1) Will the amount of hydrogen and helium in the sun increase or decrease over the next few million years?

The answer in my book says they will decrease.......but that doesn't make sense to me! The most common type of nuclear fusion in the Sun is hydrogen fusion, so amount of hydrogen will certainly decrease, but shouldn't the amount of helium be INCREASING instead of decreasing? Or will the helium in fact also decrease in amount?

2) Why and how do volcanic eruptions aid in the creation of an atmosphere?

1) Helium will increase, hydrogen will decrease. The fusion process takes two hydrogen atoms and smushes them into one helium atom. Therefore, making less hydrogen and more helium. Eventually it will run out of hydrogen and start doing fusion with helium, and that is when it becomes a red giant.

2) I think they spew out stuff from underground. Someone else will asnwer this in more depth.

1) Will the amount of hydrogen and helium in the sun increase or decrease over the next few million years?

The answer in my book says they will decrease.......but that doesn't make sense to me! The most common type of nuclear fusion in the Sun is hydrogen fusion, so amount of hydrogen will certainly decrease, but shouldn't the amount of helium be INCREASING instead of decreasing? Or will the helium in fact also decrease in amount?

2) Why and how do volcanic eruptions aid in the creation of an atmosphere?
As CH said. Hydrogen decreases to form helium. It's not the most common type of fusion, it's the only type of fusion in the sun at present. When sol burns most of its hydrogen it will cool and expand becoming a red giant. We need to be off this rock for good when that happens as sol will expand in size to the orbit of mars. When the new red giant burns its helium up sol will become a white dwarf star.
2) I believe that it is because various forms of carbon are released into the atmosphere giving the plants something to breath.

1) Will the amount of hydrogen and helium in the sun increase or decrease over the next few million years?


http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/fading.html

FUSION doesnt work... and is still... only a theoretical source of energy...

not a proven factual source of energy....

-MT

FISSION. on the other hand is well in evidense.

FUSION doesnt work... and is still... only a theoretical source of energy...

not a proven factual source of energy....

-MT

FISSION. on the other hand is well in evidense.

Of course fusion works - it's what powers the sun and every star.

And on a more down-to-earth example, have you never heard of thermonuclear device??? Hydrogen-fusion bomb.

Why and how do volcanic eruptions aid in the creation of an atmosphere?

Volcanic gases, over time, have formed the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. They are predominately water vapour (70-95 percent). There's also quite a bit of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide as well as trace amounts of other stuff.

Fusion might not be practical on a commercial scale but it works quite well on a cosmic scale.
edited for structure/srr

"It is time for us to enter the solar system"---President George W. Bush at an aerospace summit

"It is time for us to enter the solar system"---President George W. Bush at an aerospace summit

L.O.L.

FUSION doesnt work... and is still... only a theoretical source of energy...

not a proven factual source of energy....

-MT

FISSION. on the other hand is well in evidense.
Ha ha ha haha. Creating a slow, controlled fusion reaction is beyond our capability at the moment, yes, but fusion itself is a well understood process. As pointed out, we have in fact created fusion bombs. Cold Fusion was a hoax (though the jury is out on whether it was deliberate or not).

Fusion's a source of energy all right, just not for running a coffee pot... just yet.

every fusion reactor on earth.... puts out less energy than as put in...

i.e.. we put in 100 megawatts of energy... and we get out 99.9 megawatts.

it is not just a matter of containment.. and sustaining the reaction...

the reactions we have gotten to work... just dont produce energy.

period.


thats why the tokomak is being sold as a transmutation reactor to convert nuclear waste into safer stuff.

you guys need to study it alittle more.


and saying the sun, LOOK... is a morons answer...

fusion has never been made to work.... it has never yielded more than was put in.


it just doesnt work...


nature.. says.. entropy.. all large atoms break down... and release energy..

thus to make bigger atoms from small ones... is reverse.... and uses energy.

-MT

every fusion reactor on earth.... puts out less energy than as put in...

i.e.. we put in 100 megawatts of energy... and we get out 99.9 megawatts.

it is not just a matter of containment.. and sustaining the reaction...

the reactions we have gotten to work... just dont produce energy.

period.


thats why the tokomak is being sold as a transmutation reactor to convert nuclear waste into safer stuff.

you guys need to study it alittle more.


and saying the sun, LOOK... is a morons answer...

fusion has never been made to work.... it has never yielded more than was put in.


it just doesnt work...


nature.. says.. entropy.. all large atoms break down... and release energy..

thus to make bigger atoms from small ones... is reverse.... and uses energy.

-MT

So then thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs don't actually work? Because they take in more energy than they produce? Popycock!

Are you denying, Mosheh, that the sun's energy, and that of other stars, is derived from nuclear fusion? That is what you appear to be saying. Please clarify.

The extra energy had in an H-bomb is not proven to be fusion...


placing alot of liquid hydrogen next to an a-bomb... does add output..

but the question is why?


how about transmutation.. which then results in decay??? i.e.. fission??

or just straight fission of the matter which makes up the bomb?? and surrounding land mass???


to suppose fusion is the only answer... is the easy way out of something which we have no way of confirming.

4 hydrogens have never been made into helium in the lab....

and it takes alot of energy to form nuetrons out of hydrogen... energy we dont get back.

-MT

The extra energy had in an H-bomb is not proven to be fusion...


placing alot of liquid hydrogen next to an a-bomb... does add output..

but the question is why?


how about transmutation.. which then results in decay??? i.e.. fission??

or just straight fission of the matter which makes up the bomb?? and surrounding land mass???


to suppose fusion is the only answer... is the easy way out of something which we have no way of confirming.

4 hydrogens have never been made into helium in the lab....

and it takes alot of energy to form nuetrons out of hydrogen... energy we dont get back.

-MT

The answer is quite simple - the hydrogen atoms DO fuse. And of course it cannot be done in a lab environment!!! The hydrogen is placed at the core of the device which is contained in a shell of fissionable uranium which, in turn, is surrounded by a layer of conventional high-explosive.

As I said elsewhere, please just go back to school. It's clearly obvious you learned practically nothing about nuclear physics and probably didn't get past statics in basic electricity either.

You can say what you like... it proves nothing..

please... show us some good links to your version of the h-bomb?

-MT

Fusion can even be done in a laboratory setting and in test fusion reactors. It does work. The problem is that for a sustained reaction to occur, we need to keep it isolated in a magnetic bottle and that takes one hell of a lot of power. It makes slightly less power than the magnetic bottle consumes. THis makes it useless for commercial purposes.

If we can make a magnetic bottle with less energy or find a way to sustain a reaction without one, we have fusion in the bag.

You can say what you like... it proves nothing..

please... show us some good links to your version of the h-bomb?

-MT

I'm not "saying what I like", I'm stating the facts. It's not a matter of "liking." Sorry that your education is so poor. And do your OWN research - ever heard of Google?

Mosheh, fusion is a process that derives from quantum mechanics and E=mc². It's not just a word, it's the result of extremely extensive theoretical and mathematical work. When we apply it to the situation we believe is happening in the Sun's interior, we discover that the observed energy output from the Sun matches the expectations from our fusion reaction equations. This is what is known as "confirmation".

However, in the early years of atomic theory, the energy did not in fact match the results perfectly. Which necessitated the postulation of a new particle, the neutrino, by Wolfgang Pauli. Experiments using nuclear reactors confirmed the presence of the new particle, and the whole fusion theory, including every aspect of the mechanism of the sun's operation, becomes doubly confirmed.


Now, it strikes me, having spent some time debating scientific and anti-scientific issues on this forum, that this doubting of scientific theories derives from the habit of the anti-Evolutionists. Because nothing is absolutely completely certain, or every theory goes so far, but doesn't quite cover the furthest extremes of the theory, the anti-Evolutionists have seen fit to cast doubt on scientific work of two centuries that has been considered as fully confirmed as any theory there is. Mindful of the fact that one element of the anti-Creationist argument is to pour scorn on casting doubt just on the one theory, it strikes me that Mosheh is now trying to extend that method to other well-established areas of science.


Science works. Get over it. If you want to critique a scientific theory, bloody well get a scientific education so that you have some minimal basis for expressing your dissent. If you just expose your ignorance of the subject every time you post, what on earth is the point?

