Heart of an exploded star observed in 3-D

July 10, 2017, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Remnant of Supernova 1987A as seen by ALMA. Purple area indicates emission from SiO molecules. Yellow area is emission from CO molecules. The blue ring is Hubble data that has been artificially expanded into 3-D. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); R. Indebetouw; NASA/ESA Hubble

Supernovas—the violent endings of the brief yet brilliant lives of massive stars—are among the most cataclysmic events in the cosmos. Though supernovas mark the death of stars, they also trigger the birth of new elements and the formation of new molecules.

In February of 1987, astronomers witnessed one of these events unfold inside the Large Magellanic Cloud, a tiny dwarf galaxy located approximately 160,000 light-years from Earth.

Over the next 30 years, observations of the remnant of that explosion revealed never-before-seen details about the death of stars and how atoms created in those stars—like carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen—spill out into space and combine to form new molecules and dust. These microscopic particles may eventually find their way into future generations of stars and planets.

Recently, astronomers used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to probe the heart of this supernova, named SN 1987A. ALMA's ability to see remarkably fine details allowed the researchers to produce an intricate 3-D rendering of newly formed molecules inside the supernova remnant. These results are published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The researchers also discovered a variety of previously undetected molecules in the remnant. These results appear in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"When this supernova exploded, now more than 30 years ago, astronomers knew much less about the way these events reshape interstellar space and how the hot, glowing debris from an exploded star eventually cools and produces new molecules," said Rémy Indebetouw, an astronomer at the University of Virginia and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville. "Thanks to ALMA, we can finally see cold 'star dust' as it forms, revealing important insights into the original star itself and the way supernovas create the basic building blocks of planets."


Astronomers using ALMA data created a 3-D image of molecules forged in the remnant of a supernova, SN 1987A. The purple areas indicate the location of silicon monoxide (SiO) molecules. The yellow area is the location of carbon monoxide (CO) molecules. The blue ring is actual Hubble data (hydrogen, or H-alpha) that has been artificially expanded into 3-D. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), R. Indebetouw; NASA/ESA Hubble

Supernovas - Star Death to Dust Birth

Prior to ongoing investigations of SN 1987A, there was only so much astronomers could say about the impact of supernovas on their interstellar neighborhoods.

It was well understood that massive stars, those approximately 10 times the mass of our sun or more, ended their lives in spectacular fashion.

When these stars run out of fuel, there is no longer enough heat and energy to fight back against the force of gravity. The outer reaches of the star, once held up by the power of fusion, then come crashing down on the core with tremendous force. The rebound of this collapse triggers a powerful explosion that blasts material into space.

As the endpoint of massive stars, scientists have learned that supernovas have far-reaching effects on their home galaxies. "The reason some galaxies have the appearance that they do today is in large part because of the supernovas that have occurred in them," Indebetouw said. "Though less than ten percent of become supernovas, they nonetheless are key to the evolution of galaxies."


This scientific visualization illustrates the evolution of Supernova 1987A from the initial swelling of the host star and supernova explosion to the expanding shock wave and the formation of molecules detected by ALMA in the remnant. Credit: A. Angelich and B. Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF; R. Indebetouw et al., A. Angelich (NRAO/AUI/NSF); NASA/STScI/CfA/R. Kirshner; NASA/CXC/SAO/PSU/D. Burrows et al.; ESO; NASA/CXC/D.Berry/MIT/T.Delaney et al.; NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab; ESO/C. Malin/B. Tafreshi/José Francisco Salgado. Music: Geodesium

Throughout the observable universe, supernovas are quite common, but since they appear - on average - about once every 50 years in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way, astronomers have precious few opportunities to study one from its first detonation to the point where it cools enough to form new molecules. Though SN 1987A is not in our home galaxy, it is still close enough for ALMA and other telescopes to study in fine detail.

Capturing 3-D Image of SN1987A with ALMA

For decades, radio, optical, and even X-ray observatories have studied SN 1987A, but obscuring dust in the remnant made it difficult to analyze the supernova's innermost core. ALMA's ability to observe at millimeter wavelengths - a region of the electromagnetic spectrum between infrared and radio light - make it possible to see through the intervening dust. The researchers were then able to study the abundance and location of newly formed molecules - especially silicon monoxide (SiO) and (CO), which shine brightly at the short submillimeter wavelengths that ALMA can perceive.

The new ALMA image and animation show vast new stores of SiO and CO in discrete, tangled clumps within the core of SN 1987A. Scientists previously modeled how and where these molecules would appear. With ALMA, the researchers finally were able to capture images with high enough resolution to confirm the structure inside the remnant and test those models.

Aside from obtaining this 3-D image of SN 1987A, the ALMA data also reveal compelling details about how its physical conditions have changed and continue to change over time. These observations also provide insights into the physical instabilities inside a supernova.

New Insights from SN 1987A

Earlier observations with ALMA verified that SN 1987A produced a massive amount of dust. The new observations provide even more details on how the supernova made the dust as well as the type of molecules found in the remnant.

"One of our goals was to observe SN 1987A in a blind search for other molecules," said Indebetouw. "We expected to find carbon monoxide and , since we had previously detected these molecules." The astronomers, however, were excited to find the previously undetected molecules formyl cation (HCO+) and sulfur monoxide (SO).

"These molecules had never been detected in a young supernova remnant before," noted Indebetouw. "HCO+ is especially interesting because its formation requires particularly vigorous mixing during the explosion." Stars forge elements in discrete onion-like layers. As a star goes supernova, these once well-defined bands undergo violent mixing, helping to create the environment necessary for molecule and dust formation.

The astronomers estimate that about 1 in 1000 silicon atoms from the exploded star is now found in free-floating SiO molecules. The overwhelming majority of the silicon has already been incorporated into dust grains. Even the small amount of SiO that is present is 100 times greater than predicted by dust-formation models. These new observations will aid astronomers in refining their models.

These observations also find that ten percent or more of the carbon inside the remnant is currently in CO molecules. Only a few out of every million carbon atoms are in HCO+ molecules.

New Questions and Future Research

Even though the new ALMA observations shed important light on SN 1987A, there are still several questions that remain. Exactly how abundant are the molecules of HCO+ and SO? Are there other that have yet to be detected? How will the 3-D structure of SN 1987A continue to change over time?

Future ALMA observations at different wavelengths may also help determine what sort of compact object—a pulsar or neutron star—resides at the center of the remnant. The likely created one of these dense stellar objects, but as yet none has been detected.

