (in all cases) before a catastrophic gravitational collapse becomes inevitable. Sorry to say again but you've got a very hard row to hoe.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 8th August 2012 at 02:36 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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 8th August 2012, 02:38 AM   #356
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
That's hydrogen bomb type expansive forces
That would depend on the theory of fusion being correct. My prediction is that the theory of fusion is false.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:42 AM   #357
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
That would depend on the theory of fusion being correct. My prediction is that the theory of fusion is false.
The theory on which we actually built fusion bombs, tokamaks and stellarators? Why do they work, then?

Also, "prediction" has a meaning. A prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, which can subsequently be tested. You provide no real hypothesis at all, let alone a logical derivation which would lead to the statement "if so-and-so, then fusion works not like we think it does."

You offer no prediction, you offer a baseless assertion.
GeneMachine 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 8th August 2012, 02:45 AM   #358
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
That would depend on the theory of fusion being correct. My prediction is that the theory of fusion is false.
That's not a prediction. That's just stupid.

We've detonated hydrogen bombs. We've built fusion reactors (just not very good ones). Kids build fusion reactors (again, not very good ones) as high school science projects.

Arrogance and ignorance are poor partners.

Good day, sir.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 8th August 2012, 02:53 AM   #359
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
The theory on which we actually built fusion bombs, tokamaks and stellarators? Why do they work, then?

Also, "prediction" has a meaning. A prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, which can subsequently be tested. You provide no real hypothesis at all, let alone a logical derivation which would lead to the statement "if so-and-so, then fusion works not like we think it does."

You offer no prediction, you offer a baseless assertion.
I have a hypothesis for why the theory of fusion is false. But that's something for the conspiracy theory section.
Anders Lindman 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 8th August 2012, 02:55 AM   #360
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
That's not a prediction. That's just stupid.

We've detonated hydrogen bombs. We've built fusion reactors (just not very good ones). Kids build fusion reactors (again, not very good ones) as high school science projects.

Arrogance and ignorance are poor partners.

Good day, sir.
I will not go into conspiracy theory stuff, but just ask yourself how successful the fusion reactors have been.
Anders Lindman 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 09:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.