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

...

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?

As others have already pointed out, this is utter nonsense and demonstrates that you do not have the vaguest idea of how science works, so no wonder you cannot argue for your claims here or elsewhere.

It is up to the claimant to present a coherent argument based on scientific evidence and a logical succession of deductions leading to a conclusion. Only then can a logical counter be presented and argued. In this case there is no evidence, no logic, no conclusion, only an empty and provably wrong claim, thus nothing can be presented against except the statement of fact that it is wrong.

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.

This is a wrong as it can possibly get, but again, sadly explains why you constantly go wrong and cannot discriminate between fact and fiction.

A scientific theory is a rigorously tested and vetted hypothesis and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. Nothing.

Until you understand the above you will continue to lead yourself astray by not being able to recognize what is wrong. And you are the only one that can make that happen.

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

Yes, your approach is indeed the perfect formula for permanent ignorance. And you and others so amply demonstrate this sad fact repeatedly on this very board.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Your statement is not true. It is just your opinion and that's fine.

As for experiments, here's one. Two blobs of plasma in an electric field create a spiral.... as in galaxy. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/spiral-galaxies-grand-canyons/

Spiral_galaxy_simulation.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Cheers,

Badeskov

In this case, you need to provide proof (not just claim). Start with the data: 70% of the stars of the Milky Way are red dwarfs. Are these dead stars? Why, around them, registering an exo-planet? Where are the dead stars? How at all you explain the fact 70%?

I know, the claim is not yours, but you is you represent, so explain their words because someone else's texts say that's it, no explanation.

...

We have a cyclone at the poles of stars which can pull in a larger body, we have the fact that the bodies explode. Response of the stars in this case (which is extremely rare, due to the regulated system)?

robinrenee

In space, where the rotation is omnipresent, is not expected that the two galaxies produce something other than rotation.

Edited by Weitter Duckss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RobinRenee, you do understand what a REAL WORLD example would be?

I can show you some animations of pink unicorns.. but we are talking about REAL effects. OBSERVABLE effects. Effects that can be shown to have happened - via direct EVIDENCE - in the past.

If you seriously believe that site is peer-reviewed science, and that your 'example' is somehow relevant.... then I can sell you a breeding pair of those unicorns...

I asked you earlier for OBSERVATIONS, not half-assed simulations with absolutely no supporting information, like that useless garbage you just posted. If that passes, then so do my unicorns..

Seriously, why not try dragging yourself away from the tinfoilhat sites and go take a look at some real science, from a genuine, recognised credible educational institution. You'll see their 'simulations' are logically RELEVANT, backed up with real data, all assumptions are given, and if it isn't backed up by observations and testing in reality, then it isn't solving a problem...

Finally, do explain how your little plasma blobs mean that what has been claimed by Weitter is in any way correct. Step by step, logical explanation of that, thanks. If you can't, then why the offtopic waffling?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

robinrenee

In space, where the rotation is omnipresent, is not expected that the two galaxies produce something other than rotation.

The experiment was in a laboratory. The rotation of the 2 plasma blobs was created by an electromagnetic field.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we leave Robin and Weitter to discuss this in more detail. It's now way beyond my comprehension.. indeed I smell a Nobel prize on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the great import of your example wherein plasma is being manipulated electromagnetically.

The same thing happens to electrons in an old picture tube (CRT) type television.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The experiment was in a laboratory. The rotation of the 2 plasma blobs was created by an electromagnetic field.

So?

Here is an example: I can show (in a laboratory) light bending in media with refractive index gradient. How that would explain gravitational light bending?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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...

I know the scientific terms...

You don't have to push the point that I am ignorant and whatever, just because the current theories on stars are being questioned.

There were a couple of points bought out throughout the thread which I don't think were irrational at all.

It is likely that in the near future, a few of the old theories of stars will be proven wrong.

One of them is that stars die, it will be proven otherwise, that novas are part of their cycles in activity, which is not reserved for any specific age or size of a star.

Edited by Starhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we leave Robin and Weitter to discuss this in more detail. It's now way beyond my comprehension.. indeed I smell a Nobel prize on the way.

I thought someone just forgot to flush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Valles Marineris is a gigantic tension gash at a planetary scale formed by the loading of the crust due to the largest volcanic province in the Solar System.

Yes, the same feature that can be seen in photomicrographs, just at a planetary scale. That's so cool. That is unbelievably cool.

Instead the article shows pictures of electrical discharge alongside it and vomits words onto a page. I could dig into the problems with that link all day, but I don't think it would be worth it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X09003847

*wipes away a solitary tear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Valles Marineris is a gigantic tension gash at a planetary scale formed by the loading of the crust due to the largest volcanic province in the Solar System.

Yes, the same feature that can be seen in photomicrographs, just at a planetary scale. That's so cool. That is unbelievably cool.

Instead the article shows pictures of electrical discharge alongside it and vomits words onto a page. I could dig into the problems with that link all day, but I don't think it would be worth it.

http://www.sciencedi...012821X09003847

*wipes away a solitary tear

:huh:

There is only single picture (geological activity as function of time on Mars) in this paper... You posted wrong link, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only single picture (geological activity as function of time on Mars) in this paper... You posted wrong link, I guess.

