Fission versus Fusion: 101

[jatslo]

Mass, not matter. I am trying to create a vacuum that has a high-pressure effect. This high pressure will lift my mass into space at 186,000¹⁰⁰ + miles per second.

 

[drwayne]

The direction of the force on the object does in fact reverse, but the reaction to that force also reverses, so the object falls as before I used my unholy powers of darkness.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

+F and -F repel, whereas the Earth is + and the -(m) has -F, so if -(m) > (m), them (m) will shoot off into space, but not really, because we are X amount of distance from the planet core and equator, so -(m) will take off like a bat out of hell. I know how to do this.

 

[drwayne]

You need to read what I posted again, reversing sign on a mass is not like reversing the charge on a charged particle - the response of the mass to the applied force also changes.<br /><br />My example baseball does not "shoot off into space", it in fact falls in a way that is not distinguishable from a normal baseball.<br /><br />However, when it hits the surface of the Earth (assume it doesn't bounce, it is not essential to the problem, it just makes things a little simpler), the interaction is somewhat abnormal. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I tried to contain it but, but I created the wrong kind of gravity. Okay, I will offer a compromise:<br /><br />If I reversed the mass on a baseball, which is a heck of a lot more complicated by the way, the baseball will pull apart and reassemble with the heaviest elements on the outside. Probably gasses with a carbon shell. If I can fuse that carbon and prevent the gasses from escaping, and increase its mass proportional to the Earth we will see the following:<br /><br />Earth = (F = ma) <------> -(F = -ma) = -(baseball) -----> Space that = -(F = -ma), but I did not say that these are repulsive; Earth = (G) <---> -(baseball) = -(G). My momentum transfer will push me through –(G) at which time I will reverse polarity and continue to my selected low pressure star.<br />

 

[jatslo]

You guys and girls are getting me lost in that Aunti Darth Matter trip, I think, and I thought I stated earlier that I figured out how to do this without a Anti-anything. However, it is the same effect. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Maybe I did reverse the mass: Now that I think about it I did turn something inside out, but it wasn't the Helium.

 

[jatslo]

Alright you win! If I increase the mass it would become heavier, and that explains why I wound up in the planet core when I tried to contain it. Your right! containment or not; I still go to the planet core.<br /><br />I am not lost now, thanx; however DrWayne is reversing the polarity of mass and not changing the polarity of Gravity in the process his -baseball went thud, and I can't see why this is a valid argument.<br /><br />The only thing I see that is in his favor is that the Earth's mass prevents the smaller mass from zipping to space because Earth's gravity field is far more stronger.

 

[jatslo]

DrWayne is stating that the smaller mass is heavier than the larger mass, because the weight law reversed too. That would be right then. I was increasing the mass of the -(baseball), which made it lighter.

 

[jatslo]

I am back to the vacuum again; I need to figure out how to change the polarity of a vacuum without a anti-universe. My current model creates the wrong gravity; however, this model I am thinking of will make for a good star model.

 

[jatslo]

I have already solved for gravity and will no longer be posting in this forum, which should please you. I am currently engineering a top-secret prototype that is self-sustaining, so that the world as we know it will change for the better, I hope. Maybe I will show up at the NASA sponsored tether event; only chaos knows.

 

[jatslo]

You can read about Jatslo in the news. Goodbye <br /><br />Macroeconomics of Artificial Gravity: An Investigative Report<br /><br />21st-century breakthroughs related to artificial gravity will send harmonic pressures throughout the known universe as a dynamic consequence, and all aspects of humanity will be affected. The world as we known it will make dramatic changes as our dependence on petroleum diminishes. The person who solves gravity and harnesses its power will rapidly become the wealthiest person on the planet as technologies dependant upon petroleum shift toward gravity propulsion. The magnitude of it all will be greater than that of the Internet¡¯s impact on the economy, which is most definitely an macroeconomic aspect. There are no ripples to analyze, no articles, no impacts; this is pure postulation, but better. I have solved gravity, and now I am working on a self-sustaining prototype that will reverberate through space-time as massive shock waves or pulses. The price of petroleum will plummet, and the economy will take a turn for the worse; therefore, I must have an economic plan that involves the gradual introduction of this new technology, so as to advert an economic collapse.<br /><br />The term "Macro" refers to a developed, large, thick mass, or the accumulative total of multiple micro-masses that, when quantified, total one or more macro masses. Macro masses involve large/thick scalar and/or vector quantities, as in speed and/or velocity, whereas, both speed and velocity exhibit magnitude. However, velocity also exhibits direction, as in: Speed is a scalar quantity of magnitude, and velocity is a vector quantity of directed magnitude. Therefore, "Macro" is the means by which humanity describes the magnitude of mass or masses as observed relative to humanities rest point in space-time. The magnitude of an observed object is relative to the observers rest mass, whereas macro mass is a mass that is greater than the observers rest mass, and a micro mas