Explore further: Cosmic 'dust factory' reveals clues to how stars are born

More information: F. J. Abellán et al. Very Deep inside the SN 1987A Core Ejecta: Molecular Structures Seen in 3D, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa784c

M. Matsuura et al. ALMA spectral survey of Supernova 1987A – molecular inventory, chemistry, dynamics and explosive nucleosynthesis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx830

Related Stories

Supernova's super dust factory imaged with ALMA

January 6, 2014

Galaxies can be remarkably dusty places and supernovas are thought to be a primary source of that dust, especially in the early Universe. Direct evidence of a supernova's dust-making capabilities, however, has been slim and ...

The dawn of a new era for Supernova 1987a (Update)

February 24, 2017

Three decades ago, astronomers spotted one of the brightest exploding stars in more than 400 years. The titanic supernova, called Supernova 1987A (SN 1987A), blazed with the power of 100 million suns for several months following ...

Super-freezer supernova 1987A is a dust factory

July 5, 2013

(Phys.org) —Surprisingly low temperatures detected in the remnant of the supernova 1987A may explain the mystery of why space is so abundant with dust grains and molecules. The results will be presented by Dr Mikako Matsuura ...

Image: The evolution of supernova 1987A

February 27, 2017

Thirty years ago, on 23 February 1987, the light from a stellar explosion marking the death of a massive star arrived at Earth to shine in Southern Hemisphere skies.

Ancient stardust sheds light on the first stars

March 8, 2017

A huge mass of glowing stardust in a galaxy seen shortly after the Universe's formation has been detected by a UCL-led team of astronomers, providing new insights into the birth and explosive deaths of the very first stars.

Recommended for you

Solar-powered rover approaching 5,000th Martian dawn

February 16, 2018

The sun will rise on NASA's solar-powered Mars rover Opportunity for the 5,000th time on Saturday, sending rays of energy to a golf-cart-size robotic field geologist that continues to provide revelations about the Red Planet.

81 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
Love the image; however, explosions like this create plasma. The plasma must cool to create atoms, molecules. The atomic structure of a star is only a guess with a false premise.
jonesdave
Jul 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2017
Love the image; however, explosions like this create plasma. The plasma must cool to create atoms, molecules. The atomic structure of a star is only a guess with a false premise.

Correct.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2017
Correct.


Well, we could look at the composition of the solar wind, for instance. Or look at exploded stars, and see what the composition of the gas is. Or we could detect neutrinos, which can only come from fusion of hydrogen into helium. Guess nobody has ever done that.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
Well, we could look at the composition of the solar wind, for instance.

Plasma
Or look at exploded stars, and see what the composition of the gas is.

Plasma (depending on how soon after the "explosion" you are looking of course)
Or we could detect neutrinos, which can only come from fusion of hydrogen into helium.

Really....may wanna look at some of the CERN decay products. Granted they are only "claims"...but then again, so is the mainstreams solar model....that still, to this date, can't even deal with coronal heating... yet still retains it's status as the solar model.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2017

Plasma

Plasma (depending on how soon after the "explosion" you are looking of course)

Really....may wanna look at some of the CERN decay products. Granted they are only "claims"...but then again, so is the mainstreams solar model....that still, to this date, can't even deal with coronal heating... yet still retains it's status as the solar model.




Plasma. Duh. What sort of frigging plasma? H+? He+ O+? Yes, all of those, and more besides. Where does the H, He, O etc come from, before it is stripped of its electrons? God do it? And CERN has got nothing to do with the fusion of H into He. If you know of any other model that can explain and account for the neutrino emission, then I'd love to hear it. Don't bother with the electric Sun nonsense; it is not science, and fails miserably. And if you've figured out the coronal heating mechanism, from a number of competing mainstream possibilities, I'd also like to hear it.
bschott
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2017
You said neutrinos can only come from hydrogen fusing into helium...a ridiculous statement, as they clearly have more than just this source.
. Where does the H, He, O etc come from, before it is stripped of its electrons?

Well, that you somehow think these atoms are created inside the sun...and THEN ionized by some "other process" is pretty funny....especially coming from someone as *ahem* adept at physics as you promote yourself to be.

. And if you've figured out the coronal heating mechanism, from a number of competing mainstream possibilities, I'd also like to hear it

No...you wouldn't. It doesn't conform to your worldview, nor the model you support (where fused atoms are ionized later somehow). The corona can only be a magnetic envelope, hence why any charged matter leaving the surface of the sun is visibly accelerated through it, and why the "temperature" (IOW speed) of the electrons inside is so much "hotter"...but hey why use established physics?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2017
No...you wouldn't. It doesn't conform to your worldview, nor......blah,blah


Translation: I don't have a clue, and there is nothing in the scientific literature to back me up.

If you'd like to know about some of the processes that could heat the corona, try here:

http://adsabs.har...ersion=1

So, which one is yours?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2017
You said neutrinos can only come from hydrogen fusing into helium...a ridiculous statement, as they clearly have more than just this source.


So how does what happens at CERN translate to the neutrino abundances coming from the Sun? What is your theory for what is going on inside the Sun that relates to the CERN experiments? Who has written this up? If, as I suspect, nobody has, then why even mention it? There is no process, other than nuclear fusion, that can account for the SOLAR neutrino flux. As opposed to what happens inside a bloody particle accelerator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2017
Well, that you somehow think these atoms are created inside the sun...and THEN ionized by some "other process" is pretty funny....especially coming from someone as *ahem* adept at physics as you promote yourself to be.


Nearly forgot this nonsense. Try here:
http://www.columb...0Ex.html

See all those neutral lines? Funny that, eh? By the way, Fe I, for instance = neutral iron. Fe II would be Fe+, Fe III would be Fe2+. Et cetera.

bschott
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2017
Nearly forgot this nonsense. Try here:
http://www.columb...0Ex.html

See all those neutral lines? Funny that, eh? By the way, Fe I, for instance = neutral iron. Fe II would be Fe+, Fe III would be Fe2+. Et cetera.

Awesome, so...what is the PROCESS by which the sun fuses neutral atoms in it's 10 million degree core and THEN ionizes these neutral atoms at a cooler temperature so that they exit as charged particles? Or did you not think your "theory" needs to address this?
If you'd like to know about some of the processes that could heat the corona

I described what I think, since the bulk of the papers on your link refer to EM phenomenon I'd say some of them are on the right track. Just a friendly reminder, the corona doesn't have a "temperature"...it's the particles inside it that do.
So how does what happens at CERN translate to the neutrino abundances coming from the Sun?

