Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Imagine being here when the sun dies

KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:42:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
That would be a quick but horrble way to go. Religious or not, we know there is an approximate date of death for earth, and if I understand correctly, every planet that orbits the Sun.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 7:39:22 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:42:20 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
That would be a quick but horrble way to go. Religious or not, we know there is an approximate date of death for earth, and if I understand correctly, every planet that orbits the Sun.
The sun dies very slowly, Kendo. It runs on burning hydrogen in a fusion reaction, turning it into helium. Helium will also fuse into heavier elements, but our sun isn't big enough or hot enough to do that, so when it runs out of hydrogen, it runs out of fuel.

The sun's gravity causes gases such as hydrogen and newly-formed helium to be attracted toward the core, while the heat of fusion provides pressure pushing the gases out again -- that's why the sun's surface is so turbulent. But as the fuel runs out, gravity takes over and the helium core begins to compress, burning the last of the hydrogen.

This allows outer regions of the sun to expand, and the remaining hydrogen burning around the core actually causes the sun to burn hotter. For a while, it becomes a kind of star called a 'red giant'. The surface of the sun is predicted to expand toward the orbit of Mars, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and probably Earth. By then, the atmosphere of the Earth would be stripped away, the surface would have baked, and there'd be no life on Earth by the time it was engulfed.

But the growing luminosity of the sun (about 10% increase per billion years) is already a problem for life on Earth. It moves the solar system's habitable zone (defined by the area where liquid water allows our familiar carbon biochemistry) out towards Jupiter in as little as a billion years' time. So by then Earth's oceans will likely have evaporated, and we'll already have moved off Earth or be extinct. [https://theconversation.com...]

However, life near or beyond Jupiter might still be possible for some time longer before the sun dims and collapses, and the remaining solar system freezes.

And if our species survives long enough to see the sun first redden and expand, we'll also have witnessed another amazing event: the collision and merger between our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy, predicted in four billion years [https://en.wikipedia.org...](although it might already be happening. [http://www.universetoday.com...])

So how likely is humanity living to reach 1 billion years?

Life on Earth is thought to be about 3.55 billion years old, and the oldest complex organism I know of is the sea-sponge, at about 580 million years; while the oldest simple organism is likely cyanobacteria, now about 2.8 billion years old. The human species is thought to be about 200,000 years old; and at background extinction rates, a mammal normally goes extinct from 'natural causes' after about 1 million years, so if we can survive as long as the average mammalian species -- or even longer, then we really need to be thinking about living away from Earth -- if we don't leave Earth as a species before then.

This offers us a very different picture to the way we currently think of planetary conservation, but is the one necessary to think about if we wish to outlive cyanobacteria. :)
KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 7:55:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
200,000 years is nothing to 1 billion years. Talking pocket change in universe terms. I would look to Pluto or even beyond for a temporary planet when the sun does die.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 12:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 7:39:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:42:20 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
That would be a quick but horrble way to go. Religious or not, we know there is an approximate date of death for earth, and if I understand correctly, every planet that orbits the Sun.
The sun dies very slowly, Kendo. It runs on burning hydrogen in a fusion reaction, turning it into helium. Helium will also fuse into heavier elements, but our sun isn't big enough or hot enough to do that, so when it runs out of hydrogen, it runs out of fuel.

The sun's gravity causes gases such as hydrogen and newly-formed helium to be attracted toward the core, while the heat of fusion provides pressure pushing the gases out again -- that's why the sun's surface is so turbulent. But as the fuel runs out, gravity takes over and the helium core begins to compress, burning the last of the hydrogen.

This allows outer regions of the sun to expand, and the remaining hydrogen burning around the core actually causes the sun to burn hotter. For a while, it becomes a kind of star called a 'red giant'. The surface of the sun is predicted to expand toward the orbit of Mars, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and probably Earth. By then, the atmosphere of the Earth would be stripped away, the surface would have baked, and there'd be no life on Earth by the time it was engulfed.

But the growing luminosity of the sun (about 10% increase per billion years) is already a problem for life on Earth. It moves the solar system's habitable zone (defined by the area where liquid water allows our familiar carbon biochemistry) out towards Jupiter in as little as a billion years' time. So by then Earth's oceans will likely have evaporated, and we'll already have moved off Earth or be extinct. [https://theconversation.com...]