No, that's the right link. It's one of the most recent summary papers on the geological history of Mars. I don't have full access to it, is the problem.

Ah. The article I'm referring to is the electrical universe BS one. I just posted the geologic history paper abstract as a contrast. My bad, that wasn't entirely clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's the right link. It's one of the most recent summary papers on the geological history of Mars. I don't have full access to it, is the problem.

Ah. The article I'm referring to is the electrical universe BS one. I just posted the geologic history paper abstract as a contrast. My bad, that wasn't entirely clear.

Ah, ok, thanks for clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement is not true. It is just your opinion and that's fine.

As for experiments, here's one. Two blobs of plasma in an electric field create a spiral.... as in galaxy. http://www.holoscien...-grand-canyons/

Spiral_galaxy_simulation.jpg

Completely irrelevant. That has absolutely nothing to do with an electrical universe. We know plasma have electrical properties, heck, you can make one in your own microwave oven (albeit not advisable as you may have to go out and buy a new microwave oven afterwards). The fact of the matter is the electrical universe idea is all bogus and completely made up. There is no experiment whatsoever that you can propose that would prove that ludicrous idea.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

And if your daughter was a physicist commenting in a discussion on physics her comment would be equally valid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, you need to provide proof (not just claim).

First of all, you are the one that claimed that 1 star in a million explodes no matter the size. That is your claim. Now kindly provide the scientific, peer reviewed evidence for that claim.

But you can't, because you made that up based on some silly new age idea or some such. It is your thread, it is your claims. We don't do your work for you, we just point out that you are plain out wrong and are making things up as you go along.

Start with the data: 70% of the stars of the Milky Way are red dwarfs. Are these dead stars?

No, they are not dead stars, whoever claimed that they are? They burn their fuel very slowly, but they will burn through their fuel eventually and become a white dwarf that will radiate away their heat and finally become a black dwarf and that is the death of red dwarf - no explosion, simply a slow death.

Why, around them, registering an exo-planet?

Why shouldn't there be exoplanets around red dwarfs?

Where are the dead stars? How at all you explain the fact 70%?

No need to explain, it is just a simple fact that they exist. It is also a simple fact that they do not explode.

I know, the claim is not yours, but you is you represent, so explain their words because someone else's texts say that's it, no explanation.

So you can't research even the most basic of facts on your own?

We have a cyclone at the poles of stars which can pull in a larger body, we have the fact that the bodies explode. Response of the stars in this case (which is extremely rare, due to the regulated system)?

What? Which bodies explode? Only suns with masses larger than ~25 solar masses go nova and explode. What is it that you do not understand?

robinrenee

In space, where the rotation is omnipresent, is not expected that the two galaxies produce something other than rotation.

Utter nonsense.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we leave Robin and Weitter to discuss this in more detail. It's now way beyond my comprehension.. indeed I smell a Nobel prize on the way.

Nah..their fallacies need to be pointed out, although I do see the enticement in grabbing a six-pack and some popcorn and just lean back to watch this train-wreck of a pseudo-scientific discussion heading to a dire end....

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they are not dead stars, whoever claimed that they are? They burn their fuel very slowly, but they will burn through their fuel eventually and become a white dwarf that will radiate away their heat and finally become a black dwarf and that is the death of red dwarf - no explosion, simply a slow death.

To (almost) quote general Douglas MacArthur: "Old stars never die. They just fade away"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To (almost) quote general Douglas MacArthur: "Old stars never die. They just fade away"

Haha, good point....

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we leave Robin and Weitter to discuss this in more detail. It's now way beyond my comprehension.. indeed I smell a Nobel prize on the way.

I think a Darwin award is more likely. He is just the kind of free thinking individual that is likely to challenge the laws of nature !

Hey gravity is just a theory, right ? :innocent:http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2007-02.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the great import of your example wherein plasma is being manipulated electromagnetically.

The same thing happens to electrons in an old picture tube (CRT) type television.

Harte

Right ! Badeskov asked me for an example of a laboratory experiment (micro) that could reproduce what happens in the universe (macro). "As above, so below." Electromagnetism works the same way on small scale and large scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snapback.pngbadeskov

No need to explain, it is just a simple fact that they exist. It is also a simple fact that they do not explode.

A religious belief can not discussing.

The Milky Way has 100-200 billion stars, remains of the explosion the star is several thousand (optimistic), but it is true 1 / 1,000,000.

Explode small asteroids (and large) in the Earth's atmosphere, the same principle applies to the larger body that catches the eye of the cyclone star ...

The white dwarfs explode, and have a similar mass (size) as well as red. They differ in temperature.

The claim that small stars over large is the same as if they were small children over great grandfathers and grandmothers. You claim that quickly produced a large body of small, no possibility that what used to be a small body, how do you imagine the process?

Edited by Weitter Duckss
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.