It isn't supposed to, just shows more than your "single" source.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2017
It isn't supposed to, just shows more than your "single" source.


And why would I consider a process that doesn't happen on the Sun, when I am discussing the Sun?

Awesome, so...what is the PROCESS by which the sun fuses neutral atoms in it's 10 million degree core and THEN ionizes these neutral atoms at a cooler temperature so that they exit as charged particles? Or did you not think your "theory" needs to address this?


Sorry, but this needs a whole bunch of knowledge about the Sun, which you obviously lack, and I have neither the time nor space to educate you on. Try taking a relevant degree, or do some research. Preferably before making criticism of something that you patently don't understand.

I described what I think**, since the bulk of the papers on your link refer to EM phenomenon I'd say some of them are on the right track.


I'm sure these mainstream scientists will be delighted to have your approval.

(** No, you didn't.)

bschott
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2017


Sorry, but this needs a whole bunch of knowledge about the Sun, which you obviously lack, and I have neither the time nor space to educate you on. Try taking a relevant degree, or do some research. Preferably before making criticism of something that you patently don't understand.

So you have no answer....thought so. A relevant degree so that I can "not know" with authority...sounds....wasteful.
And why would I consider a process that doesn't happen on the Sun, when I am discussing the Sun?

I don't know. Why would you state neutrinos have a single source of production when they don't?
(** No, you didn't.)

"The corona can only be a magnetic envelope, hence why any charged matter leaving the surface of the sun is visibly accelerated through it, and why the "temperature" (IOW speed) of the electrons inside is so much "hotter"..."
hmmm....
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
... surface of the sun is visibly accelerated through it, and why the "temperature" (IOW speed) of the electrons inside is so much "hotter"..."
hmmm....

The neutrino is the oscillation observed when a proton and an electron split, or a neutron becomes unstable. In fact, confinement is required for the life of a neutron. At very near distance, we are not sure what is going on. Note more than one charge may occupy the same point in time. We have not done the calculation for very densely packed charge, especially with motion. So the vast number of neutrinos indicate fission. However, we use a false premise for the sun's innards.
wduckss
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2017
"Particles may eventually find their way into future generations of stars and planets." From article
The Sun: H2 74.9%; He 23.8%; O2 1%; Carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%) and iron (0.2%) being the most abundant.
Earth: Fe (32.1%), O2 (30.1%), Si (15.1%), Mg (13.9%), S (2.9%), Ni (1.8%), Ca (1.5% , With the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements. etc.

Interesting theory, just "Why are there differences in the structure of the objects in our system?" https://www.acade...r_system
Parsec
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2017
Love the image; however, explosions like this create plasma. The plasma must cool to create atoms, molecules. The atomic structure of a star is only a guess with a false premise.


You have to be kidding me. The temperature required to fully ionize most elements is quite high. Any plasma only takes at most a few hours to cool from expansion until most of the free nucleus has grabbed onto at least one electron (creating atoms). The only exceptions are hydrogen and helium, which take considerably longer due to the lower ionization energy required and the relative ratification of the gases.

But even with fully ionized gases, elemental nuclei are still quite intact within a few minutes of the explosion, after the neutron density falls to a level in which slow and fast neutron capture isn't building new elements. Once formed, elements are quite identifiable by the radiation they emit, even when fully ionized.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2017
The plasma must cool to create atoms
LOL, apparently it's bypassed the notice of the EUdiots that plasma is made up of atoms with electrons stripped off them. Atoms like silicon, iron, carbon, hydrogen, and so forth. And atoms have spectra, and it's different for an ion than for the atom it was made from.

Atoms aren't "created from plasma." That's perhaps the most idiotic thing I've heard said here this year, and these guys say some real doozies.

Unbelievable. Dudebro says "The Sun is made of plasma" like that's a definitive answer. It's kind of like saying "the Earth is made of dirt." This isn't even indicative of someone who's bright enough to say "duhhh ummm" about.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Atoms aren't "created from plasma."

LMAO!!!! Here we have pure genius on display.....please share with us oh wise one, what are the building blocks of atoms again? Can't be charged particles can it? What is a concentration of charged particles? Oh yeah.....PLASMA.
LOL....apparently someone would rather neglect actual physics if it has anything to do with a theory other than his favorite.
Unbelievable. Dudebro says "The Sun is made of plasma" like that's a definitive answer

Well, a concentration of charged particles is plasma....we don't refer to the solar wind as the stream of "neutral particles" emitted by the sun. Do any of you mainstream model humpers have the answer regarding how all of the elements produced via fusion in the core of the sun come out ionized? You know, some mechanism to explain this little "glitch" ...How do you get from fused atoms to ionized ones while travelling through a medium that is dropping in temperature?
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2017
what are the building blocks of atoms again? Can't be charged particles can it?
Well, yes, it CAN; but don't forget the neutrons... So, we build atoms from individual protons and neutrons to make the atomic nuclei, then add enough electrons to make up neutral atoms.
What is a concentration of charged particles? Oh yeah.....PLASMA
Apples and oranges - in the first instance, you're talking of individual particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) to BUILD an atom; then you're talking of the particles in a plasma. But THESE particles are the atomic nuclei themselves, with some or all of their electrons stripped off, forming the plasma.

So, you're being totally disingenuous to mention "particles" twice, almost in the same breath, while - fully paid-up member of the EU that you are - being fully aware that you're talking about two entirely different populations of particle types.
apparently someone would rather neglect actual physics if... blah blah blah
Shucks, schitty!
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
So, you're being totally disingenuous to mention "particles" twice, almost in the same breath

Some people are just dumb enough to require it...like someone dumb enough to state that atoms aren't created from plasma...
, while - fully paid-up member of the EU that you are

LMAO....you new here?
- being fully aware that you're talking about two entirely different populations of particle types.

In order to fuse protons/neutrons into atoms which then capture electrons, all must be present and not "together" right? What is that called again?
What are ionized atoms and their stripped electrons called again? Your "entirely different populations of particle types" are both plasmas....what was your point supposed to be?
but don't forget the neutrons

What is a neutron composed of? Describe in detail HOW they are "made", how are they "transmuted" in an He3 nucleus?
Oh yeah....nobody knows....nice "model".
Cheers
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Shucks, schitty!

