Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Stars explode no matter what the size is


Weitter Duckss

Recommended Posts

I find this discussion "fascinating", if I may quote the late Leonard Nimoy, because I have a friend who is a fanatical believer in the Electric Universe theory. Among he believes: 1. comets to do give off material, they absorb it and 2. grow to planetary size, 3. they act as an electrical conductor between the planets, creating all kinds of disaster, 4. Mars was once habitable until a close brush with such a comet destroyed the surface, 5. the Planet Venus is actually a captured comet, 6. the government scientists, NASA and so forth are keeping all this information top secret front he general public.

He went on to name the Phd. scientist (and I use that term loosely, and will not use his name to give him any more credibility) who puts out this prattle and told me to read his articles, which I found went against all current scientific theories and which I regarded as nonsense.

The scary thing is no amount of discussion would dissuade him that the man was right and all everything we learned in school about the basic workings of the universe was all wrong.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things about the universe that we do not know, and maybe never will know. I have my doubts about the existence of so called dark matter. It may exist, but you'll have to prove it to me. But presumably things like that are being studies methodically and scientifically, not just wild theories that you must "take or leave." I think a little skepticism is a good thing, but remember that old line, "There's a sucker born every minute." Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, I think stars explode because they're being controlled by an alien device just beyond our visible portion of the universe. The aliens that created this device have the capability to remotely control any star's destiny at will. So far we've only seen certain stars go supernova...but such observations mean nothing as these aliens could (at any moment mind you) cause our Sun (or any other star) to go out with a huge *KA-BOOM*. My hypothesis has to be valid because I say so...don't even bother asking me for any evidence (I know better than anyone else).

Sound familiar?

This hypothesis was confirmed on the documentary television series Stargate SG-1.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this discussion "fascinating", if I may quote the late Leonard Nimoy, because I have a friend who is a fanatical believer in the Electric Universe theory. Among he believes: 1. comets to do give off material, they absorb it and 2. grow to planetary size, 3. they act as an electrical conductor between the planets, creating all kinds of disaster, 4. Mars was once habitable until a close brush with such a comet destroyed the surface, 5. the Planet Venus is actually a captured comet, 6. the government scientists, NASA and so forth are keeping all this information top secret front he general public.

All nothing compared to the most ridiculous claim, the Saturn theory, which states Venus, Earth, and Mars were once satellites of Saturn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hypothesis was confirmed on the documentary television series Stargate SG-1.

Harte

I saw that too and I think Samantha Carter blew up a star once ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As any decent physicist knows, creating a wormhole through a star can pollute the star with foreign materials that will cause the star to explode.

Regarding Carter, it is generally accepted that, to make it in the entertainment industry, more than a few stars must be blown.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclones the star with rapid rotations can be similar to a wormhole, but there any similarity stops.

The universe and Systems in the Universe are decorated attractive forces and rotation of the body (and spinning larger systems). Most of the events taking place does, in areas equator, because the rotation along with the attractive forces are there greatest.

Nevertheless, exist bodies (ejected planets, stars) that wanders into another system, some arrive perpendicular to pole star in the eye of the cyclone, penetrate into the bowels of the stars, where explode. The rest is well known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, I think stars explode because they're being controlled by an alien device just beyond our visible portion of the universe. The aliens that created this device have the capability to remotely control any star's destiny at will. So far we've only seen certain stars go supernova...but such observations mean nothing as these aliens could (at any moment mind you) cause our Sun (or any other star) to go out with a huge *KA-BOOM*. My hypothesis has to be valid because I say so...don't even bother asking me for any evidence (I know better than anyone else).

Sound familiar?

Your hypothesis can be used so long as it stands. From your logical point of view it does, and logic has to be tested by revelation - what is revealed in nature.

A different point of view does not threaten the truth, it only threatens a lie, so if a new hypothesis is a threat, what does that tell you about the current theories?

Every time someone has an opinion a whole team spits the dummy and starts to rant and rave, belittle, mock and carry on like nobody, so what do you have to say about your snarky remarks? Do they come from insecurity about what you think is truth?

Absolutely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your hypothesis can be used so long as it stands. From your logical point of view it does, and logic has to be tested by revelation - what is revealed in nature.

But that's the very point; my hypothesis isn't at all logical. My hypothesis is assumptive to the max, is not "revealed" by any evidence whatsoever and is exclusionary as well.

A different point of view does not threaten the truth, it only threatens a lie, so if a new hypothesis is a threat, what does that tell you about the current theories?

No, no, no...science isn't about "the truth"...science is about what explanation is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.

Every time someone has an opinion a whole team spits the dummy and starts to rant and rave, belittle, mock and carry on like nobody, so what do you have to say about your snarky remarks? Do they come from insecurity about what you think is truth?

