User Tag List

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 198

Thread: Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

  1. #91
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I asked for someone to tell me what they thought the important points in the video actually are, and I got no response. So I'm guessing, not very much.
    A short statement giving the gist of each video has been added to the opening post.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. #92
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Nope. That's you.
    There is a valid appeal to authority.

    "Logical Form:
    "According to [named authority], Y is true.
    "[Named authority] is a legitimate authority, in the field in which the appeal is made
    "[Named authority] claims what the vast majority of the field claims
    "The field is substantially unified on the point in question"

    It's the weakest of arguments, but it is not a fallacy.
    That is not the form of the arguments in question.

    The form of argument is...

    According to [named authority], Y is true.
    Therefore Y is true.

    That is what almost everyone who believes that the United States is causing global warming or that we evolved from inanimate matter created in super novas. They don't believe in these things because the science supports it but because scientists support it. There is a difference. That difference being that the latter is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It happens to be the same error that most Christian make when they believe in things like predestination and immutability. They believe what the man behind the pulpit preaches. In the case of science, its just a different pulpit with different preachers, preaching a different religion.

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Right Divider (October 5th, 2017)

  4. #93
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    9,484
    Thanks
    6,557
    Thanked 10,512 Times in 6,160 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147627

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    That is not the form of the arguments in question.

    The form of argument is...

    According to [named authority], Y is true.
    Therefore Y is true.

    That is what almost everyone who believes that the United States is causing global warming or that we evolved from inanimate matter created in super novas. They don't believe in these things because the science supports it but because scientists support it. There is a difference. That difference being that the latter is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It happens to be the same error that most Christian make when they believe in things like predestination and immutability. They believe what the man behind the pulpit preaches. In the case of science, its just a different pulpit with different preachers, preaching a different religion.

    Clete
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Has Amos 9:15 been cancelled?

    Eph 2:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    The list: http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?...quot-list-quot Great Bible software: http://www.theword.net/

  5. #94
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,611
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 664 Times in 459 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188252
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    A short statement giving the gist of each video has been added to the opening post.
    Thanks. I'll read them.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  6. #95
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,611
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 664 Times in 459 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188252
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    That is not the form of the arguments in question.

    The form of argument is...

    According to [named authority], Y is true.
    Therefore Y is true.

    That is what almost everyone who believes that the United States is causing global warming or that we evolved from inanimate matter created in super novas. They don't believe in these things because the science supports it but because scientists support it.
    For people who don't get the science, that's probably true. And it's no different than letting your accountant work out the best tax strategy for you, even if you don't understand all the details.

    However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.

    It's more religious or mysterious than when my accountant tells me that I should have about $20,000 in cash readily available for emergencies. It's not that hard to understand his thinking, and evidence for his opinion.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  7. #96
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    For people who don't get the science, that's probably true. And it's no different than letting your accountant work out the best tax strategy for you, even if you don't understand all the details.
    It's different when you (anyone) shows up to debate scientific issues.

    However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.
    I totally deny it. It isn't true and no one - NO ONE - has proven it nor do they have the means to do so. If you think otherwise, you'd better think again. Everything you think are facts about the ways stars work is 100% pure theory based almost entirely on mathematics and computer modeling rather than observational and experimental science. Science today is about putting a theory together and then going to look for evidence to confirm it. Calling such things facts is proof that you are indeed guilty of the very fallacy we are discussing.

    It's more religious or mysterious than when my accountant tells me that I should have about $20,000 in cash readily available for emergencies. It's not that hard to understand his thinking, and evidence for his opinion.
    Your analogy is flawed in several ways. First of all opinions about how much of your money should allotted to what investments is just that, an opinion. 50 different accountants could all say something different and none of them be wrong, whether you understand their reasoning or not. Science is not about opinions.

    Further, accountants (i.e. non-criminal ones) act as a fiduciary. In other words, they act in your best interests rather than their own. Scientists have no such fiduciary responsibility and very often act in the best interest of their own careers.

    Clete

    P.S. To clarify, I deny that all the heavy elements came exclusively from super-nova explosions. There may well be observational evidence that super-novas produce such elements but going from that to saying that all heavy elements that exist were created in this manner is going much further than the evidence can support and is, at best, speculation.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  8. #97
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,611
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 664 Times in 459 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188252
    Barbarian observes:
    However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I totally deny it. It isn't true and no one - NO ONE - has proven it nor do they have the means to do so.
    It's directly observed to happen. We can see it in such explosions, and we can also see what elements are in other stars. Nothing heavier than iron, unless there's a supernova.