However, life near or beyond Jupiter might still be possible for some time longer before the sun dims and collapses, and the remaining solar system freezes.

And if our species survives long enough to see the sun first redden and expand, we'll also have witnessed another amazing event: the collision and merger between our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy, predicted in four billion years [https://en.wikipedia.org...](although it might already be happening. [http://www.universetoday.com...])

So how likely is humanity living to reach 1 billion years?

Life on Earth is thought to be about 3.55 billion years old, and the oldest complex organism I know of is the sea-sponge, at about 580 million years; while the oldest simple organism is likely cyanobacteria, now about 2.8 billion years old. The human species is thought to be about 200,000 years old; and at background extinction rates, a mammal normally goes extinct from 'natural causes' after about 1 million years, so if we can survive as long as the average mammalian species -- or even longer, then we really need to be thinking about living away from Earth -- if we don't leave Earth as a species before then.

This offers us a very different picture to the way we currently think of planetary conservation, but is the one necessary to think about if we wish to outlive cyanobacteria. :)

So what your saying is that I need not clear my calendar, here.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 12:57:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 7:55:06 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
200,000 years is nothing to 1 billion years.
That's exactly right, Kendo. We haven't yet learned how to plan for thousands of generations -- we haven't had the science and engineering to keep our civilisations going for that long except by accident -- nor synthesise our own permanent, off-Earth habitats.

I would look to Pluto or even beyond for a temporary planet when the sun does die.
Jupiter might be far enough when the sun expands, but we'd still need a lot of power and resources to build a nonterrestrial habitat for billions of people -- that's if we had the bioengineering (we don't yet) and if societies of billions are socially viable to sustain (at the moment they're not -- we co-exist by largely ignoring one another except for trade and tourism. :D) Our solar system likely has enormous resources, but they're hard to access with present engineering, and power is really the biggest immediate issue. The sun supplies amazing amounts of energy, but it doesn't port well. We really need something like an efficient, highly-scalable fusion engine, so we can take sun-like energy wherever we need it. We're now about 60 years into that research and are only starting to get more energy out than engineers put in.

So... lots of problems to solve. But we really need to solve them -- not just so we can survive as a species, but so we can decide hundreds of thousands of years in advance where we want to be when the Andromeda collision starts rearranging our galaxy, because after that, we might not have many more choices.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 10:11:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
The sun will not die. It will merely transform. Sun's don't run out of fuel, they just get too big and explode. This explosion will give birth to many other small suns. Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 7:42:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 10:11:34 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The sun will not die.
Well, it depends on your definition of "death"; but by many definitions, you're right.
It will merely transform. Sun's don't run out of fuel,
They do; go read a bit.
they just get too big and explode.
B.S. There's no reason for a star to explode simply because it's "too big".
This explosion will give birth to many other small suns.
Correct.
Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 3:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 7:42:50 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/24/2016 10:11:34 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The sun will not die.
Well, it depends on your definition of "death"; but by many definitions, you're right.
It will merely transform. Sun's don't run out of fuel,
They do; go read a bit.
The aether is the fuel and there is an infinite supply of aether. Thus, the energy source will never run out. Just as Uranium is the largest atom, stars have limits too because they are fractals of atoms. Go read a bit.

they just get too big and explode.
B.S. There's no reason for a star to explode simply because it's "too big".

I am only observing the facts. http://www.uni.edu...

This explosion will give birth to many other small suns.
Correct.

Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://arxiv.org...

Extract -
Since all of space is interconnected, this slight CONTRACTION of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this CONTRACTION of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom. And as Einstein explained, GRAVITY is expressed in the curvature of space. (2) So the strong force acting on quarks and nucleons, results in a relativistic mass increase and a comparable dimensional CONTRACTION, which is radiated into space surrounding the atom. But the insulating effects of the atomic volume would reduce this effect by the time it could reach other atomic nuclei. This is similar to the effect of the volume of the Earth, which effectively reduces the force of GRAVITY on a person at its surface due to the distance the volume imposes from its center of GRAVITY. And so this effect of an atom's volume insulating the effect of CONTRACTING nuclei on each other, would dilute the curvature of space, and would be the effect we know as GRAVITY.