Absolutely.

My "snarky remarks" were meant to be a means to an end, sort of a mirror to show you and others how your ideas are severely lacking. An entry level science class would really be helpful in showing you exactly how the scientific method operates.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it cannot.

Cheers,

Badeskov

:lol: :lol: That's an interesting debate/discussion strategy. It's the same one my daughter used when she was 2 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this discussion "fascinating", if I may quote the late Leonard Nimoy, because I have a friend who is a fanatical believer in the Electric Universe theory. Among he believes: 1. comets to do give off material, they absorb it and 2. grow to planetary size, 3. they act as an electrical conductor between the planets, creating all kinds of disaster, 4. Mars was once habitable until a close brush with such a comet destroyed the surface, 5. the Planet Venus is actually a captured comet, 6. the government scientists, NASA and so forth are keeping all this information top secret front he general public.

Hearsay... however...

1. Yes, comets give off material.

2. Nope, don't think that's part of the theory.

3. Yes, there can be an electric discharge (like lightning) between a comet and a planet, and you don't want to be close to it.

4. Nope, that's not part of the EU theory.

5. Maybe... Venus does not have a magnetosphere like a planet.... It has a magneto-tail like a comet.

http://www.astrobio....ise-from-venus/

6. Hogwash... the government has even begun to talk about the role of electromagnetism in the universe.

Edited by robinrenee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All nothing compared to the most ridiculous claim, the Saturn theory, which states Venus, Earth, and Mars were once satellites of Saturn.

The proponents of the Saturn theory don't claim to be scientists. It started with Immanuel Velikovsky, a psychiatrist. It's all about the mythology and legends of various cultures. http://www.velikovsky.info/Saturn_Theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclones the star with rapid rotations can be similar to a wormhole, but there any similarity stops.

The universe and Systems in the Universe are decorated attractive forces and rotation of the body (and spinning larger systems). Most of the events taking place does, in areas equator, because the rotation along with the attractive forces are there greatest.

Nevertheless, exist bodies (ejected planets, stars) that wanders into another system, some arrive perpendicular to pole star in the eye of the cyclone, penetrate into the bowels of the stars, where explode. The rest is well known.

HUH? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HUH? :huh:

That to test the. The result of the test would be slowing down or speeding up the rotation of the cyclone. In the eye of cyclin (where safely) to simulate the explosion of the body. Estimates say less detonation will speed rotation, greater to slow down or break the cyclone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That to test the. The result of the test would be slowing down or speeding up the rotation of the cyclone. In the eye of cyclin (where safely) to simulate the explosion of the body. Estimates say less detonation will speed rotation, greater to slow down or break the cyclone.

Allow me to say that, that didn't make a god damn bit of sense.

1) You should start making more sense, or...

2) English is not your first language and you should probably employ a better online translator. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's the very point; my hypothesis isn't at all logical. My hypothesis is assumptive to the max, is not "revealed" by any evidence whatsoever and is exclusionary as well.

No, no, no...science isn't about "the truth"...science is about what explanation is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.

My "snarky remarks" were meant to be a means to an end, sort of a mirror to show you and others how your ideas are severely lacking. An entry level science class would really be helpful in showing you exactly how the scientific method operates.

Point taken, but I have hardly heard any sarcasm from the writers which were targeted by your post.

For e.g, I don't always have a clue what Weitter is saying because the English is back to front, but with some thought I can usually piece it together, but there's no reason to put him down.

I don't agree with everything he says, as some Mods have said without thinking, it's just that I don't see a need to slander anyone who has a different view.

On the topic, - if science is not about "the truth" then I don't want to see or hear any more remarks like "wrong !" to support those claims. Wrong implies there is a right, and as far as science is concerned there is no right or wrong - only a current working hypothesis, which is subject to change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to say that, that didn't make a god damn bit of sense.

1) You should start making more sense, or...

2) English is not your first language and you should probably employ a better online translator. Seriously.

To explain Weitter, we assume that a worm hole would rotate, or at least cause materials entering into it, to have a bias of motion. I don't know if this is correct, but Weitter is saying that a star has such an activity, of causing materials of it's own to rotate, as materials can do in a cyclone, and that the speed of this rotation is altered by any materials which may be added to it, say in the case of a star, interstellar materials.

Whether that rotation is caused by an activity or state similar to a wormhole, I don't know what he or she means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken, but I have hardly heard any sarcasm from the writers which were targeted by your post.

My post wasn't "sarcasm" nor was it "slander". It was a parody designed to demonstrate, by using similar flaws in logic and reasoning, why others are exasperated by your (and others) general attitude...which I will now spell out ever so clearly.

1) Use of logical fallacies when forming ones hypothesis.

2) Failure to provide support for ones hypothesis.