 

[jatslo]

<b>Supply and Demand of Artificial Gravity: An Investigative Report</b><br /><br />The world as we known it will make dramatic changes as our dependence on petroleum diminishes. The person who solves gravity and harnesses its power will rapidly become the wealthiest person on the planet as technologies dependant upon petroleum shift toward gravity propulsion. The magnitude of it all will be greater than that of the Internet's impact on the economy, which is most definitely a macroeconomic aspect. There are no ripples to analyze, no articles, no impacts; this is pure postulation, but better. I have solved gravity, and now I am working on a self-sustaining prototype that will reverberate through space-time as massive shock waves or pulses. The price of petroleum will plummet, and the economy will take a turn for the worse; therefore, I must have an economic plan that involves the gradual introduction of this new technology, so as to advert an economic collapse.<br /><br />The desire to reach equilibrium in one point in space-time is the cause of supply and demand. For example, (e = [(F = ma) + -(F = ma) = 0]; [(F = ma) = -(F = ma)]; [(F = ma) = (F = ma)]; -[(F = ma) = (F = ma)]) whereas equilibrium (e) is equivalent to external or internal zero pressure depending on how mass or masses are quantified. External zero pressure requires two or more equal masses, in which two equal masses, when added in one point in space-time, equal one mass. Equilibrium is both external and internal simultaneously depending on how the mass or masses are quantified. Atlantis with their monopoly apartment franchise form a simian circle, and their very existence is a byproduct of force (F), whereas, force is a byproduct of the mass (m) multiplied by acceleration (a). Of course, I am talking of scalar quantifications deliberately, because time (t) is not required in an infinite universe, when distance (d) equals instantaneous.<br /><br />Decisions, with respect to supplies and demands, are vector

 

[mcbethcg]

You write really intelligent sounding gibberish.<br /><br />Tons and tons of it.

 

[jatslo]

Would you rather have me break out the crayola and draw a piture for you? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mcbethcg]

Your ideas are generally idiotic- I am tempted to think that the forums are a big joke for you, that you come up with invalid ideas and questions that demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about even basic physics as a lark, just to mess with people.<br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Please point out any <b>FACT</b> that I ignored.

 

[thermionic]

<br /> />draw a picture for you?<br /><br />Yes please! I love pictures! Please use lots of pretty colors. Cheers!

 

[jatslo]

As it turns out, I do not have a choice in the matter, because I am required to present impacts of artificial gravity on the economy, which requires graphic animation(s), or still(s). Hopefully, I can get away with dropping time (t), because (t) calculations place pressure pain on my brain.

 

[jatslo]

Bonzelite said, "<font color="yellow">i look at the size and governance of Jupiter's magnetosphere and radiation belt structure. it is overwhelmingly larger a structure than even the earth is as an entire planet. i will assume this magnetosphere, as in any, is a result of an electric current. and an exchange of plasma between Jupiter and the sun is not only direct, but as well linked, as in a synapse "nerve net," with our planet and the others in concentric arrangement around the sun. and in this network is an exchange of energy.</font><br /><br />I don't think I responded to your excellent post, so here I go: There is no doubt that The Earth's Sun and Jupiter are exchanging information, matter, and what not. The rate of exchange between these bodies is what I am mostly concerned with. For example, some people have published work regarding planetary movement involving Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, and all there moons. Lately I have been thinking about how these events, if reality, could of transpired. If Jupiter is growing at a faster rate than the rest of the bodies in our solar system, then Jupiter could accrete enough material to reach star status, and shift the planetary alignment as a predominate force in our solar system. Is it possible that Saturn orbited Jupiter at some point in space-time, and what are the consequences of this alignment, as it pertains to Earth, Venus, Mars, etc.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">will this more likely occur between earth and Jupiter before the sun can swallow us whole? i would say there is no way to know. Jupiter does not seem as prone to explode as the sun is, as that planet's plasma state is in a far less volatile "mode" as opposed to the sun. and if it were to undergo a fission event, it may only reach as far as it's local neighborhood, producing an ejecta disk that would nearly immediately accrete to form another moon or planetoid. Jupiter's ring is in my belief to be evidence of such the remains of an ejecta disk, the l</font>

 

[archangel101]

fusion and fission occur all the time in the sun in my opinion. When Helium and hydrogen atoms fuse so much that they get so big the fission proccess begins untill fusion is able to occur all over again. The proccess repeats itself over and over again.

