Planets, Space & Satellites don't exist

[Guard Dog]

I concur!

[Raithe]

To slightly side-step a chunk of this, but on the related note of astronomy... a sad note indeed. Patrick Moore has passed on to the celestial ever-after.

 

http://www.independe...rs-8399654.html

 

Most striking among the tributes to Sir Patrick Moore are the many which recall his dedication to inspiring new generations of amateur astronomers. There are hundreds of them at BangUniverse.com, a memorial site set up by Brian May, the Queen guitarist and astrophysicist, who describes Moore as a father figure.

 

When my brother was nine, my father wrote to Moore. He had been impressed by a lecture Moore had given at his university, and my brother, also Patrick, was going through a big space phase. I was eight and don't know what the letter said (my father has since died) but it earned them an invitation to Moore's home in Sussex, drafted on his battered Woodstock typewriter. The visit became Patrick's 10th birthday present. He's now 32.

 

"I remember sitting in his study opposite a big mahogany and leather desk," he recalls. "Dad did most of the conversation while I stared at his books on astronomy. He gave me a couple, which I still have, and later he showed us his homemade telescopes in the garden, most of which weren't working."

Moore was renowned for responding to every letter he received, and for speaking to anyone who telephoned him. At May's tribute site, a man called Terry recalls acquiring Moore's number and dialling it with friends, expecting the astronomer to hang up.

 

"Instead, a conversation ensued with Patrick for over half-an-hour about what was in the sky at that moment," Terry writes. "He answered all questions and the initial laughter that was heard upon him answering the call immediately subsided to awe."

 

Rob Manuel, a web designer, recalls on his own blog writing to Moore to ask where he might find recordings of his xylophone playing, for which Moore was well known. He wanted to use it in a novelty dance track he hoped could do well in the charts. "It was the early days of the internet and there was a Sky at Night email address on the BBC site," he writes. "I pinged an email off [asking him] how to get a recording. I was stunned to get a C90 in the post." The cassette included a typed track listing on its card sleeve and a letter. Manuel later used the recording, though it never troubled the charts.

 

Moore played his beloved xylophone to my brother and father, and entertained them for hours while his old housekeeper prepared lunch. Patrick went on to study astrophysics at Bristol University, later becoming an architect. "I remember being slightly intimidated but it was a huge privilege," he says. "I also remember being quite proud of Dad for having written the letter."

[DungeonKeeps]

 

You have no understanding of chemistry. You have no understanding of physics. Frankly, as you pointed out, you have no understanding of religion. You may continue to post your nonsense for the time being, but do not expect your ideas - as offered to date - to receive anything but contempt.

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.

 

 

I don't adore the throne of Rome. The seven hills can rot for all I care. I'm not Catholic.

 

Gravity, as currently understood, is the biggest, longest-running hoax the world has known from science.

 

You couldn't possibly know what causes that gravitational force. Basically everything modern science teaches about the universe is pretty much bull****. Gravity is not a fundamental force. It is not even close to qualifying as fundamental phenomena. More over, gravity is an amalgam of several unique phenomena. The source of gravity is unknown; as is its etiology; as is its speed. What is referred to as gravitational attraction is actually a compression phenomenon that joins with several other “new physics” phenomena to appear counter-intuitively as observed from the anthropic scale/view of the universe.

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.

[alanschu]

That it has no apparent cause doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause, however.

 

 

Having said that, this is quite the thread necro....  I had thought this thread was dismissed as a rather obvious troll thread.  /shrug

[rjshae]

Strange thread. Moving on...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[Felithvian]

 

Friction between atoms?

 

Laff.

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?

 

[Walsingham]

On balance I'd diagnose some kind of paranoid disorder and hope he gets professional help.

[pmp10]

FFS, You can't even prove fusion without oxygen!

We had fusion without oxygen since it's discovery.

[Felithvian]

GPS, how does it work?

The same way like tides: You can't explain that.

 

- Bill O'Reilly

 

 

Satellite Television -Transmitters.

Satellite Internet - Cell towers.