Now, it strikes me, having spent some time debating scientific and anti-scientific issues on this forum, that this doubting of scientific theories derives from the habit of the anti-Evolutionists. Because nothing is absolutely completely certain, or every theory goes so far, but doesn't quite cover the furthest extremes of the theory, the anti-Evolutionists have seen fit to cast doubt on scientific work of two centuries that has been considered as fully confirmed as any theory there is.
Actually, almost all crackpots who want to deny a widely-accepted scientific theory operate the same way; the argument techniques of a relativity denier aren't really any different from a creationist. The specifisc change, but the over-all approach usually stays the same.

Mosheh, fusion is a process that derives from quantum mechanics and E=mc². It's not just a word, it's the result of extremely extensive theoretical and mathematical work. When we apply it to the situation we believe is happening in the Sun's interior, we discover that the observed energy output from the Sun matches the expectations from our fusion reaction equations. This is what is known as "confirmation".

However, in the early years of atomic theory, the energy did not in fact match the results perfectly. Which necessitated the postulation of a new particle, the neutrino, by Wolfgang Pauli. Experiments using nuclear reactors confirmed the presence of the new particle, and the whole fusion theory, including every aspect of the mechanism of the sun's operation, becomes doubly confirmed.


Now, it strikes me, having spent some time debating scientific and anti-scientific issues on this forum, that this doubting of scientific theories derives from the habit of the anti-Evolutionists. Because nothing is absolutely completely certain, or every theory goes so far, but doesn't quite cover the furthest extremes of the theory, the anti-Evolutionists have seen fit to cast doubt on scientific work of two centuries that has been considered as fully confirmed as any theory there is. Mindful of the fact that one element of the anti-Creationist argument is to pour scorn on casting doubt just on the one theory, it strikes me that Mosheh is now trying to extend that method to other well-established areas of science.


Science works. Get over it. If you want to critique a scientific theory, bloody well get a scientific education so that you have some minimal basis for expressing your dissent. If you just expose your ignorance of the subject every time you post, what on earth is the point?

Well said. But I don't believe he's extending any method. Much like some other posters here, he's basing his ideas on poorly understood science. He knows just enough to be able to present some principles - usually incorrectly - and immediately takes himself way beyond his meager education (or understanding of what he's been half-way taught).

Plainly put, he's just ignorant.

SHOW ME ONE EXPERIMENT WHERE IT WORKS.. AND YIELDS ENERGY.


just one... one fucking experiment..

can you do it???

no.

-MT

AND... energy used in confinement is part of what is needed to make it happen..

i.e.. you have to put in 100 megawatts to make it happen.

but the heat you get out... is slightly less than you put in.

that means. what?

it puts out less than you put in..



i ask you all..

entropy.. and natural decay of atoms...

it flows one way... from big to small.

going from small to big is UN-NATURAL.

SHOW ME ONE EXPERIMENT WHERE IT WORKS.. AND YIELDS ENERGY.


just one... one fucking experiment..

can you do it???

no.

-MT

AND... energy used in confinement is part of what is needed to make it happen..

i.e.. you have to put in 100 megawatts to make it happen.

but the heat you get out... is slightly less than you put in.

that means. what?

it puts out less than you put in..



i ask you all..

entropy.. and natural decay of atoms...

it flows one way... from big to small.

going from small to big is UN-NATURAL.
Since you are far too lazy (and possibly too stupid) to do your own research, take a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

You only need to read the first two or three paragraphs because after that it probably becomes too deep for you to understand.

I ASK..

if we use the same techinques to heat a non-fusing gas...

we add 100 megawatts of heat... we can expect to get out 100 megawatts of heat.....

so where is the extra energy???

-MT

I ASK..

if we use the same techinques to heat a non-fusing gas...

we add 100 megawatts of heat... we can expect to get out 100 megawatts of heat.....

so where is the extra energy???

-MT
Apparently you understood almost nothig of what you read (or did you even read it at all?).

And just what non-fusing gas might that be? You still do not understand what happens inside a star? Pity. Read the article again (if you actually bothered the first time around) and check some of the links it provides.

ANY GAS...

and forgive me, my friend but i have read it all before.. its nothing new..

i ask..


using any gas... and subjecting it to the same fields and energy and pressure..
essentially heating it up...

if we get it that hot... how much heat energy can we expect to get out of it?

exactly what we put in..... no surprise..

thus far all we have built is really big heaters....

it hasnt worked... and with each failure they say... 10 million more degrees..

or 10 more years...

or we just need to double the pressure....


gesh...

it just doesnt work.

but thats ok... because now we can use the same heating machines to drive fission processes which does work quite well.

such as helium and lithium.... that yields plenty....

and if we would turn our focus away from such futile efforts and turn towards other methods that do work, we might find a worthwhile solution.

you people hold on to fusion like its a fucking religion.

its not.. its theory.. theory which thus far hasnt panned out..

and when ever someone points it out.. stupid people just point up at the sun and say but what about the sun.. hehe...

morons.. if it doesnt produce energy... it doesnt produce energy...

and the sun must get its power from fission processes.

which brings into the question the composition of the sun.

we may notice.. the planets are not all hydrogen and helium.

and if just 10% of the sun was heavy matter... it would be plenty.

-MT

E=MC^2

Now do you understand where the extra energy comes from?

ANY GAS...

and forgive me, my friend but i have read it all before.. its nothing new..

i ask..


using any gas... and subjecting it to the same fields and energy and pressure..
essentially heating it up...

if we get it that hot... how much heat energy can we expect to get out of it?

exactly what we put in..... no surprise..

thus far all we have built is really big heaters....

it hasnt worked... and with each failure they say... 10 million more degrees..

or 10 more years...

or we just need to double the pressure....


gesh...

it just doesnt work.

but thats ok... because now we can use the same heating machines to drive fission processes which does work quite well.

such as helium and lithium.... that yields plenty....

and if we would turn our focus away from such futile efforts and turn towards other methods that do work, we might find a worthwhile solution.

you people hold on to fusion like its a fucking religion.

its not.. its theory.. theory which thus far hasnt panned out..

and when ever someone points it out.. stupid people just point up at the sun and say but what about the sun.. hehe...

morons.. if it doesnt produce energy... it doesnt produce energy...

and the sun must get its power from fission processes.

which brings into the question the composition of the sun.

we may notice.. the planets are not all hydrogen and helium.

and if just 10% of the sun was heavy matter... it would be plenty.

-MT

And you, my "friend" are an absolute dolt! You actually know less than a 16-year-old school child. So far, you've been the only moron here and you insist on being a moron forever. You obviously either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you are reading. And although you claim to have known it already, it (the simple reference I gave you) contradicts EVERYTHING you continue to spew out. Sheer and utter nonsense is all that you are - idiot!

You are perhaps the only person in the world who thinks fusion is a joke! Have you noticed you are the only one here who believes that????????

i understand... what is it... a .07% mass conversion? IS THAT RIGHT?

into what?

look at the conversion... it produces 2 electrons... free electrons..

and gamma rays are just not usable are they?

-MT

LIGHT... Yes i know... I used to believe as you do.... i changed my mind.

study it in detail.... you might do so as well.

-MT

E=MC^2

Now do you understand where the extra energy comes from?

C^2 = E / M

C = (E/M)/^2

Increase the E as you want and you will increase C as you want. As we increase E, M is always decreasing.

C^2 = E / M

C = (E/M)/^2

Increase the E as you want and you will increase C as you want. As we increase E, M is always decreasing.

That's just plain silly. Don't you even realize that c (the speed of light in a vacuum) is a universal constant ? What school did you go to? (If any.)

I ask because you don't seem to know the above nor do you know how to transpose an equation properly. And you normally would have learned how to do that by age 13 or 14 at the lastest.

That's just plain silly. Don't you even realize that c (the speed of light in a vacuum) is a universal constant ? What school did you go to? (If any.)

I ask because you don't seem to know the above nor do you know how to transpose an equation properly. And you normally would have learned how to do that by age 13 or 14 at the lastest. Instead of building on the equation U have started nibbing at my woes. The equation itself shows how to break the C barrier.

For your kind information, I was a poor man and a kinder garden dropout, that didnt stop me from building my business empire. And now thats not gona stop me from achieving what U couldnt.

Instead of building on the equation U have started nibbing at my woes. The equation itself shows how to break the C barrier.

For your kind information, I was a poor man and a kinder garden dropout, that didnt stop me from building my business empire. And now thats not gona stop me from achieving what U couldnt.
Really? The equation shows no such thing. And if you don't know what a constant is I suggest you look it up.

And I seriously doubt you are anywhere close to being in my business league, not that it makes any difference in the REAL topic we're discussing here.