This is the best answer yet to the question about the fusion/ionization cycle in the sun.

I wasn't going to bother with posing questions about where the neutrons come from because I know the mainstream has no real answer for this...but then one of the humpers brought them up, if only they solved more problems than they create from a theoretical standpoint....oops.
A half life of 10 minutes, part of every nucleus except Hydrogen, don't know how they are made, claim there are stars composed primarily of them....Can't get laughs like this anywhere but the mainstream folks.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
A half life of 10 minutes
- when not bound in a nucleus
part of every nucleus except Hydrogen
- well done, you got something right!
don't know how they are made
It's all explained in painstaking detail in the standard literature, you just need to:

1) read it;
2) understand it.

Come back when you're through...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
OK, the universe is still only a state of an infinite set of just two entities, one a + and the other a - that exist from it's center to infinity, never created or destroyed. Everything else is nonsense. The state of fused atoms or stable and combined charge has never been studied. The error with Dr. E is obvious. If you don't get it, please, repetition is not new science. The standard Model is just that, a Model with a false premise. Adding nonsense to science corrupts science; it does not further science. Idiot luck does not define a reason for anything!

Most galactic explosions are caused by combining matter with matter with opposite orbiters, we call this an antimatter explosion. The concentration of charge in a field, and the stability of states, either in motion or stationary states has never been defined. Nor do we really know what we are looking upon using a constant speed of light.

So most of this is simply moot and ignorant. I say this for enlightenment.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
I say this for enlightenment
We truly wish you well in your search for it. You've still some considerable ways to go yet, though...
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
It's all explained in painstaking detail in the standard literature, you just need to....

No...it isn't. So if you have somehow managed to read and understand it you did this in another universe....but hey, your cosmology allows for them too doesn't it?
- when not bound in a nucleus

So all neutrons are created inside a nucleus?
- well done, you got something right!

Still waiting on you to......and still staying away from the fusion/ionization problem I see....LMAO!
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2017
You have a way of losing focus, jumping around, confusing one thing with another and displaying a shocking lack of even the most basic understanding of science - all of which show you to be basically untrained in the scientific method. Which makes a conversation with you on matters scientific problematic to say the least, and ultimately pointless.
No...it isn't. So if you have somehow managed to read and understand it you did this in another universe
Nope - in books, in a library, you know - plus getting an education in science. If you got yourself properly educated, instead of wasting your life away spouting unhinged rubbish in this public forum FFS - like shouting inanities at any and all passersby from a street-corner for all the good it does anyone - people might be able to take you seriously.

Suffice it to say you're only fooling yourself here...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
Axiom: Charge, is never created or destroyed.
Lema: Only the center of the charge's field is moved by the field.
Lema: There exist nothing else.
Tautology: Charge is the Charge's field!

Maxwell, QED
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
A scathing diatribe...but no science...and a flat out lie about the mainstream understanding of neutron production in a star. You are fitting in well here with those who share your blind faith in your preferred physics.
I don't expect anyone with your ingrained belief system to care what I say, that not a single one of you can answer questions about glaring discrepancies in your preferred model comes as no surprise to me, and it is very entertaining to read your fabulous "non responses" when faced with observations which completely invalidate your beliefs.
You have a way of losing focus, jumping around, confusing one thing with another and displaying a shocking lack of even the most basic understanding of science

As I re-read the posts, the only topic change occurred when you thought bringing up neutrons was a good idea....otherwise I am apparently asking questions about a model to posers who know nothing and try do deflect from this as you did in your last post.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
"In the beginning was the Plasma." Hannes Alfven
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
The final arbiter of what element a particular atom is, whether it is an ion or not, is the number of protons in the nucleus. Different numbers of neutrons make isotopes, which are still atoms; different numbers of electrons make ions, which are also still atoms.

Lack of understanding of this shows basic lack of understanding of both chemistry and atomic physics. Without understanding of chemistry and atomic physics, anyone talking about "plasma" is talking through their hat.

Until this point is clearly understood, acknowledged, and no longer contended, the EUdiots will continue demonstrating that they are EUdiots.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
Guys this is basic atomic physics. It's been well established since Chadwick discovered the neutron and won a Nobel Prize for it. That was in like 1935. You should maybe catch up on physics and stuff. It's pretty embarrassing to be caught posing because you don't know physics that's over 80 years old.

Not to mention,
An ion (/ˈaɪən, -ɒn/)[1] is an atom, or a molecule, in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom or molecule a net positive or negative electrical charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion

Let me repeat that for the hard of reading: "An ion is an atom or a molecule" period. Any questions?

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuhhhhh
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
And BTW Faraday discovered ions in 1834, so that would make the EUdiots 184 years behind the times. I mean, seriously, a hundred and eighty years? How dumb do you have to be to have missed physics that was discovered when Maxwell was twenty years from writing his equations? That was in the time of your great-great-great-grandparents? That was prior to the invention of the steel battleship, the refrigerator, and the generator? Never mind the light bulb.

The EUdiots are stuck in 18th century science. The entire structure of modern physics invented since the dawn of the 19th century has passed them by; they've never heard of it.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2017
I don't expect anyone with your ingrained belief system to care what I say
No surprises there, and no: we don't care a hoot what you say, since it's all inconsequential woo.
no science...and a flat out lie about the mainstream understanding of neutron production in a star
Spoken by a person who has never bothered - or been able - to read/study the established physics, and who instead relies on his own over-inflated ego to tilt at windmills, preferring to bury his head in the comfortably tailor-made-for-idiots sand of EU one-size-fits-all, no-numbers, no-predictive-capability, no-results, nothing-fits-together, looks-and-quacks-like-a-duck-therefore-is-a-duck, no-hope-in-hell-of-ever-being-accepted-as-a-science, witless EU blather and nonsense.

