Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has Science Erred !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Reyes on February 1, 2001 04:45:56 UTC

Alexander

I was right about you , you are so close to my theory that gravity does not exist .

Whilst I agree with you that gravity does not seem to ignite collapsing stars , then others may well ask you what else creates the attraction of hydrogen atoms in the stellar nurseries considering gravity is the cause to create things to fall to a given point as science postulates with GR to back this up if gravity is not the start of the ignition process by the accumulation of weight.

A larger proto star would I agree seem to create friction , the velocity of inward falling hydrogen creates this but would also ignite far quicker hence the inward rate of collapse would halt this material by blowing it off hence in comparison to the size of our sun not much bigger stars should exist and not much smaller stars than our sun should exist , but they do .

I havent heard of a very slow proton proton reaction but I assume a gradual heating of the small proto star is what you describe until enough material has been accumulated which eventually is supposed to lead to ignition.

The fact remains though that whether its a slow collapse in the stellar nursery or a fast one then the point of ignition still has to have a limit , a slow start one can accept but this depends on mass and the more mass then the increase in heat , a fast increase in mass means a fast increase in heat and a slow increase in mass cannot create a mass much bigger than our sun because gravity would create a nuclear reaction .
So the result is that the method by which our sun burns is wrong , one need only calculate the size of the earth and how hot its core is supposed to be and compare its mass with the smallest star to see that there is a conflict with stars bigger than our sun, something is wrong .

The fact remains that I have yet to see anyone agree that throughout my posts I have a point , I understand , after all it had taken einstein years to be accepted even though his introduction of a stranger has yet to be explained by Hawking or Kip Thorne and science as to how space and time is fused by the curvature of space !

Regards and remember me

John Reyes

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins