I'm currently working on a post that I hope abraxalito and maybe 7n7 will understand and I hope they will see my point when I do post that, but I'm not quite there yet.
However, saying that the sun is not powered by fusion because we can't reproduce it is wrong in two ways:
One: It assumes that we are so technologically advanced we can reproduce any physical effect here on earth, which we can't. We can't reproduce black holes (not reliably anyway), does that mean they don't exist?
Two: We HAVE reproduced nuclear fusion, for one in a rather crude way in fusion bombs and nowadays we can and do reproduce nuclear fusion in two ways: One is by aiming a bunch of high-powered lasers at some matter and heating them up until the point of fusion and another is creating this plasma where fusion happens and it does happen in these reactors we call Tokamak-type reactors.
We just haven't been able to keep a sustained reaction going, but for short periods we HAVE reproduced fusion.
And indeed like Charles said: ALL elements heavier than hydrogen have to have been made by nuclear fusion, please explain the electrical phenomenon that fuses atoms or at least creates atoms heavier than hydrogen.
Now why haven't we've been able to create sustained nuclear fusion? They've been saying for the last 30 years that sustained nuclear fusion is 30 years away and the latest projections are as early as 2020 and as late as 2050. The problem is funding.
Creating and operating these reactors cost a lot of money, and as long as we have (relatively) dirt-cheap energy in the form of fossil fuel no company is going to invest in nuclear fusion much. In 30 years or so we will HAVE to find an alternative and I think we will once the science picks up. It's just too bad nobody cares enough about actually solving our energy problem, nuclear fusion IS the answer. No amount of solar, wind or tidal or bio fuel whatever can provide enough energy. In the meantime we should focus on nuclear power, there is an interesting technology called a Traveling Wave Reactor which has the ability to use Thorium as a fuel of which we have more than Uranium AND as a kicker it can use the highly radioactive waste fuel of other reactors, burn that and the resulting waste is only radioactive for hundreds of years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of years for normal waste. Which is still a big problem because what material and location remains stable for that long, even when it's been long forgotten maybe? Hundreds of years is much more manageable in that sense.
However, saying that the sun is not powered by fusion because we can't reproduce it is wrong in two ways:
One: It assumes that we are so technologically advanced we can reproduce any physical effect here on earth, which we can't. We can't reproduce black holes (not reliably anyway), does that mean they don't exist?
Two: We HAVE reproduced nuclear fusion, for one in a rather crude way in fusion bombs and nowadays we can and do reproduce nuclear fusion in two ways: One is by aiming a bunch of high-powered lasers at some matter and heating them up until the point of fusion and another is creating this plasma where fusion happens and it does happen in these reactors we call Tokamak-type reactors.
We just haven't been able to keep a sustained reaction going, but for short periods we HAVE reproduced fusion.
And indeed like Charles said: ALL elements heavier than hydrogen have to have been made by nuclear fusion, please explain the electrical phenomenon that fuses atoms or at least creates atoms heavier than hydrogen.
Now why haven't we've been able to create sustained nuclear fusion? They've been saying for the last 30 years that sustained nuclear fusion is 30 years away and the latest projections are as early as 2020 and as late as 2050. The problem is funding.
Creating and operating these reactors cost a lot of money, and as long as we have (relatively) dirt-cheap energy in the form of fossil fuel no company is going to invest in nuclear fusion much. In 30 years or so we will HAVE to find an alternative and I think we will once the science picks up. It's just too bad nobody cares enough about actually solving our energy problem, nuclear fusion IS the answer. No amount of solar, wind or tidal or bio fuel whatever can provide enough energy. In the meantime we should focus on nuclear power, there is an interesting technology called a Traveling Wave Reactor which has the ability to use Thorium as a fuel of which we have more than Uranium AND as a kicker it can use the highly radioactive waste fuel of other reactors, burn that and the resulting waste is only radioactive for hundreds of years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of years for normal waste. Which is still a big problem because what material and location remains stable for that long, even when it's been long forgotten maybe? Hundreds of years is much more manageable in that sense.
I'm sure Einstein had as many critics if not more, as did Newton.
As for me, I've come to accept that the earth is not flat and science keeps progressing no matter how much you bury your head in the sand. If you work hard enough you can imagine that the earth is the centre of the universe.
The HIFI site
Facebook Login
As for me, I've come to accept that the earth is not flat and science keeps progressing no matter how much you bury your head in the sand. If you work hard enough you can imagine that the earth is the centre of the universe.
