zorro
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zorro
-
-
Please learn how to use the quote function, or if you can't (It kinda sucks, especially with the last "upgrade"), just put your response at the end. Putting your words in the quote is confusing, and makes it look like I am saying silly things. I've fixed these past couple of posts.
This is your claim that fusion is going on in the photosphere. It's your burden of proof. However, if we could do it at 7000K, we'd be doing it here on earth.
If fusion is not necessary for there to be iron on earth, why can't the iron in the sun be from the same primordial source? Though your statement implies that you are asserting terrestrial elements came from the sun, which is also contrary to what we know. The heavy elements came from some other star, which went supernova (and already had some heavier elements in it, IIRC).
zorro: hello again moderato
1. Thanx, I am having crashes in your MultiQuote algorithm.
2. You must support your claim that no iron is in the Photosphere as well. At 7,000 dK (4, 000 - 10,000) the question is why can't we do it on Earth. I say let's try now and possibly surround it with a clean reactor on earth.
3. I agree and before claimed that most Solar System Iron and higher elements are from outside stars and the Big Bang. ....... Most earth elements come from our Milky Way's Black Hole. .... So what. ....
....... We are conversing the Photosphere and it's nearly iron properties and building a feasible Fusion Reactor on earth that is not H/He based fuels.
-1 -
If you think about the whole "Let go and let God" approach to Christianity, it must feel great to trade worship for being allowed to be human, to be forgiven for all those nasty things we do like having unmarried sex and envying your neighbor's jet ski. On the other hand, you have to be taught that those things are sins (if you're oh so lucky enough to live in a place where they preach one of the 9000 sects of Christianity), and I think it's very powerful when someone teaches you that you're basically bad and also teaches you how to be forgiven. Classic stick/carrot.
Genuine belief based on feelings, which some call faith, can make people seem a bit like trolls because they offer nothing but wishful thinking and supernatural explanations. The books this faith is based on show no knowledge of the world greater than that of the people of the time who wrote them. But I think being absolved for all those sins you were taught that you committed is such a pleasurable release that many overlook how their religion often ignores reality.
I think zorro misplaced an apostrophe in the title. "Science Is An Amazing Work Whose Purpose Is To Explain Gods Creation" at least shows that science is in the business of reality. If you're looking to create gods, religion has many tricks, and science can explain an ever-increasing number of them.
Your post is off topic. ....but thanx, the Thiest (not religious) Scientists among us appreciate support in this dogma infested world.
-2 -
Nothing you've linked to implies there is any fusion of heavier elements going on in the sun. There's iron there because there was iron present everywhere when the solar system formed.
Zorro: .....Offer us your ref. that the Sun has no Iron or other higher elements that it Fused itself.
Now don't go silly on us. There is no fusion on the earth's forming its materials. All but a few of Earth's materials were formed in the Solar system (Sol).Non-sequitur. There's iron on earth. Where is the fusion on earth that produced it? (hint: there isn't any)
0 -
!
Moderator Note
No, you don't get to set the parameters of discussion. You cannot assume this to be true and also conclude it. If you assume it to be true you are free to make predictions about how the universe would unfold, but must do so in a falsifiable way. If you want to conclude it, you must establish a line of reasoning and evidence that ends there, without God as the null hypothesis.
For example, if one takes your "At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation" at face value, you are positing a universe that is classically determined. Do you have evidence of that?
Zorro: .... from the time science advertises it can take the BB back to.
You do not get to choose who participates.
I control the limits of the OP discussion but all can participate.
I think this has been adequately dismantled.
Great, see ya.
-1 -
Incorrect. The sun is too small and cool for fusion above hydrogen to helium to take place.
Thanx, we disagree. Click on google again. There are lots of elements in the Sun.
0 -
No, science is pretty sure that exceedingly little if any fusion is taking place there, especially anything involving fusion of Fe.
You are repeating me here so it seems that we agree that some but very little fusion could be happening here.
0 -
I think the question is whether the heavier elements (upto iron) are created within OUR sun - rather than in stars in general.
Sol is a lower sized main sequence star - which means its fusion is almost completely dominated by hydrogen --> helium (via various routes). You need to get heavier and hotter stars to see carbon etc formed (about 1.5 solar masses for the Carbon - Notrogen - Oxygen cycle which converts H to He) - for carbon burning you would need about 8 solar masses. All of these are rough estimates and you will get energetically unfavourable reactions - just very very rarely. On the whole Sol converts H to He.
