Jump to content

Understanding the universe.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Yeah but said:

OK, but the point I was (struggling) to make is that the sight/image of the moon takes time to travel the distance from where it is to reach our eyes due to the distance. You could say this is time travel in a way and its mind blowing to me.

There are more prosaic and practical examples.  Count the time between seeing a lightning strike and hearing the boom, that's due to the difference in the speed of light and the speed of sound in air.  Neither are instantaneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/05/2019 at 05:57, Halibut said:

Even if you spell it correctly the statement  'A gaseous object cannot collapse' is total nonsense .

Pete McEwan is correct; a gas cannot compress itself to do work on itself and raise its own temperature. To argue otherwise, as the astronomers and cosmologists do, is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, creating a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind. 

On 22/05/2019 at 20:12, Obelix said:

Plasma, with a possible core of degenerate matter..

 

It doesnt have sufficient mass to collapse past the Chandraskehar limit so will never make neutron degeneracy and the radiation from the core keeps the outer envelope convecting.

That's not correct. The Sun is condensed matter, as its thermal spectrum attests.  There are 39 other proofs that it is condensed matter, 

 

Robitaille P.-M., Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.90-142, (2013),

http://www.ptep-online.com/2013/PP-35-16.PDF

 

Here is a lecture:

 

Robitaille, P.-M.,  Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Model Explained!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFPx6zVxSw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/01/2019 at 00:48, Obelix said:

Yes.

 

Umm, so?

 

Despite his protestations over the last thirty or forty years this is not new stuff and is adequately explained. If he is still confused about reflections I think he needs to look at Kirchoff again.

Crothers, S.J., Professor Gian-Luca Oppo -ats- Mr. Ivor Catt: A Case Study in Electromagnetic Theory, http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0135v1.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SJCrothers said:

Pete McEwan is correct; a gas cannot compress itself to do work on itself and raise its own temperature. To argue otherwise, as the astronomers and cosmologists do, is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, creating a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind. 

That's not correct. The Sun is condensed matter, as its thermal spectrum attests.  There are 39 other proofs that it is condensed matter, 

 

Robitaille P.-M., Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.90-142, (2013),

http://www.ptep-online.com/2013/PP-35-16.PDF

 

Here is a lecture:

 

Robitaille, P.-M.,  Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Model Explained!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFPx6zVxSw

I think I'd rather go with the astronomers and cosmologists thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SJCrothers said:

Pete McEwan is correct; a gas cannot compress itself to do work on itself and raise its own temperature. To argue otherwise, as the astronomers and cosmologists do, is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, creating a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind. 

That's not correct. The Sun is condensed matter, as its thermal spectrum attests.  There are 39 other proofs that it is condensed matter, 

 

Robitaille P.-M., Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.90-142, (2013),

http://www.ptep-online.com/2013/PP-35-16.PDF

 

Here is a lecture:

 

Robitaille, P.-M.,  Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Model Explained!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFPx6zVxSw

You are so wrong you are not even merely wrong.

 

Why is a gas hotter then if there is more of it in a column compressing it?

 

Where is your proof for the revocation of the Ideal Gas equation?

 

Sun is condensed matter? Define "condensed" matter please - I'm well aware of your bait and switch word games.

 

Also I'll thank you to answer the innumerable questions I've already required of you and which you've ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2019 at 02:50, Obelix said:

You are so wrong you are not even merely wrong.

 

Why is a gas hotter then if there is more of it in a column compressing it?

 

Where is your proof for the revocation of the Ideal Gas equation?

 

Sun is condensed matter? Define "condensed" matter please - I'm well aware of your bait and switch word games.

 

Also I'll thank you to answer the innumerable questions I've already required of you and which you've ignored.

Here is another for you to contemplate: 

Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille,

Presentation at Ohio Meeting 2019 of the American Physical Society: Stellar Mass-Luminosity and its Violation of Thermodynamics,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2019 at 02:10, Halibut said:

I think I'd rather go with the astronomers and cosmologists thanks.

Those very same astronomers and cosmologists who violate the laws of thermodynamics at every turn, who claim that a gas can compress itself to do work on on itself and raise its own temperature, who claim that stars have negative heat capacities. Here is another example of their errors:

 

Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille,

Presentation at Ohio Meeting 2019 of the American Physical Society: Stellar Mass-Luminosity and its Violation of Thermodynamics,

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mt San Jacinto visible from 120 miles. 5-45 minutes to 7 minutes.

 

 

Edited by MAC33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do internationally famous  and incredibly clever scientists come on to Sheffield Forum to tell us about their fantastic theories?

Why are they so keen to tell us that they are right and that they are a victim of a Conspiracy ?

Will the Sheffield Forum become the vehicle for future Nobel prizewinners?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MAC33 said:

Mt San Jacinto visible from 120 miles. 5-45 minutes to 7 minutes.

 

 

And "proving this shows the Earth is flat" is thoroughly debunked in this thread - he can see the top couple of thousand feet, which is what you'd expect on a globe. You'd see far more of a 10,000 ft mountain on a flat earth.

 

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.t10273/

 

Careful MAC33 - it includes science and maths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Why do internationally famous  and incredibly clever scientists come on to Sheffield Forum to tell us about their fantastic theories?

Why are they so keen to tell us that they are right and that they are a victim of a Conspiracy ?

Will the Sheffield Forum become the vehicle for future Nobel prizewinners?

 

He isnt internationally famous and I dont think with the glarign errors of fact or logic that you could be that safe amout his cleverness either...

1 hour ago, SJCrothers said:

Here is another for you to contemplate: 

 

Still waiting

Why is a gas hotter then if there is more of it in a column compressing it?

 

Where is your proof for the revocation of the Ideal Gas equation?

 

Sun is condensed matter? Define "condensed" matter please - I'm well aware of your bait and switch word games.

 

Going to answer or are we gish galloping and ducking the questions again Crothers?

1 hour ago, SJCrothers said:

Those very same astronomers and cosmologists who violate the laws of thermodynamics at every turn,

 

I'm wait to debate those points with you. Still waiting on a response....

 

Why is a gas hotter then if there is more of it in a column compressing it?

 

Where is your proof for the revocation of the Ideal Gas equation?

 

Sun is condensed matter? Define "condensed" matter please - I'm well aware of your bait and switch word games.

 

Anything to say Crothers? Or are you going to spam the thread ad nauseum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.