3) Complete disregard for the scientific method (in the science forums no less).

4) Belligerant attitude when asked to improve/educate oneself.

On the topic, - if science is not about "the truth" then I don't want to see or hear any more remarks like "wrong !" to support those claims. Wrong implies there is a right, and as far as science is concerned there is no right or wrong - only a current working hypothesis, which is subject to change.

The scientific method may not be about some ultimate "truth" but it does indeed operate via criteria that must be adhered to. What Waspie was calling wrong was must certainly wrong...and in a big way. BTW, there are working hypotheses and there are also scientific laws (ie, Newton's Laws, the Law of Gravity etc.). Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how science operates.

Edited by Lilly
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post wasn't "sarcasm" nor was it "slander". It was a parody designed to demonstrate, by using similar flaws in logic and reasoning, why others are exasperated by your (and others) general attitude...which I will now spell out ever so clearly.

1) Use of logical fallacies when forming ones hypothesis.

2) Failure to provide support for ones hypothesis.

3) Complete disregard for the scientific method (in the science forms no less).

4) Belligerant attitude when asked to improve/educate oneself.

The scientific method may not be about some ultimate "truth" but it does indeed operate via criteria that must be adhered to. What Waspie was calling wrong was must certainly wrong...and in a big way. BTW, there are working hypotheses and there are also scientific laws (ie, Newton's Laws, the Law of Gravity etc.). Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how science operates.

Ok, let's call it mocking in an academic way.

As far as the thread goes, if an argument cannot be followed and discussed on the basis of it's own logic and feasibility, then the participants, or opponents more correctly, don't have a reason to argue against it, without providing a true counter argument. Just crying for an education from their own library is not really a discussion but a library study. If someone wants to remain there that's fine. But then why hang around here, if all we are allowed is 1970's high school text book science?

The world of text book science is not all proven, and a lot of theories are just that - the opinions of other men, which we are supposed to be supreme above any reasoning, or individual thought.

That's the perfect formula for permanent ignorance. I wonder if that is the prime objective of forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearsay... however...

1. Yes, comets give off material.

Gee, do you think? Is that just a silly strawman, or is it a reading comprehension issue? No claim otherwise was made.

2. Nope, don't think that's part of the theory.

Again, you seem to be having a problem understanding what was said. You didn't question that the claim was that they ACCRETE, ie gather new material. If they don't grow to planet sizes from that claimed process, then what stops them? (Shall I tell you? - it's pretty darn obvious..) Please be specific with what you are disputing to avoid such misunderstandings, and looking a lot like you do not understand the topic..

3. Yes, there can be an electric discharge (like lightning) between a comet and a planet, and you don't want to be close to it.

What is your reference or observations for this? Again, please be specific - electrostatic or electromagnetic? Mechanism of developing charge? The nature, likely distance and media (if any) for discharge? Effects on Earth? Last time this was observed/recorded? Does it involve SOHO imagery? (oh, I so hope it does, because I and others have already debunked that one in some detail (not here, perhaps..)

4. Nope, that's not part of the EU theory.

A variation of it is in the Velikovsky fantasy story, which is where a lot of this stuff (like the one above) seems to originate..... Please cite where the 'definitive' EU theory may be found.. you know, the peer reviewed one. So we can check..

5. Maybe... Venus does not have a magnetosphere like a planet.... It has a magneto-tail like a comet.

http://www.astrobio....ise-from-venus/

Well, it's good that you cited a decent source, but what the heck does a magnetosphere have to do with being a supposed comet???? And tell us, does the Earth have such a tail? Jupiter? What does that mean..?

6. Hogwash... the government has even begun to talk about the role of electromagnetism in the universe.

Strawman HOGWASH. NOBODY disputed that the Gubmint talks about electromagnetism - for heaven's sake, we only EXIST because of our magnetosphere... and scientists have a very sound understanding of the REAL roles of electromagnetism. Again, you are misinterpreting the quotes horribly - one might assume deliberately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's call it mocking in an academic way.

Call it what you please but the old saying comes to mind, "if the shoe fits...".

As far as the thread goes, if an argument cannot be followed and discussed on the basis of it's own logic and feasibility, then the participants, or opponents more correctly, don't have a reason to argue against it, without providing a true counter argument. Just crying for an education from their own library is not really a discussion but a library study. If someone wants to remain there that's fine. But then why hang around here, if all we are allowed is 1970's high school text book science?

Utter nonsense. Logic and the scientific method are paramount to any rational discussion...especially in the science forums. BTW, Newton's Laws are pretty darn old (way before the 1970's). Standing the test of time makes them stronger, not weaker.

The world of text book science is not all proven, and a lot of theories are just that - the opinions of other men, which we are supposed to be supreme above any reasoning, or individual thought.