I rest my case!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:03:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 3:44:36 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/26/2016 7:42:50 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/24/2016 10:11:34 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The sun will not die.
Well, it depends on your definition of "death"; but by many definitions, you're right.
It will merely transform. Sun's don't run out of fuel,
They do; go read a bit.
The aether is the fuel and there is an infinite supply of aether. Thus, the energy source will never run out. Just as Uranium is the largest atom, stars have limits too because they are fractals of atoms. Go read a bit.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

To me it looks as though you're only trying to deny the fact that everything has an expiration date, as part of a childish attempt to create a simplified and aesthetic worldview to answer to your infantile level of comprehension.


they just get too big and explode.
B.S. There's no reason for a star to explode simply because it's "too big".

I am only observing the facts. http://www.uni.edu...

Irrelevant; at no place does this article state that stars explode due to being "too big". Yes, size is a factor, but not a cause.
This explosion will give birth to many other small suns.
Correct.

Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://arxiv.org...

Extract -
Since all of space is interconnected, this slight CONTRACTION of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this CONTRACTION of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom. And as Einstein explained, GRAVITY is expressed in the curvature of space. (2) So the strong force acting on quarks and nucleons, results in a relativistic mass increase and a comparable dimensional CONTRACTION, which is radiated into space surrounding the atom. But the insulating effects of the atomic volume would reduce this effect by the time it could reach other atomic nuclei. This is similar to the effect of the volume of the Earth, which effectively reduces the force of GRAVITY on a person at its surface due to the distance the volume imposes from its center of GRAVITY. And so this effect of an atom's volume insulating the effect of CONTRACTING nuclei on each other, would dilute the curvature of space, and would be the effect we know as GRAVITY.

I rest my case!

You clearly misunderstood what this article is saying. If anything, what it means is that the contractions within the atom (regardless to other massive particles) cause certain features in the gravitational field in its proximity; not that the contractions have anything to do with gravity as a whole.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 12:55:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:03:54 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion, whereby aether serves as the medium for the propagation of light, while claiming that the emptiness of space is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum particle-pair formation, and various entities continually popping in and out of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note, these things are not just scattered around randomly in "empty" space. They permeate all space. Physicist Robert Oerter, in his book A Theory of Almost Everything, explains that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in space, wherever there are quantum fields (which happens to be most everywhere). In what is otherwise empty space, these oscillators are pulsating in their lowest energy state. "We know, however, that a harmonic oscillator has some energy even in its lowest energy state. This vacuum energy exists at every point in space ..." [31] Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every point in space!

But wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space medium.

Let"s shine a light into this space used by "the standard model of modern physics." A light beam travels through points in (or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then, must pass through the oscillators. The light can"t go around the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone. Clearly, light is being conducted "conducted by the oscillators along the light ray"s path "by the space medium itself "by the luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other conclusion could there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist acknowledges the fact. (Let there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia. Those afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in which the Emperor IS fully clothed, are claiming He has no clothes!)


To me it looks as though you're only trying to deny the fact that everything has an expiration date, as part of a childish attempt to create a simplified and aesthetic worldview to answer to your infantile level of comprehension.

Yet you are quite happy to accept other childish ideas like the Big Bang Theory which is based on the fanciful idea that the universe was once compressed into a single point. How ludicrous! lol

Note - This idea is based on the Bible concept of God's creation. "Let there be light, and there was light" lol What a joke!

Other ideas that you blindly accept -

1. Light travels through empty space as a wave packet. lol Illogical and childish nonsense!

2. Gravity pulls from a distance. lol More magical nonsense!

Note - The universe doesn't do magic. Only nutty humans believe in magic.



they just get too big and explode.
B.S. There's no reason for a star to explode simply because it's "too big".


I am only observing the facts. http://www.uni.edu...

Irrelevant; at no place does this article state that stars explode due to being "too big". Yes, size is a factor, but not a cause.

No such thing as critical mass? lol Let's just throw atomic theory out the window! lol

This explosion will give birth to many other small suns.
Correct.

Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://arxiv.org...

Extract -
Since all of space is interconnected, this slight CONTRACTION of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this CONTRACTION of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom. And as Einstein explained, GRAVITY is expressed in the curvature of space. (2) So the strong force acting on quarks and nucleons, results in a relativistic mass increase and a comparable dimensional CONTRACTION, which is radiated into space surrounding the atom. But the insulating effects of the atomic volume would reduce this effect by the time it could reach other atomic nuclei. This is similar to the effect of the volume of the Earth, which effectively reduces the force of GRAVITY on a person at its surface due to the distance the volume imposes from its center of GRAVITY. And so this effect of an atom's volume insulating the effect of CONTRACTING nuclei on each other, would dilute the curvature of space, and would be the effect we know as GRAVITY.

I rest my case!

You clearly misunderstood what this article is saying. If anything, what it means is that the contractions within the atom (regardless to other massive particles) cause certain features in the gravitational field in its proximity; not that the contractions have anything to do with gravity as a whole.

Robin - "Wholly misinterpretation Batman!"

http://cds.cern.ch...
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 7:37:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 12:55:26 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:03:54 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion,
This is just your problem; you ignore the evidence in order to choose the more intuitive answer; you need to understand that this is not how science works.
whereby aether serves as the medium for the propagation of light, while claiming that the emptiness of space is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum particle-pair formation, and various entities continually popping in and out of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note, these things are not just scattered around randomly in "empty" space. They permeate all space. Physicist Robert Oerter, in his book A Theory of Almost Everything, explains that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in space, wherever there are quantum fields (which happens to be most everywhere). In what is otherwise empty space, these oscillators are pulsating in their lowest energy state. "We know, however, that a harmonic oscillator has some energy even in its lowest energy state. This vacuum energy exists at every point in space ..." [31] Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every point in space!

But wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space medium.

Let"s shine a light into this space used by "the standard model of modern physics." A light beam travels through points in (or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then, must pass through the oscillators. The light can"t go around the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone. Clearly, light is being conducted "conducted by the oscillators along the light ray"s path "by the space medium itself "by the luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other conclusion could there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist acknowledges the fact. (Let there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia. Those afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in which the Emperor IS fully clothed, are claiming He has no clothes!)



To me it looks as though you're only trying to deny the fact that everything has an expiration date, as part of a childish attempt to create a simplified and aesthetic worldview to answer to your infantile level of comprehension.

Yet you are quite happy to accept other childish ideas like the Big Bang Theory which is based on the fanciful idea that the universe was once compressed into a single point. How ludicrous! lol

It seems non-intuitive to you, so you blindly reject it in favor of some sound, yet wrong, hypothesis. I think I'm starting to see a pattern with you.
Note - This idea is based on the Bible concept of God's creation. "Let there be light, and there was light" lol What a joke!

Other ideas that you blindly accept -

1. Light travels through empty space as a wave packet. lol Illogical and childish nonsense!

Just as before; it seems non-intuitive to you, so you blindly reject it in favor of some sound, yet wrong, hypothesis.
2. Gravity pulls from a distance. lol More magical nonsense!

Nobody believes that. Relativity alongside the newfound discovery of gravity waves easily refute such a ludicrous concept.
Note - The universe doesn't do magic. Only nutty humans believe in magic.

As you will happily demonstrate.





they just get too big and explode.
B.S. There's no reason for a star to explode simply because it's "too big".



I am only observing the facts. http://www.uni.edu...

Irrelevant; at no place does this article state that stars explode due to being "too big". Yes, size is a factor, but not a cause.

No such thing as critical mass? lol Let's just throw atomic theory out the window! lol

https://www.youtube.com...

You just... Wow. I can't believe you actually said that...

Critical mass has nothing to do with stars, as you should have known if you were such a "master" in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Thus, the cycle will continue of constant expansion and collapse of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Gravity is the product of the contraction. Light is the product of the expansion.

Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://arxiv.org...

