Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DungeonKeeps

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I'd rather deal with these spiders than a lot of people I know.
  2. Disproving one theory does not automatically prove another right. Here is an example. Say there is a red cube hidden behind a solid wall. With a set of experiments I conclude that there is probably a yellow sphere behind it. You say, that there is definitely a green triangle behind it. Let's also say that you find arguments proving that it cannot be both yellow and a sphere, maybe neither of those. So, what does it tell you about your theory? Nothing. Radioactive decay, like all decay doesn't need oxygen, but to obtain this form of decay, you needed oxygen. Fusion reactors, eh? Fusion reactors... Ayy, Quants en governa la farina! We don't even know how to friggin build them!!! That's like someone saying that a black-hole outside our solar system will suck us into the Romulan Star Quadrant, ahead WARP factor 1 Mr Sulu. You speak like those strange people who know what was happening a million years ago, yet they don't even know if medieval people wore underwear or not! One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bull****. You see, this is the problem with you guys. It's either good or bad, black or white, right or wrong, God/Christ or Satan. This is the cage you try to press your view of the world in. Ever heard of love, understanding, respect, tolerance? Did I insult you for your beliefs? I thought this was a scientific discussion, but apparently I was wrong in that regard.
  3. All reactors are in the open spaces of earth, air is everywhere, even in an empty shoe box, furthermore, reactors use Uranium for fuel, where does the Sun get its Uranium? I ask because you base the Sun's theory of fusion on the principles of Nuclear fusion from a reactor. This is something else. Fission reactors use uranium. It is split and then releases energy. These reactors often work without air, but the material is stored under water too cool it. But: It is not that hot that water is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen. You only can get steam. There are also reactors that use liquid sodium for cooling. No air here. Some space probes like Pioneer 10 have fission reactors with plutonium on board. So, how does it work in space? The sun is a fusion reactor. It combines nuclei of atoms.
  4. But you said: "Here is how it works: fusion increases -> temperature rises -> radiative pressure increases -> sun expands -> temperature decreases -> fusion decreases -> sun shrinks" 1. So how does the temperature rise without the mass? If there is no gain in mass. 2. How does the temperature decrease without loss in mass? It is not the mass, it is the pressure it produces. It is almost like an air pump for your bicycle. When you compress the air, it gets hot. But its mass is not increased. In the core of the sun: If the core temperature decreases because of a reduced reaction rate, the pressure from the inside is reduced. The gravity that was previously balanced by the radiation pressure from the inside is now relatively stronger and leads to a compression of the core. This increases the temperature leading to an increase of the reaction rate. The decrease in temperature works the other way around: If the core reaction is increased, the temperature rises. This leads to an expansion of the sun. But every expansion of gas cools it (thermodynamics). This in turn reduces the core reaction rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year Here is a quote from that site: "Originally Posted by Wikipedia" Due to changes in the precession rate and in the orbit of the Earth, there exists a steady change in the length of the tropical year. This can be expressed with a polynomial in time; the linear term is: difference (days) = −0.000 000 061 62×a days, or about 5 ms/year, which means that 2000 years ago the tropical year was 10 seconds longer . It is only about years an how many days a year has. Ah wait, now I get it. It says "difference (days)". This does not mean that the days are getting shorter. The time difference of the years is only expressed in units of days. Multiply this value by 24 and you get hours. It is just a way of expressing a quantity of time. Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts.
  5. Always hated that guy, he reminds me of him:
  6. If the Sun shrank from the time before time, the Sun would have lost mass, it would have lost gravity pull, earth would take longer to rotate around the Sun. But the truth is the opposite, days are getting shorter! Also, we still can't prove fusion right here on earth, you want to prove that which is unprovable somewhere in space. Fascinating. Just listen to this, 100 degrees Celsius. No materials on Earth could withstand direct contact with such heat. But yea, we must all accept this bull**** because we askers of questions are devourers of truth. Oh dear, a mixture of errors! I didn't mean "shrink" in the way that it loses mass. I meant expansion and relaxation similar to a balloon. Second, the revolution of the earth around the sun does not produce days but years. And in fact, the days are getting longer, because earth is losing angular momentum to the moon's orbit around earth. Scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held and squeezed inside an intense doughnut-shaped magnetic field, this alone is reason to believe they can withstand such temperature. Sun is losing mass but you can't see it in out orbital cycle because the mass exchange is not significant. The sun is not losing mass pmp10.