You're a fool and a blaggard, and those who have a solid grounding in science (=years of study) know you for what you are. Why on earth do you bother? What a complete waste of time - go get a life while you still can...
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
You're a fool and a blaggard,

So this is your answer to the observations about the problems with your preferred model....very insightful.
no-predictive-capability

I predicted you wouldn't address any of these issues, you didn't. Just another anger fuelled rant at someone asking you to justify aspects of your model that don't add up. You claim to be a physicist, these questions should be a walk in the park. You look lost in this park little boy....
Idiot Schneeba...same story, thanks for explaining a bunch of things we already know...after saying the stupidest thing imaginable. But again, cannot address the observed issues. It's like someone asked you guys if you were thirsty and you describe how a toilet flushes.
I am asking how aspects of YOUR physics work and you have no clue...no justification for the moronic anti-physics claims you make, it must have been a lot of work for you to become this completely stupid....LMAO.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
Review: Core fusion model, you have no means of neutron production in the sun though they are required for fusion (but somehow feel that describing their discovery and history of use is a decent proxy for said explanation....Schneibtard), you claim atoms are fused inside the core but we only see charged particles leaving the sun so you have ionization of atoms happening somewhere unspecified, but must be in a cooler region unless the claim is now that Ions are fused in the core. You have no explanation for the corona even though the behavior of particles here has only one explanation in physics, so plugging your years and saying "lalalala" is also part of your model.
You guys are a disgrace to science and an embarrassment to physics, and the university programs that spawned your belief system are a joke that turns potentially intelligent people into self proclaimed intellectuals who spew idiocy and claim understanding.
Laughably pathetic.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
Spoken by a person who has never bothered - or been able - to read/study the established physics,

Considering you feel you have done this, yet when questioned about the discrepancies in your learning have to resort to the tactics of a spoiled child who doesn't like his supper even though he asked for it, I can only thank the powers that be for not inspiring me to waste my time studying what you did. But if you continue to spread this farce of physics unchecked then humanity may never be able to dig out of the pit of ignorance you and your ilk are condemning them to.
Those who think about things will put up with you and your insanity because we have no choice...for now. But in a world where logic and understanding prevail....you don't.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
You keep asking the same dumb questions which could be answered in full by yourself if you just pulled your lazy dumb fingers out of your arse-crack and educated yourself. This stuff is so complex, it can't be popped into the 1000-word-bite limit we're dealing with here in this forum, and only a fool would believe that to be possible.

The problem we have here with you is that you're so SPINELESS, LAZY and LACKING IN INITIATIVE and DRIVE to better yourself that you feel it's OK to try to drag down to your pitiful level those who HAVE gone through that difficult, but ultimately rewarding process.

No - go and find out for yourself. But, just to show how incredibly nice a guy I am, here's a first step laid out for you: the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction]p-p process[/p], which is the very first step in stellar nucleosynthesis.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
There's neutron production for idiots right there in the p-p process, the very first step of stellar nucleosynthesis: 2 protons overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion (they're travelling really fast, 'coz it's hot in there); they fuse, and a gamma photon is ejected; also a positron is ejected, which means one of the protons is transformed into a neutron.

Hey presto, you have deuterium plus energy plus those annoying photons giving rise to radiative pressure which, along with gas (sorry, plasma) pressure and electron degeneracy pressure, combine to counter the inward pressure caused by gravitation. These forces balance out (we're talking a stable star here) and result in a condition of hydrostatic equilibrium.

Now - are you going to take up the challenge and find out what happens in the next chapter? For yourself?
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
the very first step of stellar nucleosynthesis: 2 protons overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion (they're travelling really fast, 'coz it's hot in there)

Moving really fast eh? Through a medium with a theoretical density of 150g/cm3...sure.
they fuse, and a gamma photon is ejected; also a positron is ejected, which means one of the protons is transformed into a neutron.

Regurgitation of theory with no experimental backing is also part of your fabulous education. Highest density of plasma reached on earth: Two atmospheres.
http://news.mit.e...ord-1014
You cannot verify any process you claim is occurring, you can state it mathematically but that, believe it or not, is no different than stating it in English because you cannot verify that reality is doing what your math says. And if anything on earth could, we would have over unity fusion ...yet another slap in the face by reality.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
You cannot verify any process you claim is occurring,....et uneducated cetera


Yes, you can. The p-p fusion process should produce neutrinos at certain energy levels. Those neutrinos have been detected.
http://www.scienc...wers-sun

If there really was a problem with how the Sun is powered, do you not think somebody, amongst all the brilliant scientists in the world, might have pointed it out by now? Why is just an anonymous, ignorant troll on a sci-news website that thinks there is a problem?
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
You cannot verify any process you claim is occurring, you can state it mathematically but that, believe it or not, is no different than stating it in English because you cannot verify that reality is doing what your math says
But, HUGELY compelling is the way EVERY part of it hangs together without any fudging. Quantum mechanics, math, nuclear physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, gravitation, special relativity, the whole shebang. The onus now is on YOU to DISPROVE it, using the scientific method.

So far, all you have to show for yourself is a lot of indignant shrieking which, to be perfectly honest with you, ain't going to get you very far. In fact, it's got you precisely nowhere. How does it feel to be so out of touch?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
The onus now is on YOU to DISPROVE it, using the scientific method.


Or, alternatively, to come up with an alternative theory that matches all the observations and data. So far, nobody has done this.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
But, HUGELY compelling is the way EVERY part of it hangs together without any fudging

Dear God, your explanation regarding P-P fusion requires a collision in a dense medium where 2 like charges combine to form a neutral particle by "expelling" the positive charge upon combining (at the mass of an electron to boot), and the particles of like charge must be accelerated directly at each other.
The onus now is on YOU to DISPROVE it, using the scientific method.

Only if you can prove it is correct via the scientific method...you cannot. Therefore all I have to point out is what is wrong with your THEORY. Engineering allows us to initiate a P-P collision in an accelerator, the suns fields cannot behave in this "engineered" fashion so you rely on the math of the scientific fields you named to bail you out by borrowing "forces" from each and claim a proxy based on mathematical values of required energies...when in reality they cannot be anything alike.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
If there really was a problem with how the Sun is powered, do you not think somebody, amongst all the brilliant scientists in the world, might have pointed it out by now?

If someone did point it out they would have a wall of thick headed people to try to convince who have been educated to scoff at the notion...as demonstrated here.
Why is just an anonymous, ignorant troll on a sci-news website that thinks there is a problem?

Why can "an anonymous troll" (LMAO...using his own name) point out flaw after flaw that you can't address and never even considered when you bought the theory? I guess your "education" never taught you to deal with incongruities, you were "educated" to believe the science is sound.
Anyone can compare the variables between an accelerator process and a natural one and see where the theory on the natural one is lacking, the P-P process cannot exist inside the core of the sun because of the motion required from each colliding particle.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017


Dear God, your explanation regarding P-P fusion requires a collision in a dense medium where 2 like charges combine to form a neutral particle by "expelling" the positive charge upon combining (at the mass of an electron to boot), and the particles of like charge must be accelerated directly at each other.