Extract -
Since all of space is interconnected, this slight CONTRACTION of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this CONTRACTION of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom. And as Einstein explained, GRAVITY is expressed in the curvature of space. (2) So the strong force acting on quarks and nucleons, results in a relativistic mass increase and a comparable dimensional CONTRACTION, which is radiated into space surrounding the atom. But the insulating effects of the atomic volume would reduce this effect by the time it could reach other atomic nuclei. This is similar to the effect of the volume of the Earth, which effectively reduces the force of GRAVITY on a person at its surface due to the distance the volume imposes from its center of GRAVITY. And so this effect of an atom's volume insulating the effect of CONTRACTING nuclei on each other, would dilute the curvature of space, and would be the effect we know as GRAVITY.

I rest my case!

You clearly misunderstood what this article is saying. If anything, what it means is that the contractions within the atom (regardless to other massive particles) cause certain features in the gravitational field in its proximity; not that the contractions have anything to do with gravity as a whole.

Robin - "Wholly misinterpretation Batman!"

http://cds.cern.ch...

https://www.youtube.com...

You (and evidently the writer of this article) really have no idea what Lorentz contractions are, don't you? They aren't contractions of space itself, they're just contractions in the way a object appears. Learn your physics before writing B.S. on the internet.

(I swear to god, you're worse than a creationist at backing your claims.)
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 4:03:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 7:37:43 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/27/2016 12:55:26 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:03:54 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion,

So, you have grabbed onto this word "intuitive" out of a sea of other words and have magnified it totally out of proportion in a desperate attempt to ridicule my theory. What a sad little fellow you are, truly. Your hysteria has blinded you in your religious delirium to your chosen dead end theories.

No reference to facts again. Just the usual old personal attacks. Note - The unskillful player always attacks the man and not the ball. Thus, you avoid discussing issues and problems and just look for loop holes and weaknesses.

The aether theory is not a "intuitive" theory. Its a "commonsense" theory and the only theory which makes any sense. Thousands of scientists have discussed and approved the aether theory.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

To me it looks as though you're only trying to deny the fact that everything has an expiration date, as part of a childish attempt to create a simplified and aesthetic worldview to answer to your infantile level of comprehension.

Over complicating the universe is just a university trick to subdue students into a passive form of submission. ( It pays to study psychology). Students are too scared to question university professors because the formula's are some complicated that even the professors don't understand them. But that's OK. That's exactly the effect that they want. Now, if the universe was a simple place, then where would that leave the university professors? Answer - Unemployed and out on the street. Thus, we all need to keep very quiet and listen to every word that the university professors say or they'll get very angry.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 5:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 4:03:07 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/27/2016 7:37:43 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/27/2016 12:55:26 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:03:54 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Nonsense; unless you can back your claims.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion,

So, you have grabbed onto this word "intuitive" out of a sea of other words and have magnified it totally out of proportion in a desperate attempt to ridicule my theory. What a sad little fellow you are, truly. Your hysteria has blinded you in your religious delirium to your chosen dead end theories.

No reference to facts again. Just the usual old personal attacks. Note - The unskillful player always attacks the man and not the ball. Thus, you avoid discussing issues and problems and just look for loop holes and weaknesses.

The aether theory is not a "intuitive" theory. Its a "commonsense" theory and the only theory which makes any sense. Thousands of scientists have discussed and approved the aether theory.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...

No evidence has been provided; hence no rebuttal has been provided in return.


To me it looks as though you're only trying to deny the fact that everything has an expiration date, as part of a childish attempt to create a simplified and aesthetic worldview to answer to your infantile level of comprehension.

Over complicating the universe is just a university trick to subdue students into a passive form of submission. ( It pays to study psychology). Students are too scared to question university professors because the formula's are some complicated that even the professors don't understand them. But that's OK. That's exactly the effect that they want. Now, if the universe was a simple place, then where would that leave the university professors? Answer - Unemployed and out on the street. Thus, we all need to keep very quiet and listen to every word that the university professors say or they'll get very angry.

You are ignorant and infantile; good day to you.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 9:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 12:28:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:39:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:42:20 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
That would be a quick but horrble way to go. Religious or not, we know there is an approximate date of death for earth, and if I understand correctly, every planet that orbits the Sun.
The sun dies very slowly, Kendo. It runs on burning hydrogen in a fusion reaction, turning it into helium. Helium will also fuse into heavier elements, but our sun isn't big enough or hot enough to do that, so when it runs out of hydrogen, it runs out of fuel.