    And we can now experiment with energies similar to those found in supernovae, and it turns out that yes, that's how heavier elements are made. Everything up to iron can be formed in ordinary stars by fusion. That's how they shine.

    If you think otherwise, you'd better think again. Everything you think are facts about the ways stars work is 100% pure theory based almost entirely on mathematics and computer modeling rather than observational and experimental science.
    No. We observe starts and we can tell what elements are in them. And we can experiment with the sorts of forces that go on in those stars and see what elements are produced.

    P.S. To clarify, I deny that all the heavy elements came exclusively from super-nova explosions.
    Show us your evidence that it happens in a different way, aside from lab experiments.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  9. #98
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Show us your evidence that it happens in a different way, aside from lab experiments.
    Why would lab experiments be exempted?

    Doesn't matter.

    You are wrong. They do NOT know that most of the heavier elements are made in supernova explosions. They just don't.

    This is what about fifteen minutes of searching the internet on the subject will get you...

    From an article entitle "Nucleosynthesis" on a NASA website...

    "Our Sun is currently burning, or fusing, hydrogen to helium. This is the process that occurs during most of a star's lifetime. After the hydrogen in the star's core is exhausted, the star can burn helium to form progressively heavier elements, carbon and oxygen and so on, until iron and nickel are formed. Up to this point the process releases energy. The formation of elements heavier than iron and nickel requires the input of energy. Supernova explosions result when the cores of massive stars have exhausted their fuel supplies and burned everything into iron and nickel. The nuclei with mass heavier than nickel are thought to be formed during these explosions."

    From an article entitled, "New insight into atomic nuclei may explain how supernovas formed elements crucial to humankind", published May 2012 on ScienceDaily.com

    Astrophysicists have believed that half the elements which are heavier than iron were formed in gigantic star explosions, known as supernovas.

    However, there is one little snag with this theory: Astrophysicists have huge problems to make computer simulations of a supernova.


    "Once the core cannot be compressed any further, the compressed matter must expand again in a gigantic explosion, or supernova. This is where the heavy elements of the universe may have been formed."

    From an article describing the findings of the Chandra X-Ray observatory observations of Cassiopeia A...

    A comparison of the illustration and the Chandra element map shows clearly that most of the iron, which according to theoretical models of the pre-supernova was originally on the inside of the star, is now located near the outer edges of the remnant. Surprisingly, there is no evidence from X-ray (Chandra) or infrared (Spitzer Space Telescope) observations for iron near the center of the remnant, where it was formed. Also, much of the silicon and sulfur, as well as the magnesium, is now found toward the outer edges of the still-expanding debris. The distribution of the elements indicates that a strong instability in the explosion process somehow turned the star inside out.

    Note the automatic dismissal of contrary evidence to their theory. Their theory wasn't wrong, the star, in violation of every law of physics know to us, turned inside out "somehow".

    Also from the same article...

    Tallying up what they see in the Chandra data, astronomers estimate that the total amount of X-ray emitting debris has a mass just over three times that of the Sun. This debris was found to contain about 0.13 times the mass of the Sun in iron, 0.03 in sulfur and only 0.01 in magnesium.

    Again, there isn't enough time to account for even all the iron in the universe, never mind all the other heavier elements. In fact, it wasn't until 2013 that evidence of phosphorus, a substance needed for life as we know it to exist, was detected in a supernova for the first time. That discovery was also made during observations of Cas A.


    From a caption under a NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day...

    Where did the gold in your jewelry originate? No one is completely sure. The relative average abundance in our Solar System appears higher than can be made in the early universe, in stars, and even in typical supernova explosions. Some astronomers have recently suggested that neutron-rich heavy elements such as gold might be most easily made in rare neutron-rich explosions such as the collision of neutron stars.

    I wonder how many neutron star collisions happen per year in a Milky Way sized galaxy?


    And I could go on for quite some time. Such things are easy to find if you're looking for them.
    Maybe supernovas do produce all the heavy elements! I seriously doubt it because I think that large portions of the whole theoretical paradigm is flawed but I could be wrong about that. The point here is that the observational evidence that you thought existed for most of the heavy elements being formed in supernova explosions just does not exist. The idea stems mostly from mathematical theories and computer models that even astrophysicist will readily admit have failed to realistically recreate what is seen in telescopes and ALL of which almost totally ignore electromagnetic forces and rely instead almost entirely on gravity and the heat of nuclear fusion to account for the forces involved in stellar evolution and the energies needed to form heavier elements. If you allow electromagnetism to add energy to the system, (the electric force is trillions of trillions of trillions times stronger than gravity - about 1033 times stronger than gravity) you wouldn't need a supernova explosion to account for the energy required to form these heavier elements.