The HIFI site
Facebook Login
Last edited:
Most this is so because the momentary extra profit is worth much more at everything. Nobody cares about it what will be tomorrow. Especially day after tomorrow.
I think 8-10% of people really do care,
60-70% do not care because either they don't believe the evidence because they do not like the sacrifices which would have to be made or have to worry more about where their next meal is coming from and the rest does not care anymore because it is too late already.
A lot of people think Einstein used his fame to promote his communist or leftist views. A lot of communists and leftists supported him, too.
The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's ... - Google Books
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act
The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's ... - Google Books
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act
I shouldn't even reply to this but I don't see how this is in any way relevant.
I understand that George Ohm, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Andre-Marie Ampere, Charles Coulomb and Alessandro Volta have also been implicated for unacceptable political leanings & we must reformulate all of their findings. Please vote your preference:
1. V=I/R
2. V=I^3/R
3. V doesn't give a damn what I & R are doing...he will henceforth do his own thing
1. V=I/R
2. V=I^3/R
3. V doesn't give a damn what I & R are doing...he will henceforth do his own thing
Einstein was never completely happy with his theory of relativity, it's not compatible with quantum theory. If you look at the temperature on the surface of the sun it's a mere 2,000 C, whereas a short distance away from the sun the temperature rises to millions of degrees as can be seen from the corona during a total eclipse. The best explanation for this is that the sun uses plasma (the fourth state of matter) to generate its output. Electricity flows easily through plasma. Scientists are fully aware of the huge magnetic fields generated on the sun. If you also look at sunspots, which is a hole in the surface of the sun the temperature is much lower, whereas it should be higher.
As for where the heavier elements come from you could might just as well ask where hydrogen comes from.
The HIFI site
Facebook Login
As for where the heavier elements come from you could might just as well ask where hydrogen comes from.
The HIFI site
Facebook Login
Here's a few convenient examples of Einstein's theories.
1. Relativity. Take two cesium clocks, and carry one to the top of a mountain for two weeks while leaving the other below sea level. Place the clocks together, and there will be a small - but measurable and repeatable - difference between them. (I've seen this done with a van.
2. Equivalency of mass and energy. We like to call it "Nuclear Fission." Nuclear fusion works too - just look at the sun.
3. Time dilation. Relativity says that radio waves passing near a very large mass will be delayed by gravitic time distortion. Conveniently, the Cassini probe measured delays that - interestingly - were very much in line with relativistic theory.
1. Relativity. Take two cesium clocks, and carry one to the top of a mountain for two weeks while leaving the other below sea level. Place the clocks together, and there will be a small - but measurable and repeatable - difference between them. (I've seen this done with a van.
2. Equivalency of mass and energy. We like to call it "Nuclear Fission." Nuclear fusion works too - just look at the sun.
3. Time dilation. Relativity says that radio waves passing near a very large mass will be delayed by gravitic time distortion. Conveniently, the Cassini probe measured delays that - interestingly - were very much in line with relativistic theory.
You are making a meaningless statement in a sense. What theory wasn't Einstein happy with? Since you're talking about quantum physics/mechanics, this implies general relativity. But it's important to make the distinction because although they are based in the same general idea, they are theories about very different things. Please be more specific.
Anyway, assuming you mean general relativity, yes it is incompatible with quantum theory, but that only becomes a problem around the Planck length, i.e. extremely extremely small lengths.
None of our theories are perfect, but in their own areas they predict reality extremely well and the effects predicted by both of Einstein's theories have been observed and verified. (Moreso in the case of special relativity, but also in the case of general)
HOWEVER, please do keep in mind that we have been talking about special relativity for the most part, and that theory has been verified beyond any shred of doubt. General relativity is verified too, but not as rigorously since it's much more difficult to verify. (The reason being that it's a theory largely about gravity, and that relatively to the other forces, gravity is really really weak, so any relativistic effects in the order of magnitude of SRT's effecs would be difficult to measure. They only become really obvious around things with extreme gravity, like black holes.
Most people here that are against Einstein's theories make a capital mistake: That if a few observations are made that cannot be explained by a theory invalidates the entire thing. No it does not. There is tons of evidence proving that it really is a solid theory.
Can you explain how this violates our known theories please? That the corona is way hotter than the surface is known, and that sunspots are colder is known too. Why should sunspots be hotter?
Hydrogen is the simplest element. It is a proton with an electron around it, so it's as elementary as it gets. Where does it come from? The big bang.
After the big bang the universe was about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium.
It takes nuclear fusion to create more complex elements.
I wasn't going to say this at first, but I have to agree that he has appearances against him, it's really thinly veiled.
7n7is first wraps it in "science", now "communism"? Get real.
Last edited:
That follows in the fine tradition of the Nobelist Phillipp Lenard.
Interestingly, it would seem that the deck was stacked against Einstein from a sociological point of view. Physics was dominated by Germans, French, and British, and was largely centered in elite institutions. There's a joke that the world's thinnest book was "Jewish Physicists Before Einstein," but there's truth in that joke. Einstein was an outsider in that he didn't have an academic appointment, didn't attend the "best" meetings, nor give seminars at the "right" schools. In fact, he was excluded from most of them because of his Jewish and proletarian background. Eventually, he was threatened with death and driven out of his home country because of his ethnicity.
It was purely the power, beauty, and correctness of his ideas that caused them to overturn the (at the time) conventional understanding of physical law. When we view the world through a contemporary lens, we fail to understand the deeply racist and exclusionary milieu of that era. There were no Jews in that field, no Chinese, no Koreans, no Japanese, almost no Russians. The idea that there was some plot by early 20th century Northern European Christian physicists to canonize wrong ideas of an obscure Jewish patent clerk is, frankly, insane.
Interestingly, it would seem that the deck was stacked against Einstein from a sociological point of view. Physics was dominated by Germans, French, and British, and was largely centered in elite institutions. There's a joke that the world's thinnest book was "Jewish Physicists Before Einstein," but there's truth in that joke. Einstein was an outsider in that he didn't have an academic appointment, didn't attend the "best" meetings, nor give seminars at the "right" schools. In fact, he was excluded from most of them because of his Jewish and proletarian background. Eventually, he was threatened with death and driven out of his home country because of his ethnicity.
It was purely the power, beauty, and correctness of his ideas that caused them to overturn the (at the time) conventional understanding of physical law. When we view the world through a contemporary lens, we fail to understand the deeply racist and exclusionary milieu of that era. There were no Jews in that field, no Chinese, no Koreans, no Japanese, almost no Russians. The idea that there was some plot by early 20th century Northern European Christian physicists to canonize wrong ideas of an obscure Jewish patent clerk is, frankly, insane.
Hawking statements are decisive for me in these topics.
According to me he is bigger mind than Einstein was.
His latest statements strengthen this view of mine:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian
And immediately attacked him as well:
The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion
This is a situation in which I tried to refer to my earlier post.
(If someone might have tried to understand what I wrote there.)
So once again:
In my opinion:
Let there be light
and
The Big Bang
have the same philosophical category.
Who believes in which one he wants.
In any event, if there is a God, a rather perverse form can be, if the greatest mind of humanity in such wretched body binding.
It is possible to attack me then now.
I am fairly much miserable one.
So this does not count afterwards because of this.
Wacky Gyuri
According to me he is bigger mind than Einstein was.
His latest statements strengthen this view of mine:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian
And immediately attacked him as well:
The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion
This is a situation in which I tried to refer to my earlier post.
(If someone might have tried to understand what I wrote there.)
So once again:
In my opinion:
Let there be light
and
The Big Bang
have the same philosophical category.
Who believes in which one he wants.
In any event, if there is a God, a rather perverse form can be, if the greatest mind of humanity in such wretched body binding.
It is possible to attack me then now.
I am fairly much miserable one.
So this does not count afterwards because of this.
Wacky Gyuri
Anyway from our viewpoint looked at this thing,
(Only because of that, that let my other favourite hobby horse not be left out from the game, understand it: the different viewpoints.)
totally all the same what how we call the creator:
For a Perverse God, or for a Mad Scientist.
For me maybe, if it would be possible to make a choice, the latter one the nicer one.
Why?
For only.
Wacky
(Only because of that, that let my other favourite hobby horse not be left out from the game, understand it: the different viewpoints.)
totally all the same what how we call the creator:
For a Perverse God, or for a Mad Scientist.
For me maybe, if it would be possible to make a choice, the latter one the nicer one.
Why?
For only.
Wacky
Last edited:
Mostly, though, he was just kind of a schmuck. It doesn't mean he wasn't right.
Rather a lot of technology - from miniscule semiconductors to global telecom systems - only work because their designs have been modified to allow for relativity. Even if the theory is somehow incorrect (which I doubt), it seems to work awfully well.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.