Fission versus Fusion: 101

[yevaud]

<i>Why are they lumping this in with Intelligent Design?</i><br /><br />I don't think that's what's being done. Although, yes, people are rejecting the idea as there is no proof that Fission predominates over Fusion as the driving mechanism for Solar activity. Not energetic enough, for one.<br /><br /><i>Just because new evidence is being uncovered that shows that traditional theories have other possible solutions to the well known issues with them and perhaps compleatly different answers then what has been traditionally thought.</i><br /><br />Agreed. That is how science works. The issue is, how well can one "prove" their alternate theory. Many try, but don't really pull it off - they focus instead on telling the Mainstreamers "prove why current thought is *correct* rather than proving their own Hypothesis.<br /><br />Well, we're not going to do that. In point of fact, that is utilizing the scientific method arse-backwards. New ideas must prove they can adequately explain a physical process as well or *better* than current thought, and mostly, this is not done here. The debate is fine, usually very interesting. It fails at the actual nuts-and-bolts level though.<br /><br />It's at the point where someone says "the electric universe explains everything *better* than all other theories," that the problem frequently begins. Because they then fail to explain *why* it's better.<br /><br />(Not answering the "Solids" paper, as I haven't yet read it)<br /><br /><i>You hardened science guys never answer for the holes...and you consistantly ignore and cherry pick lines out of context...because obviously you are not paying attention ...because you think you know it all. It is a historical mistake that is often repeated over and over again.</i><br /><br />Yes, we do. Over and over and over again, only to have to do so yet again. And I do beg to differ - it has long been shown here that if anyone here "Cherry-Picks" commentary out of context, it's the "woo-woo" crowd, not the mai <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

For example, allow me to deconstruct the following, so as to illustrate what I meant above (Jatslo, don't get an attitude - if this was a different thread, it'd be someone else's post I use):<br /><br /><i>As you can see, my argument contains "premise and conclusion", so my argument is a valid one</i><br /><br />That is not truly the scientific method, now is it? Jatslo makes a statement, and then says "it's valid," without several important steps in between to prove that's so. And that is one of the key problems that has led to the arguments about the corruption of the science fora in general.<br /><br /><i>and now I would like to ratchet this up to a new level.</i><br /><br />But you haven't even shown you are correct at *this* level. Therefore, any hypothesis you raise is based on false premise'.<br /><br /><i>At some time in the distance past, a rather large cloud of gas comprised mostly of hydrogen cooled and condensed in a process know as cold fusion.</i><br /><br />Just so wrong. "Cold Fusion?" <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><i>As the masses condensed, pressure began to build up until one day the Earth’s Sun ignited into a massive nuclear furnace, but when did the cold fusion stop? Did it stop?</i><br /><br />Topical. Half right and half utterly wrong.<br /><br /><i>It is quite possible that fusion is no longer active within the Earth’s Sun.</i><br /><br />Again, half-right and half-dead-wrong. It was indeed thought at one point that perhaps the Fusion process within the sun had ended (more correctly, would start and stop over long periods of time). However, the detection of Muons (IIRC) some years back - as predicted - shot down that hypothesis.<br /><br /><i>I think the Earth’s Sun is in the process of dissipation, and that fusion is no longer or barely an active process, because the Sun needs fuel to maintain fusion. In other words, the Sun has already fused mostly everything already.</i><br /><br />There isn't a wall between us and the rest of the Gala <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

Thanks.<br /><br />Yavaud, You are a wise and patient person.

 

[yevaud]

Neither, I assure you. Maybe someday. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[savagehenry]