Really? The equation shows no such thing. And if you don't know what a constant is I suggest you look it up.

And I seriously doubt you are anywhere close to being in my business league, not that it makes any difference in the REAL topic we're discussing here. so can U tell us how the assumption that c is constant was proved ? now that U sound so sure about it.

so can U tell us how the assumption that c is constant was proved ? now that U sound so sure about it.

Nope, but I'm sure someone else here can. Physics/relativity were not one of my chosen fields to delve into too deeply. But I am aware that every physicist in the world is convinced it's unvarying. And since they are the experts in THAT line of work I would have to assume that they know far more than you do.

So check back - I'm sure someone will explain it to you.

Nope, but I'm sure someone else here can. Physics/relativity were not one of my chosen fields to delve into too deeply. But I am aware that every physicist in the world is convinced it's unvarying. And since they are the experts in THAT line of work I would have to assume that they know far more than you do.

So check back - I'm sure someone will explain it to you. Sounds like the story "Emperors new clothes", this is blind faith.

Sounds like the story "Emperors new clothes", this is blind faith.
Not in the least! There are probably hundreds of thousands of physicists that could answer your question on the spot. And put another way, would you expect an expert auto mechanic to explain the inner workings of the Space Shuttle to you? (I didn't think so.) ;)

Not in the least! There are probably hundreds of thousands of physicists that could answer your question on the spot. And put another way, would you expect an expert auto mechanic to explain the inner workings of the Space Shuttle to you? (I didn't think so.) ;) Ok, I admit it being uneducated I am not good enough to judge if C can be constant.

Oh, on another thought, Its quite possible that thoes hundreds or thousands are just like U who must have spent 20 years in learning all that crap and hence they dont want all that to be called crap or question its validity. Because else they will be known as the biggest Jack Asses in the history of mankind and no women will ever fuck them.

Ok, I admit it being uneducated I am not good enough to judge if C can be constant.

Oh, on another thought, Its quite possible that thoes hundreds or thousands are just like U who must have spent 20 years in learning all that crap and hence they dont want all that to be called crap or question its validity. Because else they will be known as the biggest Jack Asses in the history of mankind and no women will ever fuck them.
Rude, crude and irrelevant.

it is blind faith... faith not in a religion... but faith that other people, whom they think are smarter.... are actuallt right... and have all the answers.

when in reality... those who actually know.. know how little they know.

but they dont go around pointing out that.. cause then people wouldnt believe them so blindly as LIGHT seems to do.

a viscious circle.

-MT

it is blind faith... faith not in a religion... but faith that other people, whom they think are smarter.... are actuallt right... and have all the answers.

when in reality... those who actually know.. know how little they know.

but they dont go around pointing out that.. cause then people wouldnt believe them so blindly as LIGHT seems to do.

a viscious circle.

-MT
And you are just as stupid as ever. I doubt I've ever seen a bigger fool.

And you are just as stupid as ever. I doubt I've ever seen a bigger fool.

Try looking in a mirror.

-MT

Try looking in a mirror.

-MT
I do that everytime I shave. And you are still the biggest fool/idiot I've ever come across. You could become much smarter if you spent more time reading and less time challenging known and proven facts.

Tell me, are you one of those who thinks it's an advantage to be undereducated?

and you are one who does not challenge anything...

you are an accepting fool..

where would we be today if galileo had your attitude??

we would be the center of the universe.

where would we be if the wright brothers has listenned TO what seemed common sense to any educated man of the time...
man cannot fly.


truth... changes with the science....

and history shows... science evolves and scientists change their minds.

you... just accept what they give you, like a blind stupid fool.

i feel sorry for people like you.

-MT

But Mosheh Thezion, there's a big difference between genuine insight (as Galileo and Einstein possessed) and an insight claimed from ignorance. I'm afraid I don't believe you have the former.

MT -- if things cannot go from small to big, then how did all matter in this universe come to be? That all happened naturally didnt it? Are you saying that the big bang released fully formed super-heavy elements that then decayed down into carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc? That seems unlikely.

And if you are wondering where a lot of the energy comes from during fusion, I suggest you look up "nuclear binding energy."

If you need a website -- there is a good one here: http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html

But for the immediate argument, here is a quote from said source:

"The fusion of the deuteron (2H) and another proton (a hydrogen nucleus) resulted in the formation of 3He and a gamma ray. If you summed the masses 2H (2.0140 amu) and the proton (1.007825 amu), and subtracted the isotopic mass of 3He (3.01603 amu), you would end up with 0.005795 amu of missing mass. This is equivalent to 5.398MeV of released energy (not including any kinetic energy the reactants had), in this case taking the form of a gamma ray and any additional kinetic energy of the products."

The nuclear binding energy raises until it hits Iron -- at which it decreases. This is why fission of super-heavy elements releases energy as well.

Hope that clears things up.

yes.. yes.. ive heard it all before...

and it seems so sensible.. so reasonable.. because of what??

big bang... a theory which is still in doubt in many ways.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

and yes...

you are aware of nuetron stars are you not...?

CLEAR EVIDENSE.. that matter is not limited to existance as tiny protons and nuetrons... but can exist as giant solid nucleons... the size of planets.




the idea that stars make them in nova is an assumption...

the idea that the universe began with hydrogen and helium is an asumption..

and the idea of fusion in stars in an assumption based on assumptions.


it doesnt work.

and gamma rays are useless... arent they?

OR DO YOU KNOW A WAY OF CONVERTING AND USING THEM?

-MT

Reguardless of whether or not we can use them (I dont know either way, forgive me) -- you cant deny that gamma rays are energy. Thus, that goes to show that fusion produces more energy than it takes in.

And neutron stars are still composed of subatomic particals, they are just packed together. Its not a giant, single "nucleon" -- and even so, I fail to see how neutron stars fit into your argument.

BIG BANG SAYS... matter must of began as hydrogen and helium...

and that matter is limited to life as pions, protons and nuetrons...

but nuetron stars show differently... as do dwarfs... pulsars... etc...


matter is not limited to existance as single tiny nucleons... is it?

no.

-MT

ALSO... all we really know about nuetron stars is their density....

thats it.. the idea that they are made of nuetrons is pure theory... and assumption.

MT:
...and the idea of fusion in stars in an assumption based on assumptions

I think you should devise an experiment to directly sample the core of a main sequence star and pilot the experiment yourself. Or, accept the overwhelming evidence in the form of spectral analysis and neutrino flux, x-ray studies....

Anom:
Oh, on another thought, Its quite possible that thoes hundreds or thousands are just like U who must have spent 20 years in learning all that crap and hence they dont want all that to be called crap or question its validity. Because else they will be known as the biggest Jack Asses in the history of mankind and no women will ever fuck them.

Ha! Haha! Hahahahahahahah!!!!! It must be great to be so ignorant and so god damn funny at the same time! Well, you don't have a career as a neurosurgeon, but a stand-up comedian? Hell yea!

I think you should devise an experiment to directly sample the core of a main sequence star and pilot the experiment yourself. Or, accept the overwhelming evidence in the form of spectral analysis and neutrino flux, x-ray studies....

NEUTRINO FLUX????

MY GOD MAN... ARE YOU TELLING ME SOMEONE HAS INVENTED A SENSITIVE NEUTRINO FLUX DETECTOR THAT WE CAN USE TO MEASURE THE OUTPUT FROM STARS???? as by with satalites...??????


we have this neutrino data.. do we???


alert the media.


you can't be serious... oh wait.. we know what it is.


its ignorance.

-MT

... You could become much smarter if you spent more time reading and less time challenging known and proven facts.

Tell me, are you one of those who thinks it's an advantage to be undereducated? Oooooooo, Mosheh and Anomalous, what a team, Somebody stop us pleassseeeeee.

"Proven facts", proven without proofs, shheeeejjuusss !

We dont just think, we also look out for facts, someting that learned people ignore on purpose for if they dont how will they be seen as superiors, and if proven wrong they will be known as biggest Jack ....... in hundreds and thousands.

...

The nuclear binding energy raises until it hits Iron -- at which it decreases. This is why fission of super-heavy elements releases energy as well.

... Amazing; The fusion stops at Iron but the collapse of the star doesnot reinitiate it. How cool.

Ha! Haha! Hahahahahahahah!!!!! It must be great to be so ignorant and so god damn funny at the same time! Well, you don't have a career as a neurosurgeon, but a stand-up comedian? Hell yea! Yah right comedians are bad people and egomaniacs are the good ones.