The sun's gravity causes gases such as hydrogen and newly-formed helium to be attracted toward the core, while the heat of fusion provides pressure pushing the gases out again -- that's why the sun's surface is so turbulent. But as the fuel runs out, gravity takes over and the helium core begins to compress, burning the last of the hydrogen.

This allows outer regions of the sun to expand, and the remaining hydrogen burning around the core actually causes the sun to burn hotter. For a while, it becomes a kind of star called a 'red giant'. The surface of the sun is predicted to expand toward the orbit of Mars, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and probably Earth. By then, the atmosphere of the Earth would be stripped away, the surface would have baked, and there'd be no life on Earth by the time it was engulfed.

But the growing luminosity of the sun (about 10% increase per billion years) is already a problem for life on Earth. It moves the solar system's habitable zone (defined by the area where liquid water allows our familiar carbon biochemistry) out towards Jupiter in as little as a billion years' time. So by then Earth's oceans will likely have evaporated, and we'll already have moved off Earth or be extinct. [https://theconversation.com...]

However, life near or beyond Jupiter might still be possible for some time longer before the sun dims and collapses, and the remaining solar system freezes.

And if our species survives long enough to see the sun first redden and expand, we'll also have witnessed another amazing event: the collision and merger between our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy, predicted in four billion years [https://en.wikipedia.org...](although it might already be happening. [http://www.universetoday.com...])

So how likely is humanity living to reach 1 billion years?

Life on Earth is thought to be about 3.55 billion years old, and the oldest complex organism I know of is the sea-sponge, at about 580 million years; while the oldest simple organism is likely cyanobacteria, now about 2.8 billion years old. The human species is thought to be about 200,000 years old; and at background extinction rates, a mammal normally goes extinct from 'natural causes' after about 1 million years, so if we can survive as long as the average mammalian species -- or even longer, then we really need to be thinking about living away from Earth -- if we don't leave Earth as a species before then.

This offers us a very different picture to the way we currently think of planetary conservation, but is the one necessary to think about if we wish to outlive cyanobacteria. :)


So what your saying is that I need not clear my calendar, here.

What he's saying is that I am full of sh!t the sun isn't made of any of that crap
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:13:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 5:47:53 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

No evidence has been provided; hence no rebuttal has been provided in return.

True to form.


You are ignorant and infantile; good day to you.

True to form.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 2:22:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:42:20 AM, KendoRe2 wrote:
That would be a quick but horrble way to go. Religious or not, we know there is an approximate date of death for earth, and if I understand correctly, every planet that orbits the Sun.

I couldn't because it wont be for millions of generations of people lol
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 9:38:38 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:13:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
...

We did somewhat get off track; how on earth does aether even serve as star fuel, regardless whether it exists or not?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 4:19:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 9:38:38 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:13:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
...

We did somewhat get off track; how on earth does aether even serve as star fuel, regardless whether it exists or not?

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared. Dah Dahhhhhh! Easy!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 4:26:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 4:19:57 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/28/2016 9:38:38 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:13:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
...

We did somewhat get off track; how on earth does aether even serve as star fuel, regardless whether it exists or not?

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared. Dah Dahhhhhh! Easy!

Any evidence for these preposterous claims?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 4:29:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 4:26:12 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared. Dah Dahhhhhh! Easy!

Any evidence for these preposterous claims?

The sun's atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. Thus, the source of this heat must come from external sources. The aether being the only available source.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 4:36:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 4:29:10 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/28/2016 4:26:12 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

The universe is energy rich. Aether particles spin at the speed of light. When 2 aether particles approach a large body like a sun, they are pushed together and stop spinning. This releases their energy. Thus " E=MC squared. Dah Dahhhhhh! Easy!

Any evidence for these preposterous claims?

The sun's atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. Thus, the source of this heat must come from external sources.
Absolutely incorrect; here's the real reason it's hotter: http://www.nature.com...

(Where I found it, and simpler to understand for the likes of you: https://www.sciencedaily.com...)
The aether being the only available source.