  7. Pressure is friction. No air, no friction. Pressure is force per unit area. P=F/A, and without air, you can't have any heat generating from that pressure. Heat is needed for fusion, the whole principle is based on this to fuse the atoms, to get extreme heat for the fusion, the atoms must collide with extreme force, that collision can only be brought upon by contact, when the atoms touch this is friction, and this friction can only ignite with the presents of oxygen. A nuclear fusion does not necessarily need oxygen. The process combines four hydrogen ions (protons) to a single helium nucleus. However, the actual process that very likely is working in the sun uses carbon, oxygen and nitrogen as intermittent byproducts to finally produce helium. On the one hand, these elements are produced by the sun itself, on the other, a star like the sun does also contain traces of elements other than hydrogen right from the start. That has been measured as well. FFS, You can't even prove fusion without oxygen! Are you basing the Sun's theory of fusion on the principles of Nuclear fusion from a reactor? How does this cause fusion in a zero oxygen environment? What kind of a reactor does the sun use to control and sustain a steady flow of this fusion from not becoming a chain reaction causing an explosion? Do I have a fusion reactor in my pocket? Do I store nuclear bombs in the cellar? You just have to accept that all the unholy H bombs work in the same manner - without a trace of oxygen inside. Also all the research fusion reactors only use tritium - no oxygen - to start fusion processes. The sun IS a self-regulating reactor. Radiative pressure from within outbalances the gravitation from the outside. Here is how it works: fusion increases -> temperature rises -> radiative pressure increases -> sun expands -> temperature decreases -> fusion decreases -> sun shrinks And the other way around. The current research reactors to study fusion of hydrogen (protons to be correct) inject small pellets of frozen tritium into an evacuated reaction chamber. It would be disastrous to have oxygen inside. The scientists do their best to get all the remaining oxygen out. They may even flood the chamber with a non-reactive gas first before evacuating it to exclude such side effects.
  8. Awesome thread. We'll have one hand grabbing our _ _ _ _ while the other hand reaches the tissue for the final ooOOooohhhh!
  9. Generic MMO with the DnD name plastered all over it. Surprised to see Obsidian members embracing this crap.
  10. Obsidian, quite possibly the last source of light from these dark lands. Thanks, really appreciate your hard work.
  11. Well. I have a B.Sc. in what would be roughly mathematics and physics in the US. If anything, that has learned me how little I know about the many branches of physics I have only seen the tip of the iceberg of. Not to mention how little random dude #2352 on the internet knows. True, gravity might the biggest hoax perpetrated by physics. There is absolutely no logic that can support action-at-a-distance in any medium; there is always something unseen or unperceived. Caltech, alone, may well spend over a billon dollars looking for gravity waves that do not exist. If as Einstein’s theories contend (erroneously) that nothing can exceed the speed of light, we would have found gravity waves long ago. Surely you mean gravitational waves? Also, would you care to elaborate on what your explanation might be? Gravity itself can never (not even in a near future) be explained, unless somehow you believe that gravity is an attractive “action-at-a-distance force” with mysterious QCD attractive interactions which would require three forces (reach, grasp, and pull) between all matter, and groups of matter, that exist . . . down to the infinitesimal, which is quite frankly, ridiculous. Funny how a “fundamental” force of “nature” can have no apparent cause for existing at all.
  12. And the beatyfull thing is that in eternity also can be some haunted manson (mayby not LA style) haunted masion was awsome and even if you where a vampire this still was scary ha I pretty much agree. However it would feel rather strange, wouldn't it?
  13. How's the multiplayer population? I heard it's pretty dead.
  • Create New...