    Incidentally, there is a whole list of ad hoc assumptions scientists make that would no longer be necessary if the electric force were not discounted to the extent that it is. The theories surrounding things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, black holes, neutron stars and pulsars and even comets and impact craters are all based on a gravity-centric paradigm that is not supported by observational evidence. In fact, quite the contrary, there is plenty of falsifying evidence as these videos have and will continue to present.

    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; October 6th, 2017 at 08:17 AM.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Right Divider (October 6th, 2017)

  11. #99
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    For those of you think that the EU is just a bunch of unpublished science hacks...

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...sma-cosmology/


    Note that the above article was posted more than 6 years ago.

    In fact, if any of you want a relatively short primer on the sort of thinking you'll find in the Electric Universe community presented in a published paper read this...

    On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma by David Smith - The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 2-M2) 165-179

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  12. #100
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,611
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 664 Times in 459 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188252
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Why would lab experiments be exempted?
    Because we can, by applying energies similar to those in supernovae, produce heavier elements. Where, other than supernovae, does this happen.

    Doesn't matter.
    Matters a lot. We see only one way in nature that heavier elements form. If you believe it happens otherwise, show us your evidence.

    You are wrong. They do NOT know that most of the heavier elements are made in supernova explosions. They just don't.
    We observe them being formed in supernovae. We can analyze the composition of stars, and elements heavier than iron only form in those explosions. And, as I pointed out, if we apply those kinds of energies to atoms, we can make heavier elements.
    https://www.popsci.com/science/artic...g-new-elements

    So we've observed heavy elements being made in supernova explosions. We've been able to duplicate that process in the lab by applying the same energies to matter, so we know it works.


    This is what about fifteen minutes of searching the internet on the subject will get you...
    This is like the engineer, who analyzed the flight of bumblebees, and concluded that it was impossible for them to fly. The bumblebees weren't in the least concerned with the theoretical problems in bumblebee flight; they continued to fly anyway. Likewise, supernovae really aren't affected by the fact that we don't know exactly how those elements form; they continue to do it, in spite of the theoretical difficulties.

    Incidentally, the bumblebee problem was solved when entemologists discovered tiny pads of resylin under the "levers" that move the wings. Resylin returns almost 100% of the energy used to compress it, thereby moving the wings for the return stroke with almost no energy expended.

    And I could go on for quite some time.
    And no supernova will pay the least mind. It will continue to produce heavy elements.

    Maybe supernovas do produce all the heavy elements! I seriously doubt it because I think that large portions of the whole theoretical paradigm is flawed
    As the bumblebee paradigm was flawed. But bumblebees and supernovae go on, completely unconcerned.


    The point here is that the observational evidence that you thought existed for most of the heavy elements being formed in supernova explosions just does not exist.
    Astronomers watch them being made in such explosions. Reality trumps any theoretical issues. Do you understand how we can tell what elements are being made?

    We observe heavy elements being made in such explosions. Do you have any evidence whatever for them being made in nature, some other way?
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  13. #101
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    From Walt Thornhill's paper "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 2-M5) 191-210


    While advancing technology provides a deluge of new
    information and surprises about the cosmos, our understand-
    ing of the universe has stalled for at least a century. More
    thoughtful scientists are beginning to express frustration
    about the lack of breakthroughs in fundamental physics
    while the technology around them seems to advance at a
    faster pace every day. It can be argued that the problems
    stem from modern education, which no longer fosters
    "desire and pursuit of the whole" but rather a narrow prescribed ex-
    pertise devoid of historical context. The selection of earlier
    ‘giants’ whose shoulders we must stand on is predetermined
    and unquestioned. But standing on someone else’s shoulders
    does not make us taller. The debates and politics that sur-
    rounded the consensus that raised those ‘giants’ to their ex-
    alted status are lost in the myth-making. We must worship
    the sainted geniuses our forefathers chose for us. Question-
    ing the ‘laws,’ the contradictions and misleading language of
    science is discouraged. Yet educators are surprised by the
    growing disinterest in science. Perhaps it is because Big
    Bang cosmology has nothing to offer about life and the hu-
    man condition. Instead, our cosmology is a bizarre narrative
    of miracles, chance, isolation and the hopelessness of even-
    tual total darkness or a return to a cauldron of rebirth. This
    claim may seem harsh but the clamour of dissent is rising.
    Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the dismissive name “Big Bang”
    maintained a healthy skepticism throughout his career:

    Big-bang cosmology is a form of religious fundamental-
    ism, as is the furor over black holes, and this is why these
    peculiar states of mind have flourished so strongly over the
    past quarter century. It is in the nature of fundamentalism
    that it should contain a powerful streak of irrationality and
    that it should not relate, in a verifiable, practical way, to the
    everyday world. It is also necessary for a fundamentalist
    belief that it should permit the emergence of gurus, whose
    pronouncements can be widely reported and pondered on
    endlessly—endlessly for the reason that they contain nothing
    of substance, so that it would take an eternity of time to distil
    even one drop of sense from them. Big-bang cosmology refers
    to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of
    astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced
    a single successful prediction”
    [8]

    Thanks to Einstein’s promoters, Big Bang cosmology has
    become an exercise in geometric metaphysics and computerized
    ‘virtual reality,’ with its practitioners vying for attention
    with the most bizarre confabulations. It began by wedding
    the distinctly different concepts of time and space into a
    ‘fourth dimension.’
    “Henceforth space by itself, and time by
    itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only
    a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent real-
    ity”
    [9].
    There is an unconscious irony in the use of the word
    ‘reality’ in such a context. If time is a dimension, point me in
    the direction of time! Meaningless statements such as
    “Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and
    time and are an important consequence of Einstein's general
    theory of relativity,”
    [10] epitomize the imaginary nature of
    theoretical physics. What material object is ‘the fabric of
    space-time’ and how does matter cause it to ‘ripple?’ Those
    who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We
    have returned full circle to the Pythagoreans with their inner
    circle of ‘mathematikoi.’ The Big Bang hypothesis is no bet-
    ter than the two thousand year old Ptolemaic model of the
    cosmos, with the Earth at the center of everything and ad hoc
    epicyles added as necessary to preserve a geometric model.


    [8] Hoyle F. Home is Where the Wind Blows. Calif: Univ Sci Books
    1994; p. 413.
    [9] Minkowski H. Space and Time. In: Lorentz H, Ed. The Principle of
    Relativity: a Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and
    General Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications Inc
    1952; p. 75.
    [10] Svitil K. LIGO Observations Probe the Dynamics of the Crab Pul-
    sar. Caltech News Release 2008; 2: Available from:
    http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13154.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 7th, 2017)

  15. #102
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Astronomers watch them being made in such explosions. Reality trumps any theoretical issues.
    I just presented you multiple examples of those very scientists saying otherwise. THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS!!!!

    They do observe the existence of some heavy elements in the remnants of supernova explosions but not nearly all of them and not nearly in the quantities required to produce the amount we know for a fact exist.

    Do you understand how we can tell what elements are being made?
    Yes, I do! That's a big part of the reason I know that you are talking out of your hat here. They do not know for a fact that all the extant heavy elements were created in supernova explosions. They do NOT know that no matter how much of my posts your ignore nor how many times you want to repeat that they do. They do not - period!

    We observe heavy elements being made in such explosions.
    Some elements, yes. Not all and not enough.

    Do you have any evidence whatever for them being made in nature, some other way?
    I did present such evidence, you ignored it. Supernova explosions cannot account for the even the amount of iron in the universe, which doesn't even require a supernova in the first place, never mind the amount of the really heavy elements like gold, lead and tungsten, etc. which would require orders of magnitude more supernovas than any observational science can begin to support. The ad hoc solution to this problem is not to question the theory but simply add more and more time to the age of the universe.

    As I suggested in my previous post, which you also ignored, the reason they THINK these elements are created in supernova explosions and not during the life of the star is because the creation of such elements does not expel energy but rather requires energy to be added to the system. This energy is provided by - you guessed it - gravity! If you permit the electric force to add this energy, the need for supernova explosions goes away.

    Further, the existence of L-type brown dwarfs is evidence that heavy elements are produced in ways other than supernova explosions. These brown dwarfs are designated L-type because of the presents of lithium in their spectra but they are brown dwarfs precisely because they are too small to be shining from internal thermonuclear power. This is what is called falsifying evidence. It isn't merely a surprise or unexplained. It is that but more than that it is not possible if current theories about how lithium (and other heavy elements) is created are true.