Your fallacy is: argument from personal incredulity.

That's basically what happens, yes. Your failure to understand something is not evidence against it.

And earlier, "2 atmospheres" is pressure, not density. That's a pretty basic error, and doesn't instill any confidence in other things you have to say.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
your explanation regarding P-P fusion requires a collision in a dense medium where 2 like charges combine to form a neutral particle by "expelling" the positive charge upon combining and the particles of like charge must be accelerated directly at each other.

Oddly enough, this exact scenario (minus the dense medium) actually does occur when 2 filaments "collide" to form a CME. I wonder if there is fusion occurring there?
http://onlinelibr...478/full
Certainly looks that way. Why? subtract the dense surrounding medium and you can get the particles to the "speed" they need to be and going in the directions they need to be to have multiple collisions at high temperatures....
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
Your fallacy is: argument from personal incredulity.

That's basically what happens, yes. Your failure to understand something is not evidence against it.

So deal with the science, you never do. That you felt compelled to chime in again and not discuss it is adorable and in character...but beyond that what do you contribute? Oral flatulence.

And earlier, "2 atmospheres" is pressure, not density. That's a pretty basic error, and doesn't instill any confidence in other things you have to say.

Ooops tried to be sciency...doesn't understand how "pressure" is created:
"NWS JetStream - Air Pressure
www.srh.noaa.gov/...ure.html
Therefore, the air pressure is the same in the space station as the earth's surface (14.7 pounds per square inch). Back on Earth, as elevation increases, the number of molecules decreases and the density of air therefore is less, meaning a decrease in air pressure.

You dumbass.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
The real irony here is that the above plasma formation has been recreated in the lab using known plasma physics, it is an electromagnetic phenomenon that has very little imput from gravitational processes.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
Dear God, your explanation regarding P-P fusion requires a collision in a dense medium where 2 like charges combine to form a neutral particle by "expelling" the positive charge upon combining (at the mass of an electron to boot), and the particles of like charge must be accelerated directly at each other.
You're displaying massive ignorance of electromagnetism, quantum tunnelling, and the strong and weak nuclear forces - all well-understood by science and scientists, and used and tested trillions of times every day.

Plus, dipstick, the protons are not "accelerated" at each other: fusion only occurs at those rare moments when two protons happen to find themselves speeding toward each other on a collision course at sufficient speed to get close enough before their Coulomb repulsion forces them apart. It's at that moment that quantum tunnelling takes place to permit the strong nuclear force to take over and bind them together.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
Usually, when these protons meet in this way, the proton-proton nucleus simply disintegrates after a very short interval back into two protons. Occasionally, though, the weak nuclear force (responsible for beta decay) will allow one of the protons to "transform" into a neutron before a disintegration can take place, and the nucleus ejects a positron which, as you rightly point out, has the same mass as an electron but of course has +ve charge. That's what the weak nuclear force does. So, we get a proton-neutron nucleus, or deuterium, and by-products.

So, "rarely" and "occasionally" are going to lead to significant amounts of fusion? You bet, because there's a HUMUNGOUS amount of material in there, and the particles have nothing better to do than fly around until they meet. And these particles are so small, there's an awful lot of space between them, even at high densities - you can work out for yourself roughly how much space that is on the back of an envelope...
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
those rare moments when two protons happen to find themselves speeding toward each other on a collision course at sufficient speed to get close enough before their Coulomb repulsion forces them apart. It's at that moment that quantum tunnelling takes place to permit the strong nuclear force to take over and bind them together.

That's the problem with realworld physics vs. your THEORY dipstick, protons don't "happen" to be speeding towards each other on a collision course in a dense medium of like particles, all the protons in a region are subject to the same directional fields and forces. The lack of scientific understanding about particle/field interactions of stable particles is astounding for someone who claims to know what you do. As to your coulomb barrier and the rest of the quantum THEORY, save it for your circle jerk crowd. Until any of it is experimentally verified we're into another "my god can beat up your god" debate.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
protons don't "happen" to be speeding towards each other on a collision course in a dense medium of like particles, all the protons in a region are subject to the same directional fields and forces
Directional fields produced by what? Some externally-applied magnetic field? You basically have a "soup" of positively- and negatively-charged particles zipping around at very high speeds. It's a gas/plasma/call it what you want, but basically the particles are pretty free to do their own thing.

Excepting, of course, that the very much lighter free electrons, being fermions, have energy-levels determined by the Pauli exclusion principle and, since there are so many of them in the "soup", they are much more constrained in the range of energies, and hence speeds, allowable to them. It's this that gives rise to electron degeneracy pressure.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 12, 2017
... protons don't ...

Nonsense, there are no particles, light or heavy. What you observe is the wrinkle in the field caused by the centers of one or more charges, or to be precise the field. That is, there is no object that creates these spherical fields, apparently never created or destroyed. Start here, now think. Forget where you.

By the way all we see is the field, else you interact with the centers of the field. Don't try to fit reality to your mind. Fit your mind to reality!
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
Directional fields produced by what? Some externally-applied magnetic field?

Not my model, just explaining acceleration of charged particles to a physicist apparently....
You basically have a "soup" of positively- and negatively-charged particles zipping around at very high speeds.

Jesus...you can't just "say" this. Especially not in a medium theorized to be 150 times denser than water. The theorized mean free path of a photon produced in the core of the sun flies completely in the face of massive particles "zipping around" through the same medium...
It's a gas/plasma/call it what you want, but basically the particles are pretty free to do their own thing.

The laws of physics dictate this is an inherently false statement, not a single electron in the universe is "free to do it's own thing", all are subject to the results of their interactions.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
As to your coulomb barrier and the rest of the quantum THEORY, save it...
QM, the most consistently and fantastically successful scientific theory in the history of mankind, DISSED by a dipstick.

Quantum tunneling, useful in tunnel diodes, quantum computing and the scanning tunneling microscope, and also presenting big problems to ever-smaller scale integrated chips: DISSED by a self-aggrandizing twerp.

Real-world, everyday applications of QM TOTALLY misunderstood by bschott, outright winner of today's Dimschitt Award for Pig Ignorance.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 12, 2017
We live in a "Field" Sea! The coulomb forces from every charge exist at every point. Gravity is a group response, charges always comply, i.e. like charge repel and unlike charges attract, therefore a set of charge pairs will be attracted to other bundles, Gravity!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 12, 2017
Explosions of a large set is caused by the nature of the set. Typically we observe a set with a single orbiter type, in large conglomerations, charges still comply. When orbiters shift within the group, typically near the surface, I conjecture speeds of ions or single charge may be higher; thus taking up orbit about a slower opposite charge. Any magnetic field production will separate charge types. In other words, simple physics is able to describe this phenomenon. The center of a large sun is unobserved, we do not know, remember, charge may exist in very tightly constrained volumes, there is no minimum volume.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
QM, the most consistently and fantastically successful scientific theory in the history of mankind, DISSED by a dipstick.

Holy crap...it's so successful that you can't stabilize any component you claim to exist inside a proton for study. You can't verify, other than claiming the energies all add up, anything about the claims made in the sub-quantum realm...you have a fucking story about what you think is happening inside something you can't "open" without annihilating it that can't be verified and that is your definition of success...you're an idiot.
Quantum tunneling, useful in tunnel diodes,

A frequency match...allows interaction of like charges...not far off covalent bonding or superconduction
quantum computing

We have reliable quantum computing do we?
bschott, outright winner of today's Dimschitt Award for Pig Ignorance.

The only way to understand how physics actually works is to be ignorant of everything YOU know.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 12, 2017
...

The only way to understand how physics actually works is to be ignorant of everything YOU know.


QM's success is because it assumes nothing but potential and kinetic energy. The expressions are genius! QM looks at every possible wavelet. I used to be anal and rejected QM based on causality; actually , not a theory but a tool. Results with stupid interpretations; but, results!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
QM, the most consistently and fantastically successful scientific theory in the history of mankind, DISSED by a dipstick


Yep. Best thing I've read on here in a while. Can I phrase it another way? Shit that idiots like bschitt cant understand, and are going way beyond his Primary School level of knowledge of science. Eh? Bless him.
Stick to rewiring houses, mate. Eh? You understand eff all about astrophysics do you? Be honest. You haven't a clue. Have you? You probably think the proton-proton chain is a f*cking rock group, yes? Give up; you're clueless.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
The laws of physics dictate this is an inherently false statement
- the laws of physics as you understand them.
not a single electron in the universe is "free to do it's own thing", all are subject to the results of their interactions
So explain, like I'm five, how the earth's ionosphere can support world-wide HF communications if it's not due to air molecules in the very upper reaches of the atmosphere being ionized by solar UV radiation, and those ionized atoms and molecules and free electrons taking quite a while to find each other again to recombine since:

1) they're continually being UV-irradiated until the sun goes over the horizon, and
2) the air at these altitudes (we're talking a couple hundred kilometers high for the F1 and F2 layers) is so rarified that the mean free path between the free electrons and ionized atoms/molecules is huge - they just don't meet that often.

And while you're at it, explain how the hydrogen bomb works; like I'm five...
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
You can't verify, other than claiming the energies all add up, anything about the claims made in the sub-quantum realm...you have a fucking story about what you think is happening inside something you can't "open" without annihilating it that can't be verified and that is your definition of success...you're an idiot.
This isn't my story, fuckwit. It's the story of science and the tremendous advances (internet, radio, TV, space exploration, mobile phones, computers, digital cameras, GPS; the list is endless) brought to us thanks to its' formalism, mathematical rigour and discipline. If you've a problem with any of those things, write it up: get published, but in a journal that respects the scientific method, not one that will publish ANYTHING.

In truth, all you have to show for yourself is empty, birdbrained criticism, and nothing positive or constructive to offer: the scientific equivalent of a rather small, luke-warm pool of piss. Have fun dipping your toes in that.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
(internet, radio, TV, space exploration, mobile phones, computers, digital cameras, GPS; the list is endless) brought to us thanks to its' formalism

These all came from applied sciences you brain dead fuck. There is no "applied science" that you can do based on unstable bits of energy that manifest from colliding stable ones. You fucking idiots love claim all of the tech advances we have are a result of the same stuff you base your theories on....LMAO. Switch on the gravity TV would ya love?
So explain, like I'm five...

That's giving you 3 more years than you mentally display fuckstick. The questions you are asking in response to what I said about electrons have nothing to do with what I said about electrons, your comprehension is well below that of a 5 year old.
IOW, "free" electrons are still immediately subject to whatever force is present the moment they are free..why do think they stay in the ionosphere? Gravity?LMAO....

bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
QM, the most consistently and fantastically successful scientific theory in the history of mankind, DISSED by a dipstick


Yep. Best thing I've read on here in a while. Can I phrase it another way? Shit that idiots like bschitt cant understand, and are going way beyond his Primary School level of knowledge of science. Eh? Bless him.
Stick to rewiring houses, mate. Eh? You understand eff all about astrophysics do you? Be honest. You haven't a clue. Have you? You probably think the proton-proton chain is a f*cking rock group, yes? Give up; you're clueless.

You couldn't comprehend that an increase in microwave emission from a comet meant that it was brightening....hell they removed your first comment in this thread because it was completely incorrect...notice mine where I said his comment was correct is still up...moron.
@FSC - Mean free path of photon vs. your "particles zipping around" in the core, another one you had to dodge...loser.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
And you still have nothing positive to contribute, no quantitative predictions, nothing to test in the moribund slew of trash you like to call your science.

Meanwhile, the great ship of science steams forth unperturbed.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
.why do think they stay in the ionosphere? Gravity?LMAO
Of course it's gravity, dumdum. They're particles with mass; they're part of the atmosphere. All of the particles in the ionosphere are zipping around with a range of velocities, but in bulk the ionosphere just sits there. Bound by gravity. Doo-doo head.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
And you still have nothing positive to contribute, no quantitative predictions, nothing to test in the moribund slew of trash you like to call your science.

My goal here is to point out the ever increasing massive failures of what you incorrectly term as "science". That's why the observations I continually point out that don't add up in the context of your worthless models piss you off so much...well that and it's fun watching self proclaimed intellectuals implode when they can't deal with anything that rattles their beliefs.

Meanwhile, the great ship of science steams forth unperturbed.

It certainly does, maybe you and your ilk can catch the next boat that is more your speed, it sails to neverland.
Of course it's gravity, dumdum. They're particles with mass...