Thank you!<br /><br /><br />Excellent post..And pretty much what I am looking for.<br /><br /><br />Somthing some of those with their attitudes constantly cranked at 110% have not delivered once that I have seen...<br /><br />You know STEVE and a couple of others...filling a thread with your incessant repititions while never laying it down such as Yevaud did for those that are investigating what people are saying on science forums about theory A and B and how we understand how this or that works. Is what causes people to NOT listen to you.<br /><br />In my short time here you run around like a cranky high priest ...expousing your superiority ...and never demonstraiting it.<br /><br />Now, as one who is a long time veteran of high charged "internet debate" at numerous political themed boards. I compleatly understand how one could get so sick and tired of someones constant crap and lies being expoused, that they just want to scream "FLAME ON" and vaporize whomever... I could give you my name and some links ..and at times I will clean your eyesockets with their content...<br /><br />But still, I want to see refutations as well as flames...put them together...I dont mind..BUT DO IT FOR ME AND THE OTHERS WHO MAY NOT POST BUT READ YOUR WORDS ANYWAY...as one who is a science "outsider" , yet desperatly loves the subject to levels that seriously surpass even politics (I do politics mostly because it impacts our lives more dramatically--especially in todays climate--and I know its language of lies and deciet much better, being a chronic liar at one time of my life, Sales Stockbroker..etc)<br /><br />Comon man...We are talking about the most insanly Awesome subject there EVER will be in the history and future of mankind...<br /><br />Get an enema...smoke a joint and get to work!<br /><br /><br />

 

[mcbethcg]

Yevaud did an excellent job at it. He not only understands science, but he understands how to bit-by-bit disect another persons argument, with patience and clarity, in this case.<br /><br />I have the scientific knowledge.<br />I used to have the patience.<br />I never had his skill.<br /><br />I lost my patience, permanently, when I argued with Jatslo about one particular sentence he misread for days that he kept using again and again and again to support a particular erroneous viewpoint. <br /><br />I doubt if Jatslo will relent in this case, either. He will take Yevauds kind words as a provocation and challenge, will think that changing his views is tantamount to surrender, and he will keep talking about the same stuff.

 

[jatslo]

Cherenkov Radiation is an appropriate fission/fusion sublimate, so feel free to present your hypothesis knowing that I will not interfere directly.

 

[tap_sa]

Mods, lock this steaming pile of a thread.

 

[yevaud]

<i>appropriate fission/fusion sublimate,</i><br /><br />I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Divert energy; refract; reflect, as in Cherenkov Radiation is sublimated energy. I chose that word with great care. You know, the light boom that occurs when the particles travel through the medium at speed greater than the speed of light within the medium. Have I ever told you that space is a medium?

 

[mcbethcg]

Sublimate:<br /># direct energy or urges into useful activities<br /># rarefy: make more subtle or refined<br /># purify: remove impurities from, increase the concentration of, and separate through the process of distillation; "purify the water"<br /># sublime: change or cause to change directly from a solid into a vapor without first melting; "sublime iodine"; "some salts sublime when heated"<br /># the product of vaporization of a solid<br /># purified: made pure<br /># sublime: vaporize and then condense right back again

 

[jatslo]

SavageHenry - That is a nice read. Thanx<br /><br />That pretty much confirms my suspicions about whether, or whether not (99%, for example) of the energy produced in the Sun is produced in the first (1%, for example), of the Sun's core, in which I believe that the process is primarily fission. The rate of neutrino decay, neutron activities would support the assertion, do you agree?<br /><br />Here is the Abstract from the article you posted:<br /><br /><font color="white"><i><b>[Abstract]</b>.</i></font><font color="lavendar"> Modern versions of Aston's mass spectrometer enable measurements of two quantities - isotope abundances and masses - that tell the Sun's origin and operation. Isotope analyses of meteorites, the Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, the solar wind, and solar flares over the past 45 years indicate that fresh, poorly-mixed, supernova debris formed the solar system. The iron-rich Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core and now itself acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass. This process covers the solar surface with lightweight elements and with the lighter isotopes of each element. Running difference imaging provides supporting evidence of a rigid, iron-rich structure below the Sun's fluid outer layer of lightweight elements. Mass measurements of all 2,850 known nuclides expose repulsive interactions between neutrons that trigger neutron-emission at the solar core, followed by neutron-decay and a series of reactions that collectively generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, the carrier gas for solar mass separation, and an outpouring of solar-wind hydrogen from the solar surface. Neutron-emission and neutron-decay generate = 65% of solar luminosity; H-fusion = 35%, and = 1% of the neutron-decay product survives to depart as solar-wind hydrogen. The energy source for the Sun and other ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of</font>