MT,

Are you telling me that you have no knowledge of the many large-scale solar neutrino experiments, old and new???

You know what? You two (MT, Anom) are possibly the biggest assholes I've ever run across. You can't spell. You can't compose a coherent sentence. You know NOTHING about science, and clearly (maybe) barely graduated from highschool. I love how the internet allows the rational and the stupid (you guys) to mix and have equal time on any subject. It's ultimate democracy. I suppose I'll just relax with my six figure Senior Design Engineer consulting income and let you two serve me burgers the next time I visit McDonalds or Burger King. But hey, we need people like you too. Don't feel too bad about your condition. You have a purpose, even if it is only serving those much smarter and rational than you. Blame evolution, not yourselves. You just drew the short straw in the intellectual evolutionary drama. It's not your fault.

NEUTRINO FLUX????

MY GOD MAN... ARE YOU TELLING ME SOMEONE HAS INVENTED A SENSITIVE NEUTRINO FLUX DETECTOR THAT WE CAN USE TO MEASURE THE OUTPUT FROM STARS???? as by with satalites...??????


we have this neutrino data.. do we???


alert the media.


you can't be serious... oh wait.. we know what it is.


its ignorance.

-MT

What a fucking ignoramus.

http://www.hep.anl.gov/ndk/hypertext/solar_experiments.html

We dont think.
Now that's more accurate :D

More like "MT, Anom: We Can't think" I would say.

If they dont believe in any of this accepted science, what DO they believe?

If they dont believe in any of this accepted science, what DO they believe?
It seems to be silliness of the first order.

.... Correct.

Correct.

WTF?

Now that's more accurate :D thats what U r good at, hiding the facts.

If they dont believe in any of this accepted science, what DO they believe? The facts

The facts

Bullshit.

Prepare for imminent thread-locking and/or mod editing and reprimand.

MORONS... I SAY..

The fact that superlumial would make the statement about nuetrinos.. proves as much.

yes we have nuetrino detectors.. buried in the earth...

none of which can detect anything from the stars....

especially detect the output of any given nuetron star.

you are clearly a moron...

why do i waste my time?


its just not worth it.

-MT

MORONS... I SAY..

The fact that superlumial would make the statement about nuetrinos.. proves as much.

yes we have nuetrino detectors.. buried in the earth...

none of which can detect anything from the stars....

especially detect the output of any given nuetron star.

you are clearly a moron...

why do i waste my time?


its just not worth it.

-MT
Mosheh, YOU are clearly the moron here! As always, you have absolutely NO idea what you are even talking about. You don't believe in nuclear fusion as an energy-producer. You know almost nothing about electricity/electronics.

And now you say we cannot detect neutrinos from a star. Just what do you think our sun is - some kind of giant lightbulb?????????? Read this article and shut your stupid mouth! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino.html

YES... AND WHAT % OF THE SUPPOSIVE NEUTRINOS DO WE DETECT??

A SMALL %...

AND NOTHING FROM OTHER STARS.

proving.... superluminal is a moron for making such a statement.

as are you for defending him.

-MT

YES... AND WHAT % OF THE SUPPOSIVE NEUTRINOS DO WE DETECT??

A SMALL %...

AND NOTHING FROM OTHER STARS.

proving.... superluminal is a moron for making such a statement.

as are you for defending him.

-MT
My, my, my. That's just like a child. He thinks shouting will somehow make hin right. :D

we all notice your lack of a good response.... dont try to hide it.

-MT

we all notice your lack of a good response.... dont try to hide it.

-MT
Talking to an idiot does nor require a "good reponse." You already shown (many times!!) that you wouldn't understand one anyway.

MORONS... ....

you are clearly a moron...

why do i waste my time?


its just not worth it.

-MT Its worth, believe me, U r learning to deal with morons. After a year or two U will learn when to repond to such humans and when not to.

Its worth, believe me, U r learning to deal with morons. After a year or two U will learn when to repond to such humans and when not to.

No, perhaps in a year or two he will learn when he should keep quiet. That will help him more than anything.

THE FACTS ARE...

WE HAVE NUETRINO DETECTORS... big tanks of water.... deep underground..

which may be detecting some neutrinos from our sun....


and ZERO... from other stars... especially... any specific star...

which makes the statement by superluminal... totally moronic.

he doesnt know what he is saying..

and the fact that you defend his position... shows how little you must know as well.

-MT

THE FACTS ARE...

WE HAVE NUETRINO DETECTORS... big tanks of water.... deep underground..

which may be detecting some neutrinos from our sun....


and ZERO... from other stars... especially... any specific star...

which makes the statement by superluminal... totally moronic.

he doesnt know what he is saying..

and the fact that you defend his position... shows how little you must know as well.

-MT

Ha! Just listen to the village idiot - he really thinks he knows everything.

Tell us something, Moshesh, what part of the world do you live in> Is it one of those backwards third-world countries where formal educations stop at about age 8? Or did you just drop out early?

I LIVE IN CA,.....

please... provide us with a link... showing that we have any neutrino evidense about neutron stars.... please...

seriosly...

if you cant cant... then admit it.... it doesnt exist.

-MT

The neutrino detectors do not use WATER as the detection agent.

Does MT really believe that the photographed and widely witnessed thermoneuclear device tests were hoaxes? If so, the smallest one used up an awful lot of gunpowder.

NO...

and yes... if i remember corectly the neutrino detectors use clorine...

is that right?

and tests of h-bombs are not hoaxs... just the interpretation of the residual evidense..... dah.

-MT

If you say that h-bombs are not hoaxes, how can you say that fusion does not exist?

We have no way of observing what happens in a h-bomb explosion...

its all theory,.... and assumption.

and you know what happens when you assume...

we also know what happens when we place alot of high energy nuetrons close to alot of heavier elements...

transmutation...... thats what...

all of which can yield energy... which has nothing to do with fusion.

i.e.. fission is where its at...

-MT

The first detection of interstellar neutrinos was accomplished in 1987 in detectors in Japan and in U.S., in association with the optical detection of a supernova.

High energy neutrons and heavy elements are not especially explosive. Relatively low energy neutrons are what cause fission in fissionable material. I have read that experts have said that if a fission bomb were detonated sitting next to another fission bomb, the second one would not detonate because there would be far too few low energy neutrons.

SO.. is there any evidense of neutrinos from any specific neutron star???

no...

thankyou,
-MT

Why would there be neutrinos from a neutron star? You have really lost me on that one. I have been able to get a little bit of sense out of most of your halucinations until this one. There is no process theorized to be happening in a neutron star except for the zero point neutron dance, a very low energy activity.

High energy neutrons and heavy elements are not especially explosive. Relatively low energy neutrons are what cause fission in fissionable material. I have read that experts have said that if a fission bomb were detonated sitting next to another fission bomb, the second one would not detonate because there would be far too few low energy neutrons.
Its really commendable that thoes guys predicated Neutrions even before they were detected, Thats Genius. They were so right that they got all the funds to build thoes expensive detectors.

MT,

So, solar neutrinos, neutrinos from observed supernova events, all detected. And neutrinos from neutron stars? See the response from CAGNAS. No one ever said a thing about neutrinos in conjuction with neutron stars. So, everything I've said so far has been correct and supported with evidence. How does this make me a "moron"? :cool:

Its really commendable that thoes guys predicated Neutrions even before they were detected, Thats Genius. They were so right that they got all the funds to build thoes expensive detectors.

Right. Everything's a conspiracy. Go back and get your highschool diploma and then apply to a decent college. Study some science and history. It'll do ya good. Trust me.

Your friend,
SL

Right. Everything's a conspiracy. Go back and get your highschool diploma and then apply to a decent college. Study some science and history. It'll do ya good. Trust me.

Your friend,
SL Thats the difference between U and me, I can bypass all that garbage. Oh ya, and incase U didnt notice that ability gives me license of getting into any damn profession I want without prior proper education on it, its all a matter of incredible grasping powers, something that U humans currently havent evolved yet.

Anomalous, if you want people to talk to you intelligently, please stop pretending that you are superior to humans. Even if you geniunely are (which you are not), just humour us and pretend you are a mere human.

Thanks CH. I didn't realize that Anom was other than human.

MT,

So, solar neutrinos, neutrinos from observed supernova events, all detected. And neutrinos from neutron stars? See the response from CAGNAS. No one ever said a thing about neutrinos in conjuction with neutron stars. So, everything I've said so far has been correct and supported with evidence. How does this make me a "moron"? :cool:


YOU SAID IT.. MORON... DONT YOU REMEMBER..

READ BACK... THAT WAS MY POINT FROM THE BEGINNING.

you claimed we had evidense about neutron stars.. and you listed as supposive evidense... neutrinos... from.

you can take it back now.. its ok.

we all know why you say these things...

-MT

I think you should devise an experiment to directly sample the core of a main sequence star and pilot the experiment yourself. Or, accept the overwhelming evidence in the form of spectral analysis and neutrino flux, x-ray studies....

TO JOG YOUR MEMORY... which seems faulty.

-MT

MT,

Please post the quote from me that connects neutron stars with neutrino emissions. We were talking, I believe, about the evidence for fusion in main sequence stars...

Yes? You don't know what a main sequence star is, do you? Ha! Didn't think so.

BTW, thanks for supporting your own demise.

YES... and about fusion... it is based on the belief that all matter began as tiny protons and nuetrons...

and i pointed to nuetron stars.. and said.. wow.. look..

mass in a form... other than tiny protons.. and nuetrons...

gee.. i would think that is evidense.. evidense that matter is not limited to existance as tiny nucleons...

but.. as dwarfs and nuetron stars and pulsars show....

matter is not so limited...

and matter could of formed from these large bodies... breaking down... instead of building up as fusion supposes...

look..

natural law says... all matter naturally decays... breaks down...

matter does not naturally build up...

to do so... is reverse...

and while some people like to think it can go both ways....

the evidense... the evidense.. suggests.. no... IT DOESNT.

-MT

So, are you going to apologise for this?


MT:
YOU SAID IT.. MORON... DONT YOU REMEMBER..

READ BACK... THAT WAS MY POINT FROM THE BEGINNING.

you claimed we had evidense about neutron stars.. and you listed as supposive evidense... neutrinos... from.

you can take it back now.. its ok.

we all know why you say these things...

Since you know I was not connecting neutrinos and neutron stars?

NO.. re-read your own words...

do you take them back now.?

do so, and i will appologise.

-MT

YOU REPLYED TO my conversation about nuetron stars with your words about stars and nuetrinos...

it doesnt fit does it?

you said it... and you have stood by it... why?

-MT

I replied to your words about fusion. I even stated "main sequence stars" in my post. Apologize.

hey MT, heres an idea

why dont you give US some links supporting your point of view?

(I know, he'll probably just type in all caps about neutron stars for some reason...)

NO, he'll accuse you of being NARROW MINDED and having NO IDEAS OF YOUR OWN, fool.

Anomalous, if you want people to talk to you intelligently, please stop pretending that you are superior to humans. Even if you geniunely are (which you are not), just humour us and pretend you are a mere human.
Do U think I give a Damn, I have nothing to loose.

Do U think I give a Damn, I have nothing to loose.
you fell right into that one didn't you.

and tests of h-bombs are not hoaxs... just the interpretation of the residual evidense..... dah.
-MT
what evidence are you contesting mosheh?

Does MT know and understand ( and agree with ) the theoretical limitation on the yield of a purely fission explosive device?

I'm not going to bother with looking it up but remember it as being about 50 kilotons ( the Hiroshima device was 10 to 20 KT, depending on which estimate you happen to read ).

Russia detonated the first thermonuclear device in about 1948, a "layer cake". The maximum yield of a layer cake is about 80 KT, I think. It was not what is considered a true full fledged thermonuclear device, but was a "boosted yield". A true thermonuclear device is not really limited in yield size: one can be designed with any large yield a military is bloodthirsty enough to desire. :eek:

I have read different accounts of the largest device actually tested, from 60 megatons to 200 megatons. The first U.S.thermonuclear device tested was 20 megatons. One megaton is 1,000 ( one thousand ) kilotons.

Does MT know why the maximum yield of a pure fission device is not a whole lot more than the Hiroshima device?

Does MT know why the maximum yield of a layer cake is about 80 KT?

Does MT know why a true thermonuclear device has no theoretical limit to its yield?

Does MT know why the whopper explosions, as photographed, of the tested devices could not possibly have been pure fission or boosted yield devices?

NO... but i could look it all up in half an hour... but what would be the point of that.

i am not TESLA.. i do not remember everything.... i do not have special powers.

and superluminal.. if you want an apology.. you have it.. i apologise...

there is no point to the discussion any further.

i have lost, and i bow out.. but as i go i just have to remind you of one thing...

its been along time... 50 years of fusion research...
and its always just beyond our reach... just 10 more years they say every 10 years.

tokomaks.. z pinchs... and countless others... pushing pushing...

but still.... it never works.

fusion does happen... and it can be used... gentlemen. and ladies.

fusion of helium and lithium at 2 million ev yields 17 million ev of energy...

transmutation... of specifc elements and isoptopes into unstable configurations.. will be... will... will... be the savior of fusion technology...

but we have to turn our research that way... and until we do.. ..well.

it doesnt work... how much evidense do you guys actually need?
you have 50 years of it... but they dont tell you that... that make their living in the fusion field... and the schools preach it like gospel...

So why not right?

i say it because its a proven waste of time... other methods can work better.
that is also in evidense.

-MT

you fell right into that one didn't you. And now I have draged U with me into the darkness.

and superluminal.. if you want an apology.. you have it.. i apologise...

there is no point to the discussion any further.

i have lost, and i bow out..
-MT

It's about time!!

With a few rare exceptions, I don't think I've seen anyone continue to repeatedly drag out an issue based on his sheer ignorance. It's quite rewarding to finally see this idiot admit he was wrong. (The only thing missing is that he failed to admit he was wrong about everything!)

i dont think i am wrong... im just tired of discussing it with closeminded people.
and i have said enough to complete my arguements.. assuming this is a debate.

in which case.. it is the casual observer who ARE the judges in the matter...
and they are always silent... sadly.

-MT

i dont think i am wrong... im just tired of discussing it with closeminded people.
and i have said enough to complete my arguements.. assuming this is a debate.

in which case.. it is the casual observer who ARE the judges in the matter...
and they are always silent... sadly.

-MT
All I can tell you at this point is when you finally do figure out that you're wrong (badly!), you will at last be on the way to making some real progress.

And has it occured to you that the silent, casual observers you mentioned probably didn't even find what you said the least bit interesting? Garbage seldom is.

i dont think i am wrong... im just tired of discussing it with closeminded people.
and i have said enough to complete my arguements.. assuming this is a debate.

in which case.. it is the casual observer who ARE the judges in the matter...
and they are always silent... sadly.

-MT Exactly, these morons missed the starting point of scientific progress, first U have to propose a theory and then move ahead on its research.

Light, ...99 and Superlublium, Q, these people are not research minded they are just mugger, ie. they mug up things blindly and think they are smart, but all they are nothing but Recorders, they use theirs minds to record things thats all.


Not for U CANGAS.

Exactly, these morons missed the starting point of scientific progress, first U have to propose a theory and then move ahead on its research.

Light, ...99 and Superlublium, Q, these people are not research minded they are just mugger, ie. they mug up things blindly and think they are smart, but all they are nothing but Recorders, they use theirs minds to record things thats all.


Not for U CANGAS.
Yep, just like your "hero" - dumb enough to fall for any kind of nonsense. No matter what you think, ignorance of facts does not hold back progress.

See if you can show me some examples of where ignorance produced something - I dare you.

Yep, just like your "hero" - dumb enough to fall for any kind of nonsense. No matter what you think, ignorance of facts does not hold back progress.

See if you can show me some examples of where ignorance produced something - I dare you.
Thats exactly what I meant.

Light, ...99 and Superlublium, Q, these people are not research minded they are just mugger,
why are you dragging me into this?
i just asked mosheh what evidence he was contesting.

I believe in transmutation..... and which fusion and or.. obsorbtion of masses together can and does happen.... but only processes that lead and cause the break down of masses into smaller ones.. yields energy... wothwhile energy, anway.

-MT

Thats exactly what I meant.
Now that was a brilliant reply. (Not!)

Where are the examples I asked for of ignorance producing something?????

I believe in transmutation..... and which fusion and or.. obsorbtion of masses together can and does happen.... but only processes that lead and cause the break down of masses into smaller ones.. yields energy... wothwhile energy, anway.

-MT
Then you are a simpleton, a fool, just as many of us have said all along. Practically any kid that has made it through school knows better than that. Are you no smarter than a child??

(And you can't even spell the word "absorption." Don't claim it was a typo either, the "a" and "o" are on opposite sides of the keyboard.)

Exactly how old are you Mosheh, about 14? If that's the case I will give you credit for not being old enough to have learned these scientific principles yet.

the reason i asked mosheh is because i have a copy of
samual glasstones "the effects of nuclear weapons"
and i thought i could clear up some of your questions

the reason i asked mosheh is because i have a copy of
samual glasstones "the effects of nuclear weapons"
and i thought i could clear up some of your questions
He doesn't even have any questions, Leo. His mind is made up - and it's full of foolishness. I'm seriously beginning to think he's just a little twerp of a kid trying ( and failing miserably) to pass himself off as an adult.

why are you dragging me into this?
i just asked mosheh what evidence he was contesting. U have put your foot in the tracks, but from the above statement it seems U humans are doing it subconciously according to your ego Instincts completely unaware of the initiations.

(And you can't even spell the word "absorption." Don't claim it was a typo either, the "a" and "o" are on opposite sides of the keyboard.)


haha, that post made me laugh :D


Yeah, its like trying to convince a fundamentalist that evolution is real -- they just dont want to be told they're wrong and will just flat out ignore any valid evidence you supply.

gosh.. the last 50 years of fusion failure... but you guys insist that it works.

ok.. i must be wrong... clearly.

-MT

gosh.. the last 50 years of fusion failure... but you guys insist that it works.

ok.. i must be wrong... clearly.

-MT

Did I hear someone mention close-mindedness a while back???

gosh.. the last 50 years of fusion failure... but you guys insist that it works.

ok.. i must be wrong... clearly.

-MT
No one - and I repeat - NO one has tried to tell you that controlled fission has produced more energy than it took to produce the reaction.

Our problem with you had been that you keep denying that fusion (as in the sun and other stars) actually exists. You insist that atoms can only "break down" and cannot be forced together as is done in those stellar situations AND in the hydrogen bomb.

Those are two totally different subjects - and you seem to be unable to grasp that. Just because controlled fusion has not reached the break-even point does NOT mean the process is false or whatever YOU want to label it.

And that is precisely what makes you so foolish.

is that mosheh problem?
he doesn't believe fusion is possible?

no.. no.. fusion exists.. it can happen... its just not a good way to produce energy is it???

no... not compared to fusion induced fission... that works great.

do you see a difference?

do you see any logic in chasing a theory, when you all have what you need???

i dont see the point... its a waste of time... especially since we are sure fission processes yield more.

-MT

no... not compared to fusion induced fission... that works great.
do you see a difference?
-MT
fusion induced fission?
what is this mosheh, explain this to me

Gobbledy gook.

it must be, he never replied back

i dont see the point... its a waste of time... especially since we are sure fission processes yield more.

-MT

Of course you don't see the point - you're far too undereducated.

And who is this "we" that's sure fission yields more? Not me or anyone else here. Only you, that's who. The rest of us know that fusion yeilds MUCH more than fission. Just why do you suppose we developed the hydrogen bomb after we already had the fusion bomb? (Stupid, really you are.)

Oh, and you never answered the question about your age. Are we then to assume I was correct and you are no more than 16????

fusion induced fission?
what is this mosheh, explain this to me

its called transmutation...

a well known workable process is the fusion of one helium core with a lithium core...

the process requires 2 million ev of energy on the accelorated helium ion.

the new fused core.. is unstable and fissions into 3 helium.. yielding 17 million ev volts in the process...

this is old news..

i have long been contemplating a simlar process with other heavier elements in unque apparatus of my own design.... as yet only on paper.

-MT

aren't you talking about radioactive decay?

aren't you talking about radioactive decay?

NO... radioactive decay happens anyway.. but yes.. any such isotope which is unstable would naturally decay...

thats how fission works.

add a nuetron and the new unstable form decays.... naturally.. yielding energy..

transmutation is using fusion processes to induce this change from stable forms into unstable forms and causing fission...

that... is the only worthwhile use for fusion aparatus... and i say they are wasting their time... with the idea of using abundant hydrogen...

lets focus on using silicon and oxygen... most of our planet is made of so2... its called sand... and we have more than enough of it.. and other heavy elements that we dont have to worry about it.

we dont have to use the most abundant stuff in the universe.....

we have better stuff.. just not as much... but more than we could ever use up....

even breeder reactors... makes uranium fission a long term renewable project capable of yielding alot of power...

and uranium is rare....

-MT

It is my understanding that for elements lighter than iron fusion releases energy and fission requires it. The reverse is true for those elements which are heavier than iron. That's why fusion continues right up to (but not beyond) iron in the most massive stars.

we already have breeder reactors mosheh

LAIKA... thats what they say.. i know...

I tend to believe them. I'm sure I don't understand it, but your theory sounds like it would be possible to violate the laws of thermodynamics by taking energy from splitting nuclei, and then re-fusing (or "transmutating") the fission products back into fissionable nuclei.

...

Our problem with you had been that you keep denying that fusion (as in the sun and other stars) actually exists. You insist that atoms can only "break down" and cannot be forced together as is done in those stellar situations AND in the hydrogen bomb...... So How should we believe that breaking atoms will require less energy than what we will get out of the fusion reaction ?

It is my understanding that for elements lighter than iron fusion releases energy and fission requires it. The reverse is true for those elements which are heavier than iron. That's why fusion continues right up to (but not beyond) iron in the most massive stars. And may we know why is it so ?

I tend to believe them. I'm sure I don't understand it, but your theory sounds like it would be possible to violate the laws of thermodynamics by taking energy from splitting nuclei, and then re-fusing (or "transmutating") the fission products back into fissionable nuclei.

I NEVER SAID THAT...

energy from mass is a one way street... from big to small.

atoms emit hydrogen and helium when decaying....

they are decay products... and the act of trying to fuse the smallest pieces together and get energy out, is just NOT a good idea..

better to fuse hydrogen with heavier elements to force a decay process... which is fission....

-MT

atoms emit hydrogen and helium when decaying....
-MT
this is false mosheh

oh really.. then what about this list..

helium emitters... alpha particles... NO253, FM 255/253/252/251/250, ES 253/252/251/249/248, PU 244/242/241/240, SHOULD I CONTINUE?

and any and all nuetrons... emitted.... all become hydrogen in 12 minutes.

so what i failed to mention is pions and electron capture.. but thats more than needs to be said.

isnt it?

-MT

I NEVER SAID THAT...

energy from mass is a one way street... from big to small.

atoms emit hydrogen and helium when decaying....

they are decay products... and the act of trying to fuse the smallest pieces together and get energy out, is just NOT a good idea..

better to fuse hydrogen with heavier elements to force a decay process... which is fission....

-MT
Its really spookee that the sun just doesnt get blown up, a sign of feeble energy system. And over that the supernova the zenth of its energy release only occurs at the end of its lifes story.

If the energy was lost in its life process then there should be no supernova.

oh really.. then what about this list..

helium emitters... alpha particles... NO253, FM 255/253/252/251/250, ES 253/252/251/249/248, PU 244/242/241/240, SHOULD I CONTINUE?

and any and all nuetrons... emitted.... all become hydrogen in 12 minutes.

so what i failed to mention is pions and electron capture.. but thats more than needs to be said.

isnt it?

-MT
the particles emitted in radioactive decay are
hydrogen and helium nuclei not atoms

I NEVER SAID THAT...

energy from mass is a one way street... from big to small.

atoms emit hydrogen and helium when decaying....

they are decay products... and the act of trying to fuse the smallest pieces together and get energy out, is just NOT a good idea..

better to fuse hydrogen with heavier elements to force a decay process... which is fission....

-MT
Tell me just one thing. How is it that all the professional nuclear scientists that have been working with both fission and fusion all these years can be be so wrong and only YOU can be right?????????????????

Tell me just one thing. How is it that all the professional nuclear scientists that have been working with both fission and fusion all these years can be be so wrong and only YOU can be right?????????????????
U r the best example of that attitude.

U r the best example of that attitude.
That makes absolutely no sense because I'm siding with the professionals. You two yardbirds are the only ones standing out in the cold.

That makes absolutely no sense because I'm siding with the professionals. You two yardbirds are the only ones standing out in the cold.
Thats the best place to see something new out there and to think out of the box.

Thats the best place to see something new out there and to think out of the box.
Sometimes, yes. But when you start with an idea that's in direct violation of proven principles then it means the only thing you can do is fail.

