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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Re: Action And Reaction: Symmetry Of Space.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Reyes on February 3, 2001 19:10:09 UTC

Alexander did you not learn what you know through books etc then I also learned through the same process .

I have tried to use these laws in a different context so momemtum of a body would remain stationary unless acted on by a force, hence why light would cause a cloud to become dense .

The energy conservation law had to be modified in accordance to Einsteinian principles , I fail to accept that they would work in the center of the sun, I do not then oppose how they work but where they work ie the only possible way the intense heat of fusion can possibly occur is by the increase in heat, this occurring only due to the inward path the heat takes by the spherical shape of a sphere that would concentrate the heat as it enters a smaller spherical diameter thus creating a proton - proton reaction.

The conservation of energy cannot work in the center of our sun because nuclear reactions would have split the sun in two , it is just too much energy, just try igniting a six foot diameter ball of dinamite from its center , see how that reacts , what difference is that then to one as big as the sun , the energy mass release is too vast to be contained, it becomes different however if the ball of dinamite were lit from the outside , it would burn for longer and would also become brighter the smaller it became until (BANG) due to the pressure build up that would leave a remnant of its core , science explains this with gravitation but I fail to accept it.

Newton introduced it 300 years ago but only had a self made telescope , his measurements are calculations introduced by man that have been made to fit observation , from here einstein showed that newtons laws break down on large scale masses that change the geometry of space
that is classed as curved , how this occurs or how it is fused with space has not been explained yet seems to be the back bone of GR .

All that based on the graviton a particle classed in atomic physics as the carrier of the gravitational force which I cannot accept could possibly exist in a fusion reaction because if the sun burns from the center do you not think that the graviton would be destroyed and become converted into something else therefor reducing any chance of a star collapsing or blackholes formimg.
Newton had very little to observe with so it is understandable that he could only come up with gravitation by explaining it as a force that is directly proportional to interacting masses , science then held on to this and has done so by basing all its research on this, had he not done so then perhaps science today would understand that a gentle light pressure would be a tremendous force in a weightless enevironment and the measurements that newton calculated then would still apply to the motion of bodies in space that is filled with light .

Opacity is people not being able to see through the veil of scientific commonsense , you question my knowledge , why , do I need a physics degree to throw doubt on the scientific veil, have I not done so.

Tell me how does the suns core become replenished in this mass energy combination because I fail to accept that such a vast nuclear furnace in the suns core would last as long as one on earth , my reason is simple ( size makes no difference ) a tennis ball converted to nuclear fusion may as an example last a whole day and supply energy to 1000 homes, on a bigger scale then the tennis ball being as big as the sun's core would also last a day , the intensity of its heat is the same as fusion , its sheer size gives out more energy and can supply zillions of homes yet it still only would last a day , its like saying a small torch would last a day after using all its power yet a torch on a bigger scale would not when the bigger torch would have a bigger bulb .

How can the fuel in the core of the suns thermodynamic principle survive in such hostile conditions to maintain an even heat , it would if it were to burn from the outside as all things seem to do on earth , and the earths core as well , we are a process of fusion , it is how the elements were united to produce life and everything .

I understand the laws , they just simply do not make sense in the context that science introduces them to us I see things differently hence I see no need to apply them to my theory but I will in my next book so I can understand why you ask such a question but remember I have given an alternative theory and you expected it to comply with scientifc laws that have been based on gravity and the curvature of space by GR so why should the reality of our observation comply with mans intuition .

I hope that some how science which I truly honestly am fasinated with will find a way to observe the suns core with seismology or with nutrino light source to show that it has a cold hard center , perhaps in the future a special metal could be produced and shaped into a high powered rocket with a speed beyond what we can reach today so that it could be thrust into the sun's core with a temperature gauge , but no one would think of such a concept because gravity has lead them to believe otherwise .


John Reyes

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 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