Elements up to and including Iron are made by fusion in Sol. The higher elements were made in Super Novas, larger stars or the Big Bang and arrived here by galactic consolidations. The element Staging did not occur in Hydrogen/helium "Burning" lumps, in general they formed in staging: H, He, C, O, Ne, Mg, Si, Fe . Burning is going on in Sol but its process are in the lower elements wherein fusion energy binding are so high per bind in the lower shell of the Proton nucleus. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html
On whole, Sol is in the H--He fusion status, true, but in the Photosphere, it appears that higher elements up to iron rules, and energy is being contracted. There seems to be not enough energy is available for its iron to fuse..
0 -
So what you are sying is that out of the 14 billion years of history, science has left God with just 10-64s in which to operate. And will presumably continue to learn more and squeeze Her into an ever smaller gap.
Something like that. ....... As I read it from Sciences googlings of the BIG Bang, I speculate that they are saying that it took God 10**-64 sec to plan our Universe, then a 10**-33 blamb BB burst to create everything, then 15 billion years to create/consolidate in several stages of temperature layering cooling and element making. Down now to Dark Matter and Gamma wave propagations their reconsolidation.
What does a 10**-33sec Big Bang look like. 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,010 sec
0 -
Yes but it consumes more energy that it makes via fusion...
You went wrong when you said this:
Please show some support for this fusing of silicon, nickle, and iron and the release of energy via fusing these elements together...
Star Fusion: http://www.scienceinschool.org/print/257 ; http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html
After Iron(AN 26) Fusion, energy is absorbed.
0 -
You used the term in post #3 in a rather unequivocally religious context. Given the name has nothing to do with actual religion - it would at least appear, prima facie to reveal a considerable level of scientific obliviousness.
This would cast doubt on your assertions about connections between religion and science, and indeed considerable doubt on your speculation as to the motivation for the name of the particle in question.
There is a clear distinction between religion and science as there is a distinction between religion and God. Here I attempt to portray the fact that science highly values God's creation while trying to remain aloof that, as yet, no scientific machine yet has discovered the transition in God's elegance of the singularity from Nothing to Everything.
Science's perplexity with this concept is that the scientific axiom is that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. To God however, this is easily handled by staging the creations and its rules. The Axiom is treated as a transitory until fruition within creation.
0 -
This is incorrect. Why do you believe this to be true?
Where did I go wrong Oph ?? Hydrogen and Helium are sum 90+% of the sun.
0 -
The God particle was originally called the God Damn Particle because it was so difficult to find, not because it had anything to do with god...
The publishers didn't want to publish a book with God Damn in the title so they shortened it to God Particle...
On target as usual, Moontanman.
0 -
The GOD Particle has nothing to do with God, google is your friend and you are begging the question big time by presupposing god with no evidence what so ever...
That is mighty white of you to allow atheists to participate... Please google god particle before this becomes embarrassing...
I have considered your point and googled the bjebus out of it but it is entirely irrelevant here. Big Science came to the finance world with a multibillion program to settle basic theories and scientific conjectures. One was the most basic tenant was a fundamental particle. To gain stature in the theory and give it the highest sort, they named it the “God Particle” to connote a connection to creation and to sap as much monies as they could. It wasn’t named the Zorro particle, it is the GOD particle to aggrandize Science as a semi diety wherein CERN Bureaucrats is a new Pope and the machine is the Sterling Cathedral.
CERN is underway thank you, and many more Scientists salaries are riding on finding God’s design even if it is only a Name. From this exchange we all benefit.
Now don’t take me wrong here, seeking finances is fair game in this world. You need to admit it that Big Science long ago sought aggrandizements to put itself up into the category of royalty. ….. and as the Priest of past, they sought out God and his wonderful creations.
-1 -
Levity is ok including God Jokes and Scientist Jokes.
0 -
I can't imagine any evidence turning up for this thread so shouldn't it be in speculations?
It certainly isn't science.
Copernicus is at the root of science and explained the Solar system almost as it is.
I am looking for a pleasant conversation that sets Sciences within the elegances of God as is Evolution. I allowed Atheists to participate also wherein God is still an open question not as yet discovered by the scientific method. After all we now have almost found the "God Particle".
If it turns into a Intelligent Design rant, we can trash the thread.
-2 -
Science is an incomplete investigation into the truths of God's. God created Everything From Nothing and gave mankind some tools to explain a bit of it.
Since Science is an explanation of God's elegant creations. The closer we get to Scientific reason, the closer we understand God's Works.
So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation, Everything from Nothing.
Carry on Science.
Copernicus looked to God (not religion) and changed how we look at science and interpretations.
-4 -
The OP is a subset of his premise.
What is true is that, .... Science is an explanation of God's elegant creations. The closer we get to Scientific reason, the closer we are to God.
So far, "The Big Bang" says it all. .... At 10**-64 sec, Science establishes that God finishes all his Plans (Word) then get's on the way to creation, Everything from Nothing.
Carry on Science.
Copernicus looked to God (Not Religion)
0 -
* Are you saying that people who believe in God are ....
* but God does not exist.
* therefor people believe in a nonexistant God.
You insert a fault because people's beliefs are their footing even to Atheists.
and a footing must be real to them even if only a dream.
0 -
OK, fair enough, but please cite evidence for madness as a consequence of facing reality, and, in particular, show a difference between theists and atheists.
Zorro, what you don't seem to realise is that, from a scientific point of view, the OP might just as well say
"God is real because the unicorns said so.".
Also, you need to learn to recognise logical fallacies.
Thank you john, .... I do need help often but logic isn't one of my weaknesses. The God is real debate has nothing to do with the OP. You seem to assert it to leverage with a Atheist's point of view and your whole debate collapses.
In general, you argue with my ref than with me. This is debate and not a precise Chemistry quiz.. Good Luck.
0 -
Why is gravity not a sufficient mechanism for containment?
Zorro: Gravity does generate most of the containment along with peripheral magnetisms connected as a surface tension shell layer. Containment is not the issue with balanced-fusion Photosphere operating at 2 atmospheres; it is the temperatures containment that is the challenge.
That's really something for a separate discussion, I would think.
Yes and no, they are all related...
Nothing about that implies fusion is taking place.
That is correct. Science is as yet unsure what, if any, fusion goes on there. The interesting property is it insulation properties reducing temp from 15 million in the core down to 4,000 dK. At that temp, science / engineering on earth could contain the mash in a reactor at one to 2 atmospheres and use it; as well as the magneto effects, to generate clean energy
SPECULATION:
Further, I make the argument that there is some Si-Fe .... fusion ( I call <>fusion for simplicity ) taking place because energy is being absorbed in the fusion processes at iron and above elements, cooling the mash and preventing explosions.
0 -
What's the difference between aeroSPACE engineering and aeroNAUTICAL engineering?
I always wanted to be the latter, what's the first?
ans:
Aero Space Engineering (Rocket Scientist / Engineer ) ...... Flight regime in Space and little thru the Atmosphere.
Aerounitical Engineering (Aircraft Engineering) ..... Flight regime in the Atmosphere only.
Aerospace Engineering is a very nice program indeed. Very much suited for your airplane fanatics.
However, as reality shows, aerospace is a very limited field. My friend loves airplanes, and he's in Aerospace Eng. @ my U, but he's now considering switching into Mechanical Engineering b/c of the job market.
Good planning. ......... I have both Aeros and Civil Engineering because of the instabilities in Aero industries.
0 -
Can fusion be contained with a <>fusion reactor??
0 -
Thank you . I guess
0 -
Lonesome; On'ry and Mean
0
THE PHOTOSPHERE OF THE SUN
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by zorro
zorro in red:
1. We agree but I would add " a minute amount of iron is fused in the Sun" .
2. We agree that H/He are at higher temps. We fuse them in our H/He Weapons .
You need to explain how fusion can occur at lower temperatures.
Fusion occurs at multiple temps in the Sun. See my post #3 insert images above .
why we can't replicate that in a self-sustainable way on earth.
Good Question. Why. That is my Nobel Prize teaser.
What are the fusion scientists doing wrong?
Not listening and banking on H/He; deuterium-tritium, fusion. Their interest is Weapons and not a Electric utility.
3. The tokamak is making great strides in Magnetic confinement. Temps have been attained for a short half life have been achieved upward of 100 M degrees in the TJT-60U. Their Fusion is not sustained and thus not safe, practical or useable.
4. Agree. Not yet. ...... But since it is sustaining low temps are there it looks as though there may be a Si/Fe furnace in or near the Photosphere. It's principal interesting is confinement, insulation and stability.