Complete nonsense; if what you were suggesting here was true, then every other celestial body would have a similar nature, with the atmosphere being millions of degrees hotter than the surface. There is no reason for the sun to be an exception.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 1:31:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 4:36:25 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Absolutely incorrect; here's the real reason it's hotter: http://www.nature.com...

All this article sates is that the sun's interior is 15 million degrees C and its surface is 6,000 degrees C. Thus, as you get nearer to the surface the sun's core gets cooler. Then, suddenly the atmosphere pops up at 2 million degrees C. Reason - Its electrical energy. Big deal!

Aether is electricity dummies!

http://thunderbolts.info...


Complete nonsense; if what you were suggesting here was true, then every other celestial body would have a similar nature, with the atmosphere being millions of degrees hotter than the surface. There is no reason for the sun to be an exception.

The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 7:54:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 1:31:23 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/28/2016 4:36:25 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Absolutely incorrect; here's the real reason it's hotter: http://www.nature.com...

All this article sates is that the sun's interior is 15 million degrees C and its surface is 6,000 degrees C. Thus, as you get nearer to the surface the sun's core gets cooler. Then, suddenly the atmosphere pops up at 2 million degrees C. Reason - Its electrical energy. Big deal!

Nope; it explains why, in a way that doesn't incorporate the already-disproven aether, and it presents evidence whilst doing so..
Aether is electricity dummies!

WTF? No it isn't; electrons are electricity.
http://thunderbolts.info...

A non-peer-reviewed forum in which no evidence is actually brought up does not substitute as evidence. Find reliable sources first, and then tout your aether-nonsense.

Complete nonsense; if what you were suggesting here was true, then every other celestial body would have a similar nature, with the atmosphere being millions of degrees hotter than the surface. There is no reason for the sun to be an exception.

The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.

Sorry, but that's B.S.; there is no reason for the aether particles to notice any difference between a small object and a large one, given they are on the "sub-atomic" scale, as you yourself said. You are starting to contradict yourself, a hallmark of pseudoscience.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 2:08:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/29/2016 7:54:31 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/29/2016 1:31:23 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/28/2016 4:36:25 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Absolutely incorrect; here's the real reason it's hotter: http://www.nature.com...

All this article sates is that the sun's interior is 15 million degrees C and its surface is 6,000 degrees C. Thus, as you get nearer to the surface the sun's core gets cooler. Then, suddenly the atmosphere pops up at 2 million degrees C. Reason - Its electrical energy. Big deal!

Nope; it explains why, in a way that doesn't incorporate the already-disproven aether, and it presents evidence whilst doing so..

WTF? No it isn't; electrons are electricity.
http://thunderbolts.info...

A non-peer-reviewed forum in which no evidence is actually brought up does not substitute as evidence. Find reliable sources first, and then tout your aether-nonsense.

What happens when an atomic bomb goes off?
1. Matter/aether is compressed using a circular explosive force.
2. The inherent space which is trapped by the matter is released.
3. E=MC squared. The speed of light squared. Thus, 2 particles are spinning at the speed of light stop spinning. This releases the energy of the speed of light squared. The compression space that was locked inside the atom is also released which creates the explosion.


Complete nonsense; if what you were suggesting here was true, then every other celestial body would have a similar nature, with the atmosphere being millions of degrees hotter than the surface. There is no reason for the sun to be an exception.

The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.

Sorry, but that's B.S.; there is no reason for the aether particles to notice any difference between a small object and a large one, given they are on the "sub-atomic" scale, as you yourself said. You are starting to contradict yourself, a hallmark of pseudoscience.

You are assigning the aether with a consciousnesses. False assumption. The aether is being compressed by mechanical forces. These gravitational forces increase with planetary or celestial body size. Thus, are you trying to suggest that celestial bodies of different sizes all have the same gravity? lol Nincompoop! Hallmark of an idiot!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 5:48:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/30/2016 2:08:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/29/2016 7:54:31 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 7/29/2016 1:31:23 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/28/2016 4:36:25 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Absolutely incorrect; here's the real reason it's hotter: http://www.nature.com...