Satellite Imagery - Cell towers/transmitters.

 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) - Cell towers/transmitters.

 

 

FFS, You can't even prove fusion without oxygen!

We had fusion without oxygen since it's discovery.

 

 

What are you talking about?

[pmp10]

 

 

GPS, how does it work?

The same way like tides: You can't explain that.

 

- Bill O'Reilly

 

 

Satellite Television -Transmitters.

 

 

Satellite Internet - Cell towers.

 

 

 

Satellite Imagery - Cell towers/transmitters.

 

 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) - Cell towers/transmitters.

 

 

FFS, You can't even prove fusion without oxygen!

We had fusion without oxygen since it's discovery.

 

 

What are you talking about?

 

The first fusion reaction achieved in laboratory conditions were hydrogen on hydrogen.

Fusion as a reaction in general can takes place for all elements.

No idea where you got specific need for oxygen from.

[Felithvian]

The first fusion reaction achieved in laboratory conditions were hydrogen on hydrogen.

Fusion as a reaction in general can takes place for all elements.

No idea where you got specific need for oxygen from.

 

Hah! Never on earth has fusion been proven without oxygen!!

 

Heat is needed for fusion, oxygen is essential both in transmitting energy and catalysing certain chemical reactions. No oxygen = No heat = No Fusion.

[DungeonKeeps]

 

 

Friction between atoms?

 

Laff.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2013 by DungeonKeeps

[Felithvian]

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.

 

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.

[Walsingham]

I think the most polite thing to do under these circumstances - and I've had a lot of training in etiquette, so I don't want any arguments - is to taser Felithvian, load him/her into a rocket, and fire him/her into the heart of the Sun.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think the most polite thing to do under these circumstances - and I've had a lot of training in etiquette, so I don't want any arguments - is to taser Felithvian, load him/her into a rocket, and fire him/her into the heart of the Sun.

The Sun doesn't exist remember?

 

Strapping him onto a raft and pushing him off the edge of the world(he does believe that the world is flat right?) would be more appropriate and cheaper.

[pmp10]

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!

Sun is losing mass but you can't see it in out orbital cycle because the mass exchange is not significant.

 

Also, we still can't prove fusion right here on earth, you want to prove that which is unprovable somewhere in space. Fascinating.

We made enough hydrogen bombs that worked.

Fusion is well proven.

 

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.

And here you are not even trying.

[DungeonKeeps]

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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!

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. 

 

[pmp10]

 

 

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!

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.

 

Since it dose fusion it has to.

Unless you mean that its mass is being resupplied which AFAIK cannot be proven.

[Felithvian]

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.

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

We depend on statements of intellectuals we've never met & digitilized pictures given to us by strangers, it becomes a matter of trust. How well do you actually know your sources?

[alanschu]

 

 

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!

 

First off, the length of days has virtually no relevance to the gravitational pull of the sun.  Second, the days are actually getting longer, as the Moon exerts tidal forces on the planet to slow down its rotation.

 

 

 

Unless you mean that its mass is being resupplied which AFAIK cannot be proven.

Well, we can see stuff flying into it relatively consistently.  Though it's all rather inconsequential when factoring in the total size of the star, however.

[DungeonKeeps]

Since it dose fusion it has to.

Unless you mean that its mass is being resupplied which AFAIK cannot be proven.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

We depend on statements of intellectuals we've never met & digitilized pictures given to us by strangers, it becomes a matter of trust. How well do you actually know your sources?

 

 

Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts.

 

[pmp10]

None of that contradicts loss of mass as part of fusion reactions.

Since energy cannot be created or destroyed the radiation from the sun has to be released from something.

And I doubt we can claim that asteroids/comets falling into sun provide enough replacement mass to break even.

Edited June 9, 2013 by pmp10

[Felithvian]

 Also all the research fusion reactors only use tritium - no oxygen - to start fusion processes.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Bull!

 

I can't believe you actually believe that crap.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Felithvian

[DungeonKeeps]

 

 Also all the research fusion reactors only use tritium - no oxygen - to start fusion processes.

 

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.