    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; October 6th, 2017 at 09:57 AM.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 7th, 2017)

  17. #103
    Over 3000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,885
    Thanks
    462
    Thanked 783 Times in 530 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    419049
    Clete, The Open Astronomy Journal is full of low quality papers, and their publisher was found guilty of publishing fake papers while claiming to have peer reviewed and take the $800 fee to do so.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...ts-fake-paper/

    This doesn't really count as peer review, and is closer to vanity publishing. There are plenty of reputable journal, so why did this guy pick this one? Easy target, perhaps, to be able to claim some form of credibility?
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

  18. #104
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,611
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 664 Times in 459 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188252
    (Barbarian notes that astronomers observe heavy elements being produced in supernova explosions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I just presented you multiple examples of those very scientists saying otherwise.
    No. You did not. You posted some issues with theories explaining how it happens. We can directly observe the production of these heavy elements in supernova explosions by spectrographic analysis, showing the elements appearing.

    And as you learned, the process can be reproduced in labs by generating the sort of energies found in such explosions, so we have two independent sources of data showing it happens.

    You're essentially in the same boat as that engineer who "proved" that bumblebees can't fly.

    THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS!!!!
    They do.

    They do observe the existence of some heavy elements in the remnants of supernova explosions
    But none in supergiants before the explode. For the obvious reason.


    but not nearly all of them
    Show me a spectrographic analyis of a supernova that did not detect heavy elements.

    and not nearly in the quantities required to produce the amount we know for a fact exist.
    Show me your calculations.

    Yes, I do! That's a big part of the reason I know that you are talking out of your hat here. They do not know for a fact that all the extant heavy elements were created in supernova explosions. They do NOT know that no matter how much of my posts your ignore nor how many times you want to repeat that they do. They do not - period!
    In the same sense that they don't know for a fact that gravity will be working tomorrow morning. If you can show that it happens any other way than it is observed to happen in supernovas, you should show us.

    Some elements, yes. Not all and not enough.
    Show us your numbers.

    I did present such evidence, you ignored it. Supernova explosions cannot account for the even the amount of iron in the universe,
    Since it's produced in pretty much all stars at the end of their lives, and since such stars become red giants and blow off most of their mass into space, that makes sense. I'd still like to see your numbers, though.


    which doesn't even require a supernova in the first place, never mind the amount of the really heavy elements like gold, lead and tungsten, etc. which would require orders of magnitude more supernovas than any observational science can begin to support.
    Show us the numbers.

    The ad hoc solution to this problem is not to question the theory but simply add more and more time to the age of the universe.
    No need. As you see, the generation of heavy elements is already documented to happen in supernovas.

    As I suggested in my previous post, which you also ignored, the reason they THINK these elements are created in supernova explosions and not during the life of the star is because the creation of such elements does not expel energy but rather requires energy to be added to the system.
    That's the reason. And when they tested it in the lab, turns out it's right. You need the kind of energies that are found only in supernovas to do it.

    This energy is provided by - you guessed it - gravity! If you permit the electric force to add this energy,
    Problem is twofold. First, there's no evidence whatever for those elements heavier than iron being produced by stars not undergoing a supernova explosion. And second, observed reactions in the lab show that the forces of gravity in such a collapse are sufficient to fuse the higher elements.

    Further, the existence of L-type brown dwarfs is evidence that heavy elements are produced in ways other than supernova explosions. These brown dwarfs are designated L-type because of the presents of lithium in their spectra but they are brown dwarfs precisely because they are too small to be shining from internal thermonuclear power. This is what is called falsifying evidence. It isn't merely a surprise or unexplained. It is that but more than that it is not possible if current theories about how lithium (and other heavy elements) is created are true.
    You've been misled badly on that. Lithium has an atomic number of three. Yes, three. It's the third lightest element in this universe. And the evidence suggests that small amounts of lithium existed before stars even formed.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  19. #105
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,907
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    You've been misled badly on that. Lithium has an atomic number of three. Yes, three. It's the third lightest element in this universe. And the evidence suggests that small amounts of lithium existed before stars even formed.
    This is the only sentence in your entire post that was responsive. The rest has already been said and repeated. Your ignoring it doesn't count as a refutation. I can't tell if you're intntionally ignoring it or are just missing the point. It seems to be a mixture of both but I really don't care to repeat it again.

    I haven't been misled at all. The amounts of lithium required to be detected in something as dim as a brown dwarf would be in quantities far in excess of those that could even begin to be accounted for by big bang processes. Further, whatever lithium would have been produced in the big bang (if it happened at all) would have been an unstable isotope of lithium that would have quickly decayed back into more stable forms of Helium and Hydrogen. There is NO known mechanism to account for the creation of lithium in brown dwarfs - umm - except in the Electric Universe paradigm.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 7th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us