What Is A Sun?

[Darky]

You don't have to explain known facts to me, I'm a physicist (or was). And you must differentiate between an atomic bomb, which uses fission only, and an H-bomb, or thermonuclear device, which uses the process I described. Very different.

Hi,

 

That wasn't towards you, it was towards exchemist. I just used your post as an explanation so I wouldn't have to go through a hassle.

[DrKrettin]

Hi,

 

That wasn't towards you, it was towards exchemist. I just used your post as an explanation so I wouldn't have to go through a hassle.

 

Yes, thanks, I guessed that. But I suspect that exchemist is even more informed than I am about these things.

 

By the way, re. your signature, I think maths is extremely interesting, and physics can be expressed in maths far more elegantly than in English. A combination of the two is far more powerful than just English. 

[Darky]

Yes, thanks, I guessed that. But I suspect that exchemist is even more informed than I am about these things.

 

By the way, re. your signature, I think maths is extremely interesting, and physics can be expressed in maths far more elegantly than in English. A combination of the two is far more powerful than just English. 

Hi,

 

Very correct, but I hate maths. Been an A+ student in it, but never actually liked it. Felt to be as a cage. However, when necessary, I tend to use maths to prove my theories and facts.

[exchemist]

We might be talking at cross-purposes here, but the H-bomb uses a fission process which then initiates the fusion process. In that sense, it is a chain reaction process which differs from that in a star. I suspect though that you are referring to the fusion process itself.

Yes indeed. As I understand it the fission is simply a way of generating the conditions in which fusion can proceed - supplying the activation energy in effect. It does not, so far as I am aware, alter the course of the fusion reaction and thus does not affect the energetics of that reaction. 

[A-wal]

Here's an ad hominem A-wal, "You are the offspring of your brother and your mother, so nothing you say should be accepted as true".

I don't have a brother. Let me try. "You don't have the understanding or the intelligence to ever actually make a case, all you can do is call other peoples arguments absurd and pretend they are the ones making a claim when they're actually pointing out the absurdness of an existing model being treated as fact, therefore nothing you say should be accepted as true." Just an example, is that right?

 

It was an ad homenim attack because it was a lame attempt to invalid more credibility because he can't invalidate the point I'm making but it's one that can only work on people stupid enough to think that formal education is the only way to learn science, as if the information they teach isn't freely available.

 

What is not an ad hominem is the fact that your unsupported claims in this thread are ludicrous.

Not ad homenim but a completely hollow and generic statement that's also entirely false.  I;m calling out a ludicrous claim, not making one.

 

The model of stars being powered by a process that has never even been shown to be capable of releasing more energy than is needed to contain it is one prime example of the many baseless claims presented as facts by mainstream science. And then you get idiots parroting the model back and posting on science forums with no actual understanding of just how baseless the model really is.

 

I already told you, if you want to claim that the nuclear fusion model is even a valid one then you're the one that needs to back up that claim be showing that a controlled nuclear fusion reaction is even capable of releasing more energy than it needs to sustain it!

 

I thought it's pretty obvious that the fusion occurring creates a reaction creating the element/atom and photons. Have you studied the base core of a star?

Nobody has studied the core of a star. What's taught is a purely theoretical model.

 

But hang on. If you concede that the fusion process in the sun is the same as that in an H bomb, then it is plain that it releases more energy than it requires to set it off. If it did not, then the "bomb" would just go "phut" and would not go off.  

 

If you think the "chain reaction" in an H bomb is a different process from that in a star, then you will need to explain to me why you think so and how you think it may differ.  

 

Bear in mind that the energy release depends only on the energy of the reactants minus the energy of the products, not on how they get from one to the other. So your different process (if that is what you are suggesting) would need to end with different (i.e. more energetic) products, if the energy release were to be less. 

I already said, "A fusion bomb isn't the analogous to a star though, if it was all star would immediately explode. An uncontrolled chain reaction is very different from the stable sustained energy release of a star."

 

Controlling the chain reaction so the star doesn't explode probably requires more energy than the fusion releases, which would explain why controlled fusion has never been achieved.

 

Er, I'm baffled. First I did NOT know you have no science background (though perhaps I should have picked this up earlier, do you think?). You seem to debate with such authority that I thought you knew a fair bit. But I understand better now and can make allowances.

I would have hoped that my posts show enough evidence of independent thought to at least strongly suggest that I don't come from a formally educated scientific background.

 

Secondly, there was no attempt to be patronising, though now that I know you have no science background I will of course stop assuming that you know certain things already, so I may well come across in future as patronising.

I have to try very heard on here not be patronising but some of you make that extremely difficult a lot of the time. If you want to go that route then I will too.

 

Thirdly, it is not argument "ad hominem", as I was not making an argument at that point, but a discussion of relevant fact concerning you and your intellectual background.

Trying to discredit me instead of my arguments is the definition of an ad hominem remark!