 

[nacnud]

The sun is too cold to be fuseing anything other than hydrogen, and to produce the temperatures and proton and neutron fluxs needed to produce radioactive elements that naturaly undergo fission needs a super nova.

 

[drwayne]

Archangel,<br /><br />I encourage you to examine the binding energy per nucleon curve - it's pretty good about telling you when fusion and fission are energetically possible.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

My argument was not about whether or not fission and fusion take place, but whether or not fusion is the primary source of energy that is released. I believe that a rather large number (99%, for example), of energy produced is a byproduct of primarily fission that occurs within the first (1%, for example), of our Sun's core.<br /><br />Some would argue that transmuting a very dense particle to a less dense particle creates less energy that of you fuse something like hydrogen into something that is more dense. However, my argument involves the fact that when you multiple something insignificant, that insignificant thing becomes significant, and in this case: Fission in the primary source of energy output. I am not stating that fusion is not happening; I am just stating that it is secondary to fission.<br /><br />Experiments in this regard, whether it be fusion or fission, can be tested, and will likely be tested. A more advanced vision that I have involves a carbon sphere that is harder that any known diamond; within this sphere is liquid hydrogen (maybe a just a drop), and then this liquid hydrogen will be infused with liquid helium II. All of this that is transpiring is cryogenic at first, but it will very soon start generating heat. The liquid hydrogen will convert to metallic hydrogen, thus preventing the liquid helium II from escaping. After that brief fusion event occurs that involves Cherenkov Radiation, which is all fine and dandy for energy output, but short lived.<br /><br />The core will begin to spin creating a strong electromagnet field and detectable gravity, and as the core spins faster and faster, the liquid helium II will do something unheard of: it will walk through walls like a ghost would walk through wall, and this liquid helium II will instantly fizz once hitting the outside environment, yet, once again creating detectable Cherenkov Radiation. As the particle fizzes, it is spinning at close to the speed of light, and releasing information for all to s

 

[smartie]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, jupiter could not ever become a star. The amount of matter it would have to absorb from the solar system would be many 100's of times of the current masses of all the other bodies orbitting the sun.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />I'm not so sure. Jupiter is never going to get any less massive. It is continually growing in mass, admittingly extremely slowly, but then it has virtually an infinite amount of time to grow to a stella size. Further when the sun dies there will no longer be any solar wind to hinder Jupiters progress so it will grow more rapidly. Given time anything is possible. <br />

 

[jatslo]

Stevehw33 said, "<i>No, jupiter could not ever become a star. The amount of matter it would have to absorb from the solar system would be many 100's of times of the current masses of all the other bodies orbitting the sun.</i>"<br /><br />I disagree wholeheartedly as usual: Our solar system will likely look like one pulsar (remnants of are current star), and one star (which used to be Jupiter). I can see plasma planets existing, but no traditional planets that we are used to describing. A plasma planet would be in the order of ball lightning but much more massive. Anyway, this binary system, if that is the right terminology, will mimic what we see in the universe today. The Pulsar will feed from the parent star, and then go supernova on a regular basis. <br /><br />"<i>To even reach dwarf star status, Jove would have to increase in mass by about 20 fold, and then it would not even be classified as a cool red dwarf, either. </i>"<br /><br />Jupiter will increase in mass until it swallows whole all of which we call home, including, but not limited to our Sun. Jupiter will likely swallow whole its own moons in a massive display of power that from Jupiter's perspective will look like and insignificant spec of nothing. Jupiter is a hungry monster that would like nothing more than to eat us, and time, I am sorry to say, is on Jupiter's side.<br /><br />"<i>Jupiter is highly unlikely ever to be a star, under any concievable circumstances. If you ahd ANY fundamental idea of how much mass, and how much hydrogen would be needed to make a star, even a red dwarf, you'd have dismissed such statements before they were even written.</i>"<br /><br />Any numbers you have on mass relative to stars, dwarfs, holes, etc, is either hypothetical and/or theoretical. Furthermore, since you lack an innovative mind, you are extremely likely locked into the majority groupthink as usual, when, in fact, that mentality does not guarantee success. In fact, the statistical probability of your success in this