All this article sates is that the sun's interior is 15 million degrees C and its surface is 6,000 degrees C. Thus, as you get nearer to the surface the sun's core gets cooler. Then, suddenly the atmosphere pops up at 2 million degrees C. Reason - Its electrical energy. Big deal!

Nope; it explains why, in a way that doesn't incorporate the already-disproven aether, and it presents evidence whilst doing so..



WTF? No it isn't; electrons are electricity.
http://thunderbolts.info...

A non-peer-reviewed forum in which no evidence is actually brought up does not substitute as evidence. Find reliable sources first, and then tout your aether-nonsense.

What happens when an atomic bomb goes off?
1. Matter/aether is compressed using a circular explosive force.
2. The inherent space which is trapped by the matter is released.
3. E=MC squared. The speed of light squared. Thus, 2 particles are spinning at the speed of light stop spinning. This releases the energy of the speed of light squared. The compression space that was locked inside the atom is also released which creates the explosion.

Sorry; but that's not what happens in a nuke. Go read some: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Complete nonsense; if what you were suggesting here was true, then every other celestial body would have a similar nature, with the atmosphere being millions of degrees hotter than the surface. There is no reason for the sun to be an exception.

The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.

Sorry, but that's B.S.; there is no reason for the aether particles to notice any difference between a small object and a large one, given they are on the "sub-atomic" scale, as you yourself said. You are starting to contradict yourself, a hallmark of pseudoscience.

You are assigning the aether with a consciousnesses.
Nope; I am just giving it the very same traits that you yourself give it.
False assumption. The aether is being compressed by mechanical forces. These gravitational forces increase with planetary or celestial body size.
This compression would have to occur within the planet, not on the surface; rending your argument obsolete.
Thus, are you trying to suggest that celestial bodies of different sizes all have the same gravity?
Never did.
lol Nincompoop! Hallmark of an idiot!

Ad hominem! Hallmark of the bigot!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:53:35 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 5:48:41 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Sorry; but that's not what happens in a nuke. Go read some: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Their interpretation - "Binding energy is broken" My interpretation - "Aetheric pressure is released". Same result - different description.
Note - My description is more accurate of what is really happening. Their interpretation assumes that there is no aetheric pressure forces which hold matter together. This is why current atomic theory is retarded and out of date.


The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.

Sorry, but that's B.S.; there is no reason for the aether particles to notice any difference between a small object and a large one, given they are on the "sub-atomic" scale, as you yourself said. You are starting to contradict yourself, a hallmark of pseudoscience.

You are assigning the aether with a consciousnesses.
Nope; I am just giving it the very same traits that you yourself give it.

I have never assigned the aether with a consciousness.

Never did.
lol Nincompoop! Hallmark of an idiot!

Ad hominem! Hallmark of the bigot!

Hallmark of a hypocrite! lol
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:10:48 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:53:35 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/31/2016 5:48:41 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Sorry; but that's not what happens in a nuke. Go read some: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Their interpretation - "Binding energy is broken" My interpretation - "Aetheric pressure is released". Same result - different description.
Note - My description is more accurate of what is really happening. Their interpretation assumes that there is no aetheric pressure forces which hold matter together. This is why current atomic theory is retarded and out of date.

Sorry; but atomic theory is supported my evidence, unlike aether. "Your" interpretation does not follow the evidence, unlike atomic theory.


The aetheric compression doesn't activate until the celestial body is of a certain size. Jupiter for example is an over unity planet.

Sorry, but that's B.S.; there is no reason for the aether particles to notice any difference between a small object and a large one, given they are on the "sub-atomic" scale, as you yourself said. You are starting to contradict yourself, a hallmark of pseudoscience.

You are assigning the aether with a consciousnesses.
Nope; I am just giving it the very same traits that you yourself give it.

I have never assigned the aether with a consciousness.

That's not the trait I'm talking about.
Never did.
lol Nincompoop! Hallmark of an idiot!

Ad hominem! Hallmark of the bigot!

Hallmark of a hypocrite! lol

In what way was I a hypocrite?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:31:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 7:10:48 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

In what way was I a hypocrite?

In the same way that you deny being a hypocrite. lol