In science a theory is a highly supported hypothesis...not a 'wild ass guess' or an opinion.

That's the perfect formula for permanent ignorance. I wonder if that is the prime objective of forums.

IMO willfull ignorance generally arises when logic/reason/science are rejected.

Here's a link that explains the difference between hypothesis, theory and law in science: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Edited by Lilly
addition of link
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

As far as the thread goes, if an argument cannot be followed and discussed on the basis of it's own logic and feasibility, then the participants, or opponents more correctly, don't have a reason to argue against it, without providing a true counter argument. Just crying for an education from their own library is not really a discussion but a library study. If someone wants to remain there that's fine. But then why hang around here, if all we are allowed is 1970's high school text book science?

We are asking for the logic and feasibility to be outlined. It hasn't. And no-one said anything about 1970's schoolbook science except you. Starhunter, answer this - Should ANY science, especially that called 'mainstream' (ie currently accepted as being the best and simplest theory that explains all aspects of an observed phenomena) be overturned by a theory that doesn't explain all aspects, and is based on no observations at all?

That would be a VERY silly waste of our time (yes, even yours). So SH, how about you help Weitter out? You tell us which observations are better explained by Weitter's word salad and also provide the full logic behind it and the observations which support it. There's bucketloads of information and obs on this topic out there - surely you knew that before you waded in?

The world of text book science is not all proven, and a lot of theories are just that - the opinions of other men, which we are supposed to be supreme above any reasoning, or individual thought.

Haven't had a lot to do with science, have you? What we are talking about here are NOT just half-assed opinions and musings. They are theories that explain observations perfectly, and that also dovetail into other theories on related phenomena. You don't get any kudos for not knowing what those theories are and why those theories are the accepted ones, and then walking ignorantly in with a silly idea that is supported by nothing whatsoever and in fact contradicts observations. If you claim this IS supported, then CITE it.

That's the perfect formula for permanent ignorance. I wonder if that is the prime objective of forums.

If you think making silly guesses and wild claims based on total ignorance of the topic is better than the system of peer review that we have, I think *your* prime objective is that 'perfect formula'... Hopefully that ignorance won't be permanent - how's about you begin the process by supporting Weitter's claims? If not, then it appears you have a problem...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not text on the topic, it is difficult to follow you.

It does not matter what Weitter thinks or says. The importance of the theme remove illogical (as, in the beginning we have, tumultuous emergence of the body and hides the fact that the forces that are working, there is no gravity, Lord? Stars do fission and radioaktivnoti anywhere, etc.). We are not discussing a new take, or retain existing, trying to be objective (skeptical) to the offered texts (it does not matter whether they are old or new, but what is realistic and based on the offered solutions approach is, at least a little, the truth) and examine the subject without cheerleading. Weitteru this is a hobby, not a business, not a profit, I just sow the doubt which is encased in me. "Blessed are those who believe .."

Edited by Weitter Duckss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: That's an interesting debate/discussion strategy. It's the same one my daughter used when she was 2 years old. :innocent:

It is just a statement of fact; the pseudo-scientific idea of the electrical universe cannot be tested in the lab as it is simply plain out wrong. But please feel free to lists the experiments that you believe can be done in a lab and that prove the electrical universe "theory".

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

badeskov snapback.png

Each explains, part of the text that is set in the forum.

I have no idea what you mean by this. But to reiterate, it has been explained to you that suns below ~25 solar masses cannot explode. They wither away slowly instead. Now, if you think otherwise, please provide scientific, peer reviewed evidence to support your position.

You explain that there is one real evidence (done in laboratories on Earth) that there are extremely dense masses?

I have said no such thing, where on Earth did you get that utterly ludicrous idea from?

Quoting untested and unprovable texts. These are just a mental construction.

People have provided you links to scientifically evidenced information. Nothing is untested or unproven. You simply just do not understand what you are looking at. You can't even understand the difference between scientifically evidenced and unproven opinion. You really need to go away and learn some first grade physics before you make even more a fool out of yourself than you have so far (if that is even possible).

Waspie_Dwarf

Irrelevant !!!

Very it is important. The basic fact is that, gas, no possibility of hyper consolidation. There are forces that would be made, and millions of years turned into a billion (and higher). No capital letters and exclamation points that can not be changed.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Harte

Your observation stands. She is however tied to the growth of the body in the universe, 70% of all the stars of the Milky Way are small red stars or bodies that are relatively recently lost the crust ...

:blink:

veiter

Ob-ska explosion, daily registration meteorite explosion in the atmosphere point to the force, which can, in special conditions, to detonate the star ...

Just as I thought it couldn't get any worse, you go ahead and demonstrate that you actually know even less than previously demonstrated.

This thread belongs in the Jokes section or the Science Fiction section.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.