You actually don't know anything at all....no wonder this is beyond hilarious. Tell this to as many physicists as you can ...please video the reactions. Might lead to a career....
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
That's why the observations I continually point out that don't add up in the context of your worthless models piss you off so much
Way off the mark - neither science, nor I, gives a hoot for what you say or believe. What I care about is the hijacking of a forum dedicated to science by a person who is so obviously ill-equipped to participate in a meaningful way in discussions about science.

You offer ONLY scathing criticism of one of the greatest and most successful of human endeavours, and yet you have nothing to offer in its' place. Your views, which you are as entitled to hold as the cargo-cult believers of Melanesia, are your own affair, but they run counter to those of science, and you cherry-pick the bits of science you understand (which isn't much, by your own admission) and throw out those parts with which you are uncomfortable.

That's not how science operates, and my objectivity beats your snotty-nosed, arrogant subjectivity hands down. You have nothing to offer.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
My goal here is to point out the ever increasing massive failures of what you incorrectly term as "science".


In which case you've failed. As FSC pointed out, you do not understand the science, and are therefore not in a position to point anything out to anyone. And if somebody did actually find a flaw in solar theory, then they wouldn't be prattling on about it on here, where it has zero impact. They'd be writing it up in the scientific literature.

bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
and you cherry-pick the bits of science you understand (which isn't much, by your own admission) and throw out those parts with which you are uncomfortable.

Pot - kettle. In this thread I have challenged aspects of your science that you either answered foolishly or simply walked away from because you cant. The scathing criticism is more so directed at the ignorant proponents of flawed models such as yourself, than the model. I point out an error in the physics that the math and those who do it ignore and then have to deal with supporters of said crank science.
and my objectivity ....
Um...looks like you meant to use the word "objections"...because anyone with objectivity would deal directly with a flaw when it's pointed out. You haven't (can't) deal with any of them. The discussion gets to a point where you are unable to comprehend the flaws in your reasoning....eg. "particles zipping around in the core of the sun vs. math of the mean free path of a photon.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
@bs,
Stop talking crap, and show us, in the scientific literate, where this "flaw" has been pointed out? It is a figment of your uneducated mind. If it was there, it would be obvious, and somebody would have gone into print about. So where is it? Otherwise shut up.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Who, in their right mind, thinks that posting on here, with their half-baked, ignorant nonsense, is going to have the slightest impact on established physics? Seriously. At the very least, take it to a physics forum. There is one attached to this site. Or post a question at Cosmoquest, where there are no limits on word count. The very fact that these morons post their rubbish on here,tells you all you need to know about the validity of their arguments.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017

In which case you've failed. As FSC pointed out, you do not understand the science,

Says the guy whose first comment was removed because of the brain dead nature of it. Based on the comments here, I understand it better than the two of you combined....that's another thing you completely miss (huge list now...huge)...in order to see a flaw in something, you have to understand it better than those who miss the flaws. Your complete lack of understanding of what must happen for a model to be accurate is blatantly clear because (for just one example here) you can't explain why/how fusion happens prior to ionization in your solar model...because physics says it shouldn't. Then there is the tell tale behavior of not being able to acknowledge your errors and just let it go, followed by personal attacks when you're embarrassed by a comment you have made that makes you look stupid because of what you said....
I wouldn't enjoy this so much if you guys weren't arrogant assholes.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
More crap^^^^^. It isn't up to us to explain anything you prat. You are taking on established physics, bird brain. You do not do that on the comments section of a site like this! Get it? Publish your crap, or STFU.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
Who, in their right mind, thinks that posting on here, with their half-baked, ignorant nonsense, is going to have the slightest impact on established physics? Seriously. At the very least, take it to a physics forum. There is one attached to this site. Or post a question at Cosmoquest, where there are no limits on word count. The very fact that these morons post their rubbish on here,tells you all you need to know about the validity of their arguments.

LMAO...you're here idiot, making dumbass remark after dumbass remark without thinking or apparently realizing what you are saying...
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
LMAO...you're here idiot, making dumbass remark after dumbass remark without thinking or apparently realizing what you are saying...


Jesus, what an idiot! I am not the one claiming that I can find flaws in established physics. That's you, you prawn. Does established physics give a toss what is written by idiots like you on a site like this? Think about it. How does one overturn established physics? Think about that one, too. It does not involve crank science sites, nor the comments section of places like this. Loon.

bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
How does one overturn established physics? Think about that one, too.

Unfortunately we (those of us who actually understand physics) have had to repeatedly ask ourselves this question, we looked to history for the answers. Turns out that every advance in understanding came from a small group or single person outside of the mainstream who at first have to deal with those who have accepted science as it stands and forced themselves to ignore it's flaws. Then when enough observations that refute the established physics (in history, it has never taken this long, but the stupid is especially strong in todays advocates as evidenced by yourself, FSC, Schneeba and the like) are made, the mainstream are forced to look at other possibilities.
I am not the one claiming that I can find flaws in established physics

Good, I doubt you could find the flaw in pants with a hole in the knee, but that doesn't change your dumbass remarks into anything else....
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 13, 2017
can we keep it to:

Two models are said to be isomorphic if a one-to-one correspondence can be found between their elements, in a manner that preserves their relationship. An axiomatic system for which every model is isomorphic to another is called categorial (sometimes categorical), and the property of categoriality (categoricity) ensures the completeness of a system.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Unfortunately we (those of us who actually understand physics) have had to repeatedly ask ourselves this question


Hahahahahahahahabahahaha. Jesus wept. Write it up, or STFU.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Hmmmm, over here, people who check their ideas with experiments, talk about them, and let others look them over before they even publish them, much less start claiming they're true. This methodology leads to computers, jet aircraft, refrigerators, television, etc.

Over there, people who claim this is all wrong, can't describe why, never check their ideas, and deny everything while slandering the ones who check. This methodology leads to capering on unmoderated science web sites.

You choose.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2017
ROTFLMFAO
Unfortunately we (those of us who actually understand physics) have had to repeatedly ask ourselves this question, we looked to history for the answers
@bs
by all means, show your peer reviewed published paper and it's requisite evidence that "refute the established physics" then

you claim it has never historically taken this long, so that means you have some evidence that presents some scientific finding that is published and can be reviewed for accuracy and replication

if it is as earth shattering as you make it out to be, then you may be able to get it replicated ( http://www.scienc...=1434352 )

or is this like your non-verifiable anecdotal beliefs surrounding your magic cube claims that can't even get the easiest FDA approval for clinical trials?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.