The Scientific Math of the Milky Way

[ManSinha]

Interesting concept - you almost make it sound like an episode of the Twilight Zone

 

[gnostic]

This idea is based on the assumption that our Sun is kind of "nuclear reactor" with a limited time of formation.

I rather think this is the case:
"The Electric Sun theory (also Electric Star theory, and Electric Sun Model and Electric Sun Hypothesis) is the idea that the Sun (and stars) derives the main sources of its power electrically from its surroundings, rather than from within by nuclear fusion (the mainstream view)".

Read more here - Electric Sun theory – The Electric Universe Theory

BTW: What about my asked question here:
"I´m very pleased to read your mythological and religious comments and explanations here, and I`ll like to know into which cosmological and astronomical context you connect the mentioned deities"?

Oh yes, just nittpick on grammar and terms. What about factual scientific arguments and sentenses against the EU?

“factual scientific arguments”

ROFL

I didn’t see any evidence presented in that article of yours.

Just because you provided alternative views, doesn’t make your view - “scientific” or “factual” - Native.

And here is two errors in your first paragraph alone, just to show you how little you understand science:

This idea is based on the assumption that our Sun is kind of "nuclear reactor" with a limited time of formation.

Error 1: Nuclear reactors all worked on nuclear fisson reaction.​

Error 2: The sun’s core work on the principle of nuclear fusion, which are the exact opposite of how a nuclear reactor works.​

Nuclear fisson works by splitting a large atom into smaller ones, resulting in photons, gamma rays and radioactive decay.

Nuclear fusion on the other hand, work by fusing lighter elements, eg hydrogen nuclei into a single helium nucleus, and in the sun’s core (or any other main sequence star) known as proton-proton reaction. Nuclear fusion required high heat for fusion of lighter elements.

Both fusion and fisson release enormous energy, but unlike nuclear fisson, fusion don’t leave radioactive decay, hence nuclear fusion provide cleaner energy.

The sun and other stars don’t work like nuclear reactors.

To date, there are no working large-scale nuclear reactors that works on nuclear fusion.

Your knowledge on how the stars work, is based on faulty knowledge.

Shad, polymath257 and Subduction zone have all been telling you to re-read and to understand the articles you have been reading, because it is clear you don’t understand how nuclear reactors work.

But I think you need to do more than that. You need to go back to school, to learn basic physics, because clearly you are not as smart as you think you are.

Edit: corrected errors, it’s fission, not frisson.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Astronomers discover a star that would not die – Astronomy Now

Yes it really does. The consensus cosmology claims the heavier elements to be formed by "exploding Super Novaes", but in the linked case this "explosion" seemingly happens several times, and THEN the very idea is contradicted. A star obviously and logically cannot explode several times in a row.

One unusual star does not refute the evidence that supernovas create the heavier elements.

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

Except that isn't the case with most supernova. In fact, that is why the example you gave is of interest: it is a very unusual case and people want to understand what is happening with it.

The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

Except, where are those beams of heavier elements?

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic and speculative ideas of "gravity and explosions".

Nuclear reactions require high temperatures and high densities. In stars, those two requirements are produced by the effects of gravity. This does NOT make nuclear reactions 'gravity and explosions'. Supernovas are, however explosions. They usually destroy the stars where they happen, except for perhaps a pulsar being left over. We have several examples of exactly this: the best known and closest is M1, the crab nebula.

 

[Polymath257]

“factual scientific arguments”

ROFL

I didn’t see any evidence presented in that article of yours.

Just because you provided alternative views, doesn’t make your view - “scientific” or “factual” - Native.

And here is two errors in your first paragraph alone, just to show you how little you understand science:

Error 1: Nuclear reactors all worked on nuclear frisson reaction.​

Error 2: The sun’s core work on the principle of nuclear fusion, which are the exact opposite of how a nuclear reactor works.​

Nuclear frisson works by splitting a large atom into smaller ones, resulting in photons, gamma rays and radioactive decay.

Nuclear fusion on the other hand, work by fusing lighter elements, eg hydrogen nuclei into a single helium nucleus, and in the sun’s core (or any other main sequence star) known as proton-proton reaction. Nuclear fusion required high heat for fusion of lighter elements.

Both fusion and frisson release enormous energy, but unlike nuclear frisson, fusion don’t leave radioactive decay, hence nuclear fusion provide cleaner energy.

The sun and other stars don’t work like nuclear reactors.

To date, there are no working large-scale nuclear reactors that works on nuclear fusion.

Your knowledge on how the stars work, is based on faulty knowledge.

Shad, polymath257 and Subduction zone have all been telling you to re-read and to understand the articles you have been reading, because it is clear you don’t understand how nuclear reactors work.

But I think you need to do more than that. You need to go back to school, to learn basic physics, because clearly you are not as smart as you think you are.

Fission, not frisson. Fission is where nuclei split up. Frisson is those chills you get when listening to music.

 

[gnostic]

You do not know what a Nuclear reactor does or how it functions so your point is nonsense.

No, he doesn’t, does he?

He think all nuclear reactions are the same.

The problem is that he has too big an ego, that he won’t admit he has made mistakes, which means he could never learn from his mistakes.

He is prime example of being “willfully ignorant”.

 

[gnostic]

Fission, not frisson. Fission is where nuclei split up. Frisson is those chills you get when listening to music.

Sorry. You are right. I’ve corrected my post.

 

[Polymath257]

I get a frisson when contemplating fission.

 

[Native]

Read you article. The problem you think exists was resolved and stated in the article. Try again.

No it wasn´t resolved.
Quote:
"Indeed, the “pulsational pair instability” theory may not fully explain all the data obtained for this event. For example, the energy released by the supernova is more than the theory predicts. This supernova may be something completely new".

Yes and the new thing with this supernova was/is the supernova several glimses is just plain electromagnetic dicharges from a star, hence this assumed supernova star cannot produce heavier elements.

And the same is the cases with all other super novaes wich just relieve ordinary light charges as all stars do. There are NO explosions in any Supernovaes at all and they don´t produce heavier elements as thought.

 

[Native]

Obviously you have trouble comprehending that which you read. This universe, which is but one of many, has a beginning and an end, as was believed by our ancient ancestors.

This was, for instants, not the believe in the Egyptian Mytology and the Norse Mythylogy. (Obviously you have trouble comprehending that which you read )

And I don´t believe in the highly specualtive multiple Universes.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

It really doesn´t matter that much, but IMO there is just 1 Universe but in this Universe, everything is eternally created, dissolved and re-created. Which fits well with your description here.

BTW: What about my (now three times) asked question here:

"I´m very pleased to read your mythological and religious comments and explanations here, and I`ll like to know into which cosmological and astronomical context you connect the mentioned deities"?

And what about this question:

The Anointed said: ↑
If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.

Did you observe this for yourself?

It´s somewhat OK with your (long) lectures but what about my questions?

 

[The Anointed]

This was, for instants, not the believe in the Egyptian Mytology and the Norse Mythylogy. (Obviously you have trouble comprehending that which you read )

And I don´t believe in the highly specualtive multiple Universes.

It really doesn´t matter that much, but IMO there is just 1 Universe but in this Universe, everything is eternally created, dissolved and re-created. Which fits well with your description here.



And what about this question:

The Anointed said: ↑
If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.

Did you observe this for yourself?

It´s somewhat OK with your (long) lectures but what about my questions?

Did I observe that for myself? There was no need to. No one in the days of Paul had ever seen an atom, but they believed that everything that can be seen was created from that which could not be seen.

Knowing that energy is the only eternal and it has become all that exists, which eternal energy and all that it has become is made manifest as the creation that you see all around you, I am assured that an Atom has no physical qualities, and is naught but the eternal energy that has neither beginning or end. .

And as to your question, [SINGULAR] which was; "I`ll like to know into which cosmological and astronomical context you connect the mentioned deities"?

It is enough that you were very pleased to read my theological and religious comments and explanations here, as my answer to your question would not please you at all, and therefore I will not disappoint you..

 

[Native]

Did I observe that for myself?

Maybe I expressed myself somewhat unclear in my question. I meant if you have experienced this yourself. (The atom and the "emptyness behind)

Native said: ↑
"I´m very pleased to read your mythological and religious comments and explanations here, and I`ll like to know into which cosmological and astronomical context you connect the mentioned deities"?

It is enough that you were very pleased to read my theological and religious comments and explanations here, as my answer to your question would not please you at all, and therefore I will not disappoint you..

Feel free to test me on this

 

[The Anointed]

This was, for instants, not the believe in the Egyptian Mytology and the Norse Mythylogy. (Obviously you have trouble comprehending that which you read )

And I don´t believe in the highly specualtive multiple Universes.

It really doesn´t matter that much, but IMO there is just 1 Universe but in this Universe, everything is eternally created, dissolved and re-created. Which fits well with your description here.



And what about this question:

The Anointed said: ↑
If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.

Did you observe this for yourself?

It´s somewhat OK with your (long) lectures but what about my questions?

Native wrote...….. It really doesn´t matter that much, but IMO there is just 1 Universe but in this Universe, everything is eternally created, dissolved and re-created. Which fits well with your description here.

The Anointed...…. So let me see if I have got this right. You believe that there is but one universe, which, like an interminable succession of wheels is forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being, and this one universe is in a constant state of evolution, am I correct?

You do not see, each successive universal being, which appears out of the non being of its predecessor as a separate entity occupying a different position in Space-time, but as the same universe, am I correct?

Do you see yourself as one entity with the first life-form that slithered out of the primordial waters of the earth, from which you have evolved, or do you see yourself as a separate entity from your most ancient ancestor, and occupying a different position in space-time?

 

[Polymath257]

Take a look on these videos:
What are Black Holes? Science or Science Fiction?

How are Stars Formed? The Standard Model: Gravitational Collapse, Black Holes, and The Big Bang!

Wow. How do you find idiots like that? Seriously. That takes some amazing skill.

 

[Native]

The Anointed...…. So let me see if I have got this right. You believe that there is but one universe, which, like an interminable succession of wheels is forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being, and this one universe is in a constant state of evolution, am I correct?

Yes. This is what I can deduce/conclude from several ancient cultural Stories of Creation and I suits me very well.

Do you see yourself as one entity with the first life-form that slithered out of the primordial waters of the earth, from which you have evolved, or do you see yourself as a separate entity from your most ancient ancestor, and occupying a different position in space-time?

As I take the creation in the (One) Universe as eternal, "first" and "time" isn´t a part of my cosmological or personal equation and this also goes for the modern invention of "space-time".

I don´t read the Creation Stories "from the primodial waters" as a beginning, but just a the principle description of creation in the first place and secondly I take the Creation Stories to deal with the formation of our Milky Way and everything in it. IMO they don´t speak of any cretion of the entire Universe - which many cultures if not all of them, considered to be eternal, so there was nu sense in speaking of such a thing.

Being in my body, I can see/feel me as a small part of everything - being out of my body and in my spirit, I am a big part of everything.

You have a little special sentense here:
"Do you see yourself as one entity with the first life-form that slithered out of the primordial waters of the earth . . ."

I don´t connect the term "primordial waters" to the earth/Earth. The primordial waters is mentioned in the Creation Stories long before the Earth and even the Solar System was created.

 

[Native]

Wow. How do you find idiots like that? Seriously.

Now now, Mr. Moderator! That was NOT very politite, was it?

But OK. It´s understandable to react with emotional outburst when being hit by pure logics in the very consensus conceptions, so I forgive you

Even when a scientists provides mathematical equations, you aren´t satisfied Thats really funny

 

[Shad]

No it wasn´t resolved.
Quote:
"Indeed, the “pulsational pair instability” theory may not fully explain all the data obtained for this event. For example, the energy released by the supernova is more than the theory predicts. This supernova may be something completely new".

Yes and the new thing with this supernova was/is the supernova several glimses is just plain electromagnetic dicharges from a star, hence this assumed supernova star cannot produce heavier elements.

And the same is the cases with all other super novaes wich just relieve ordinary light charges as all stars do. There are NO explosions in any Supernovaes at all and they don´t produce heavier elements as thought.

Assertion not based on anything in the article. Something not explained does not knock down stellar fusion nor heavy element creation. It does not make you outdated idea sudden correct. Try again.

 

[Native]

Something not explained does not knock down stellar fusion nor heavy element creation.

This is the typical reaction in the consensus cosmology. Contradictions are ignored and then they just invent some kind of another "dark this or that" and call it science made by the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

And the same is the cases with all other super novaes wich just relieve ordinary light charges as all stars do. There are NO explosions in any Supernovaes at all and they don´t produce heavier elements as thought.

Ever look at the energy released from a SN? They can literally outshine a full galaxy for a while. If that isn't an explosion, I don't know what would qualify.

No, an electrical discharge simply doens't get to those energies.

 

[Native]

@Gnostic & @Shad,
I would be pleased if you higher your partition here in my thread above the mobbing and gossiping Facebook level.

Once more and you´ll end on my IGNORE BUTTEN.

 

[Native]

Ever look at the energy released from a SN? They can literally outshine a full galaxy for a while. If that isn't an explosion, I don't know what would qualify.

What about reading and grasping the very plot before you reply?

How many times do you think a so called "super nova" can explode in a row ower a short time period?