And you've yet to give me examples of where ignorance of facts has produced useful things. Why haven't you?

.... But when you start with an idea that's in direct violation of proven principles then it means the only thing you can do is fail. If U r sure then U should be able to shutup that person with proofs and facts instead of inflicting person insults. Thats not science, thats religion when U do such things. A person with science should not be worried of being proved wrong or making an error.

And you've yet to give me examples of where ignorance of facts has produced useful things. Why haven't you? Its not my fault if U always build fortresses of defense around your points, they are so high that U cant see past over them.

If U r sure then U should be able to shutup that person with proofs and facts instead of inflicting person insults. Thats not science, thats religion when U do such things. A person with science should not be worried of being proved wrong or making an error.


Several of us have tried to do just that. The problem is that both he and you are to lazy, stupid, or something to even bother reading and trying to understand the proofs we've displayed.

The reason I said lazy is because it's MUCH easier to just ignore the evidence and keep on posting junk the way he does.

Several of us have tried to do just that. The problem is that both he and you are to lazy, stupid, or something to even bother reading and trying to understand the proofs we've displayed.... For me its more of your inability to comprehend what we say. Over that U r just creating garbage out of threads by getting personal.

This Light has an incredible ability of sticking to the members ass instead of the thread topic.

For me its more of your inability to comprehend what we say. Over that U r just creating garbage out of threads by getting personal.

Oh, I understand perfectly what the two of you have been saying. It's your inability to want to comprehend what the rest of us have been saying that's the real problem here. You're making no effort at all to gain information - just talking and not listening.

This Light has an incredible ability of sticking to the members ass instead of the thread topic.

Very well. Then show me how his idiotic idea could possibly function. You cannot because it cannot.

i gotta see this !

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU... LIGHT.. SUPERLUMINAL LEOPOLD,...

is that i believe i.. can be wrong... always.

but it doesnt stop me from thinking of new stuff...


you ....

seem to think you are right.. all the time... because others told you so.

you dont seem to even try and think for yourself...

you let others do it for you... and then you obsorb their views.. and accept them.


have fun with that.

-MT

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU... LIGHT.. SUPERLUMINAL LEOPOLD,...

is that i believe i.. can be wrong... always.

but it doesnt stop me from thinking of new stuff...


you ....

seem to think you are right.. all the time... because others told you so.

you dont seem to even try and think for yourself...

you let others do it for you... and then you obsorb their views.. and accept them.


have fun with that.

-MT

Wrong as usual, dummy!

The difference is that you are just a stupid kid (who refuses to tell his age, by the way) that knows very little. The result is that you'll accept any idea you like because you aren't smart enough to know what things absolutely cannot work. Talking with you is like talking with someone who thinks ice is heavier (denser) than water just because it's a solid. And then keeps telling us that it will sink - because he knows it will!!

Please stay in school, kid, it just might help you.

seem to think you are right.. all the time... because others told you so.
you dont seem to even try and think for yourself...
you let others do it for you... and then you obsorb their views.. and accept them. have fun with that.
-MT
this sounds suspiciously like something happeh would say
you have no right whatsoever of passing this judgement on me

when you think outside the box as you call it
what you say by definition has no proof
therefor it is up to you to prove it

OK... by the way.. im 36... and i am self taught.. and i have over 7000 pages in hand written notes to prove it.

i study all the sciences.. and i dont wait for teachers to teach me...

i am able to teach myself....

as a result.. i never absorbed the biased views of my teachers..

you all have.

-MT

Its really spookee that the sun just doesnt get blown up, a sign of feeble energy system. And over that the supernova the zenth of its energy release only occurs at the end of its lifes story.

If the energy was lost in its life process then there should be no supernova.
The sun does not now nor has it ever had enough mass to supernova :rolleyes:

OK... by the way.. im 36... and i am self taught.. and i have over 7000 pages in hand written notes to prove it.

i study all the sciences.. and i dont wait for teachers to teach me...

i am able to teach myself....

as a result.. i never absorbed the biased views of my teachers..

you all have.

-MT
Self-teaching can be a good thing. But in your case, specifically in the areas of science, it failed you.

One has to be very careful about such things and apparently you weren't careful enough to verify the conclusions you reached about a lot of things.

The limitations of self-teaching have trapped many people. And it reminds me of a common statement about lawyers. An attorney who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. That points out the need for external help and verification of "facts." Something that you did not do.

And claiming teachers are biased means what, exactly? That they will teach you something that isn't true? That's what reference material are for - to check out what they say. Were you too poor to attend school?

OK... by the way.. im 36... and i am self taught.. and i have over 7000 pages in hand written notes to prove it.
-MT
mosheh
doing a quick calculation shows that you would have to write a page every other day since you were born to acheive 7000 pages by 36

if you are here to learn that is fine
but don't talk about something like you know all about
it and in fact don't

it just makes the people here dimiss what you say

mosheh
doing a quick calculation shows that you would have to write a page every other day since you were born to acheive 7000 pages by 36

Not particularly impossible, though quite infeasible if that figure includes childhood.

Not particularly impossible, though quite infeasible if that figure includes childhood.
have you read this mans posts?
how he writes on the board doesn't compare
with his hand written notes

have you read this mans posts?
how he writes on the board doesn't compare
with his hand written notes
You know what? It might be possible for him to have that many pages of notes. Because if he took notes the same way he posts, there wouldn't be more than about 35 - 50 words to the page.

At that rate (haven't done the calculations), anyone could probably write over 7,000 pages in just a few months. Hmmm... and maybe that's part of his problem - he only studied for just a few months - total!

mosheh and others need to realize that if they don't know something, say so
just like i did on the infinite number bit

doing that makes what you do say a lot more credible

I'm starting to feel the need to use the ignore button again. adios mosheh thezion.

mosheh and others need to realize that if they don't know something, say so
just like i did on the infinite number bit

doing that makes what you do say a lot more credible
Well said, Leo.

In many ways, he reminds me of two other idiots - Rabon and Metakron - who wanted to give the appearance that they knew everything already and MUCH more than anyone else did. Very stupid people. And I'm certainly glad to see that those two have almost disappeared from here. Both were obnoxious dummies.

it's too bad that most people can't follow my lead

Well said, Leo.

In many ways, he reminds me of two other idiots - Rabon and Metakron - who wanted to give the appearance that they knew everything already and MUCH more than anyone else did. Very stupid people. And I'm certainly glad to see that those two have almost disappeared from here. Both were obnoxious dummies.

Light, grow up.

...
when you think outside the box as you call it
what you say by definition has no proof
therefor it is up to you to prove it Reasearch and Development.

The sun does not now nor has it ever had enough mass to supernova :rolleyes:
So U mean to say Fusion is not good enough to get the Job done, right ?

Well said, Leo.

In many ways, he reminds me of two other idiots - Rabon and Metakron - who wanted to give the appearance that they knew everything already and MUCH more than anyone else did. Very stupid people. And I'm certainly glad to see that those two have almost disappeared from here. Both were obnoxious dummies. I know MetaKron very well , U should be worried about your reputation hence forth. I recommend getting a new Avatar.

OK... by the way.. im 36... and i am self taught.. and i have over 7000 pages in hand written notes to prove it.

i study all the sciences.. and i dont wait for teachers to teach me...

i am able to teach myself....

as a result.. i never absorbed the biased views of my teachers..

you all have.

-MT U did it as I am doing it, Hats off to U.

I know MetaKron very well , U should be worried about your reputation hence forth. I recommend getting a new Avatar.
Har! Me? Worried about that little twit? You gotta be kidding!!!

And you sure are observant, aren't you? NOT! Dummy, I don't even HAVE an Avatar! :bugeye:

look fellas.... and ladies...

i could do what??

discuss... what is already known and believed by all of you...

and you could stand around and nod and say up... fusion and big bang.. yup...

but what would i be doing?

simply spouting what i have learned... as you all tend to do.

i choose instead to discuss possibilities regarding alot of well known flaws in the very foundations of what you consider all to be common truth...

i.e.. you beliefs in fusion... its not based on the laboratory of success is it?

they say they just need to sustain the reaction... why?

cause they cant seem to sqeeze enough blood out of this turnip to use...

is it any wonder.?

and you do know the big drawback of the fusion systems dont you??

nuetron flux.... nuetrons no longer stay in the magnetic bottle.

and if there is one thing fusion reactors, like the tokomak are good at, its is making nuetron flux.

-MT

look fellas.... and ladies...

i could do what??

discuss... what is already known and believed by all of you...

and you could stand around and nod and say up... fusion and big bang.. yup...

but what would i be doing?

simply spouting what i have learned... as you all tend to do.

i choose instead to discuss possibilities regarding alot of well known flaws in the very foundations of what you consider all to be common truth...

i.e.. you beliefs in fusion... its not based on the laboratory of success is it?

they say they just need to sustain the reaction... why?

cause they cant seem to sqeeze enough blood out of this turnip to use...

is it any wonder.?

and you do know the big drawback of the fusion systems dont you??

nuetron flux.... nuetrons no longer stay in the magnetic bottle.

and if there is one thing fusion reactors, like the tokomak are good at, its is making nuetron flux.

-MT

Poor, poor Mosheh. You would have us discard proven facts, eh? Just how stupid can one person be??? Discard things that we understand and KNOW will work in favor of unproven assumptions on the part of an undereducated fool? I really don't think that's EVER going to happen.

Look, the only one you've managed to impress with your "idea" is someone that doesn't know any more than you do. While science certainly can be wrong on some assumed points - like theories - it's not ever wrong about proven facts!

Yes, we were wrong when we thought the sun went around the Earth. But that was only a theory. We now know the Earth revolves around the sun. By your standards, though, we should discard that knowledge and just say, "Gee, I don't know which goes around which."

How stupid! And that's exactly what you are trying to get us to do with - again - proven facts about fission and fusion. Simply because YOU don't believe it means nothing at all. And it doesn't change the facts.

We've attempted to show you documented evidence of why what we're saying is true. But just like a stupid pig-headed little kid you stand there with your head struck in the mud and refuse to open your eyes. Your self-education has FAILED you because you learned things incorrectly. It's just as simple as that.

so??? the tokomak doesnt produce a nuetron flux???

are you sure?

-MT

so??? the tokomak doesnt produce a nuetron flux???

are you sure?

-MT
it's my understanding that it produces a magnetic feild

describe what you mean by "neutron flux"

so??? the tokomak doesnt produce a nuetron flux???

are you sure?

-MT
The Tokamak (correct spelling) does produce some free neutrons. But since a magnetic field has no effect on them, as you noted, a physical shield is employed.

The neutrons play no active role in fusion while they are a critical component of fission.

It appears from what you've said here and earlier that your self-education pretty well stopped at fission. Or at least your understanding did.

So U mean to say Fusion is not good enough to get the Job done, right ?
No that is not at all what I am saying :rolleyes:

1) Will the amount of hydrogen and helium in the sun increase or decrease over the next few million years?

The answer in my book says they will decrease.......but that doesn't make sense to me! The most common type of nuclear fusion in the Sun is hydrogen fusion, so amount of hydrogen will certainly decrease, but shouldn't the amount of helium be INCREASING instead of decreasing? Or will the helium in fact also decrease in amount?

2) Why and how do volcanic eruptions aid in the creation of an atmosphere?
DON'T DOUBT, U'RE RIGHT. WITH TIME , THE SUN LOOSES ENERGY, SO IN MANY YEARS TO COME THE INTENSITY OF THE RAYS MUST HAVE REDUCED AND SUCH THE HELIUM AND H MUST HAVE REDUCED
AM NOT CLEAR WITH THE OTHER QUESTION

The sun's luminosity is steadily increasing. As H is converted to He and on toward heavier elements (as the available H is exhausted) the energy output of the sun increases. Most people think that the sun has another 5 billion years before it begins to go red-giant. This is true, yet long before then the earth will become uninhabitable due to increased solar output. Maybe 500 million to 1 billion years.

GEE.. im sorry.. i guess thats why they are selling it as a transmutation system to convert nuclear waste into safer stable stuff.....

how?? hummmm.. oh yeah... the nuetron flux.

gentlmen please... how much energy is required to force and 'electron capture'

eh... eh..????

well below that which is generated in the plasma chamber....

is it any wonder?

-MT

GEE.. im sorry.. i guess thats why they are selling it as a transmutation system to convert nuclear waste into safer stable stuff.....
-MT

And when did you come up with this nutty idea??????????

No that is not at all what I am saying :rolleyes: So what was it ?

The sun having fusion, Fusion considered more powerful, sun loosing energy but will never explode, sun is smaller hence lesser gravity ?

I always wondered how long would Sun last if it had been made up entirely of pure Uranium ?

So what was it ?

The sun having fusion, Fusion considered more powerful, sun loosing energy but will never explode, sun is smaller hence lesser gravity ?

I always wondered how long would Sun last if it had been made up entirely of pure Uranium ?
:rolleyes: No our sun will never explode. Very few stars have the mass required to explode. The sun doesn't "have' fusion, it uses the process of fusion. A star made of pure uranium is not possible. there was little or no uranium created during the big bang.

:rolleyes: No our sun will never explode. But Fusion can produce more energy.

Very few stars have the mass required to explode. So they need lot of energy input to get the job done.

The sun doesn't "have' fusion, it uses the process of fusion. But its Fusion.

A star made of pure uranium is not possible. there was little or no uranium created during the big bang. So U dont know the answer ?

If a star was formed by condensation of dust and gas, they would have to be pure Uranium in order to result in a star made of pure Uranium. However, the first few pounds of condensation would be a critical mass and a detonation. Therefore a star composed of pure Uranium could never form in the first place.

U agree?

If a star was formed by condensation of dust and gas, they would have to be pure Uranium in order to result in a star made of pure Uranium. However, the first few pounds of condensation would be a critical mass and a detonation. Therefore a star composed of pure Uranium could never form in the first place.

U agree?
Agreed. It could never form in the first place.

"What if" questions can be fun at times, but when the conditions are impossible there really isn't much you can do with it.

But Fusion can produce more energy.

So they need lot of energy input to get the job done.

But its Fusion.

So U dont know the answer ?
What are you talking about :rolleyes:
You really aren't making any sense now. And you were bad about that before.

And when did you come up with this nutty idea??????????


the fact that you say this.. shows us all.. how little you know of the tokomak and its progress.. and hopeful future...

gesh..

-MT

If a star was formed by condensation of dust and gas, they would have to be pure Uranium in order to result in a star made of pure Uranium. However, the first few pounds of condensation would be a critical mass and a detonation. Therefore a star composed of pure Uranium could never form in the first place.

U agree? It doesnt matter What I agree or not.

So the sun is smaller and it wont explode even though its Fusion based. But a Uranuim star would explode even before it forms a star, so at what size will it explode, its amazing that fusion is still considered more efficient.

anomalous
do you agree that the dihedral ramastat is connected to the quadrocketsacket?
and if that indeed is the case then the tricyclic hydrofirm would surely explode.
now given that, would you also agree that fusion fumes would be lethal?

the fact that you say this.. shows us all.. how little you know of the tokomak and its progress.. and hopeful future...

gesh..

-MT
No, quite the opposite, Mosheh - it shows exactly how little YOU know about the tokamak (again, the correct spelling). Any attempt to use it to "transmute nuclear waste" as you claim would be the MOST outrageously expensive possible way of dealing with the problem. Even the very thought is utter nonsense. (Which is very fitting for you, by the way.)

how about

http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/axSXuAA3YXgJ.LfWh4tOpg/abstract/0029-5515/40/3Y/325

or better...

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ppsLy4QDkroJ:www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/physics/fec2000/pdf/ftp2_09.pdf+tokamak%2Btransmutation%2Bnuclear+wast e&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

there is so much... you are a moron... clearly.

-MT

READ THOSE LINKS....

and understand.

-MT

how about

http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/axSXuAA3YXgJ.LfWh4tOpg/abstract/0029-5515/40/3Y/325

or better...

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ppsLy4QDkroJ:www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/physics/fec2000/pdf/ftp2_09.pdf+tokamak%2Btransmutation%2Bnuclear+wast e&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

there is so much... you are a moron... clearly.

-MT
You poor, poor dummy. You should read them again yourself. But your reading comprehension appears to be so low that it probably wouldn't even help if you reread it 20 times.

First, how about this: "After 30 years of operation, the biological hazard potential level of the whole system will decrease by two orders of magnitude."

30 years??

And second, on top of that, just how much would it cost to run a tokamak continuously for 30 years ?? They don't even attempt to answer that.

The cost would be ENORMOUS, stupid!

YOUR the one who sings the value of fusion technology...

but those who know... know its not happening any time soon.

gesh...

-MT