Dna Power Plants

[Heterogenic]

DNA converts organic material into electricity ultimately powered by photosynthesis in plants, we can scale this process up to create unconscious DNA power plants

 

Magnetically contained nuclear fusion appears to be impossible, gravitation contained nuclear fusion is likely required

[JMJones0424]

Are plants not unconscious DNA power plants?

 

Magnetically contained nuclear fusion is not at all impossible.  Sustainable fusion reaction using magnetic containment has not yet been developed, but to claim that magnetically contained fusion is impossible is demonstrably false.  Gravitationally contained fusion exists in every star, and if this is the only means of fusion available to us that is self-sustaining and produces more energy than it consumes, then the search for fusion power generation is inherently flawed.  You have not, however, provided any support for your claim that this is the case.

Edited April 28, 2017 by JMJones0424

[A-wal]

Gravitationally contained fusion exists in every star, and if this is the only means of fusion available to us that is self-sustaining and produces more energy than it consumes, then the search for fusion power generation is inherently flawed.  You have not, however, provided any support for your claim that this is the case.

The amount of time, effort and money that's been put into without any success strongly suggests that it's the case.

 

Gravitationally contained fusion exists in every star...

Now this is an unsupported claim. The nuclear fusion model of stars has very little in the way of evidence. It should not be presented as factual!

 

The sun has many features that weren't predicted by the fusion model. Stars are not well understood.

[exchemist]

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.....

 

Cause its the only f***ing song that we know.....

 

:)

 

Description of the evidence supporting stellar modelling here:  http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starstruct.html

Edited April 28, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

The reason this was moved to biology was principally because the hamster wheel hypothesis of stellar fusion has not been disproved by direct observation.

 

 

This supreme instance of Troy's goodness fell upon Gabriel's ears like the thirteenth stroke of a crazy clock, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

The reason this was moved to biology was principally because the hamster wheel hypothesis of stellar fusion has not been disproved by direct observation.

If the other neutrino 'flavours' aren't detected then the hamster wheel hypothesis is a more valid model.

 

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.....

 

Cause its the only f***ing song that we know.....

 

:)

 

Description of the evidence supporting stellar modelling here:  http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starstruct.html

The only song that I know? I've been here for years and made hundreds of posts. I only mentioned this for the first time about a week ago.

 

That article does actually have some nice info in it but is very one sided. I expected nothing less.

 

"We could also let our models progress in time, as their cores consumed one fuel and fused it into another, and in this way we could track the evolution of a star, or a whole cluster of stars, and compare the resulting distributions of the model stars on the H-R diagram with what is observed. All such comparisons between model and observation have met with spectacular success."

 

Blatant lie! Plenty of stars have been found that seem to very rapidly (a matter of months) move across H-R diagram. That should take centuries.

 

"Here is another startling success: the observed abundances of the elements on the periodic table are reproduced to good accuracy by models of galactic evolution, which describe how multiple generations of billions of stars produce and recycle the elements heavier than helium."

 

What about lithium?

 

"Ain't science cool?"

 

Yes it's just a pity that it's run by scientists instead of people with moral and intellectual integrity who actually care about it.

 

There's a lot of features of the sun that weren't predicted and aren't explained by the fusion model. If they find the missing neutrinos then the fusion model is right. If they don't then it's wrong. Simple.

[Buffy]

There's a lot of features of the sun that weren't predicted and aren't explained by the fusion model. If they find the missing neutrinos then the fusion model is right. If they don't then it's wrong. Simple.

 

...and that's the issue at work here: "wrong" can be taken a lot of ways, and the way it's easily misinterpreted here is that "unaccounted-for observed effects invalidate all features of the model." It's like saying since Newton and Einstein don't fully explain gravity, that you must consider McCutcheon's Expansion Theory as equally valid.

 

We know what fusion does. We've replicated it for short periods of time in the lab and the experiments conform to theory with some odd effects on the edge.

 

Is there stuff we don't know? Sure. Is the theory incomplete without Grand Unification? Of course.Are there surprises on the horizon? You bet! :cheer:

 

But saying the conclusion is 'we don't know anything and it could be hamsters" ain't what we call "science."

 

 

Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

...and that's the issue at work here: "wrong" can be taken a lot of ways, and the way it's easily misinterpreted here is that "unaccounted-for observed effects invalidate all features of the model." It's like saying since Newton and Einstein don't fully explain gravity, that you must consider McCutcheon's Expansion Theory as equally valid.

The fusion model doesn't explain a great deal of what the sun does. Also, it's never been confirmed that nuclear fusion is capable of releasing enough energy to contain the reaction in the way that a star would need for it to be stable.

 

I'm not claiming that the fusion model is wrong, just that I'm not convinced. If they find the missing neutrinos then I would be.

 

But saying the conclusion is 'we don't know anything and it could be hamsters" ain't what we call "science."

 

Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves,

Seems to me that current science is the practice of interpreting data to fit the existing model while ignoring anything that calls it into question.

Edited April 28, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

The fusion model doesn't explain a great deal of what the sun does. Also, it's never been confirmed that nuclear fusion is capable of releasing enough energy to contain the reaction in the way that a star would need for it to be stable.

 

 

That statement does not seem to make sense. The more energy is released,  the harder it is to contain the reacting plasma. That is part of the challenge of controlled fusion in a tokamak.

 

In a star, gravity does the containment. It has been calculated as part of the stellar fusion model that it can do so. In fact it is calculating the compression from gravitational collapse that leads to estimations of the temperatures, which are in turn found to be sufficient to smash nuclei together hard enough to overcome their Coulomb repulsion and enable fusion to occur. The model can account for the initial firing up of the fusion reaction, when a protostellar dust and gas cloud collapses sufficiently.

 

This is the same physics as we try to use in our tokamaks etc, where we have the devil of job to contain the plasma precisely because we can't use the gravity of the plasma as a star does, and have to resort to compressing it using external energy sources to power very complex magnetic fields.

 

And we know from nuclear physics the energy released from each of the fusion reactions involved in stars. So the the energy balance can be calculated, and this fits observation of the different types of star and the different elemental abundances we see in them.  

Edited April 28, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

The fusion model doesn't explain a great deal of what the sun does. Also, it's never been confirmed that nuclear fusion is capable of releasing enough energy to contain the reaction in the way that a star would need for it to be stable.

 

"a great deal" isn't very precise. Would you like to quantify that? A little bit? A lot? Does it allow Hamsters?

 

That's really exactly what I'm talking about here, so dismiss that at your own risk.

 

In addition to McCutcheon craziness I mentioned above, this is of course exactly the argument that Young Earth Creationists use to justify a 5,000-mumble year old universe.

 

If one is just going to cast aspersions--seemingly because of anger at the fact that all minority ideas aren't given "full respect"--that's fine, but that's all they are: random epithets at people who are "unfair."

 

Seems to me that current science is the practice of interpreting data to fit the existing model while ignoring anything that calls it into question.

 

Heck I'm as big a fan of Ambrose Bierce as anyone, but you know what? The reason for a lot of skepticism about "new theories" is that there are so many so often promoted by people who have not taken the time to actually learn enough about the current theories to be able to address the obvious objections, and are so often accompanied by wails of "conspiracy" and "they just hate me because I'm more brilliant than they are."

 

It honestly gets tiresome.

 

Now I've read your posts, and I wouldn't put you in the nutcase category and you've spent time learning the current theory. But what a lot of scientists have learned in the past few decades is that science needs marketing: if you want to sell your idea, you'd better have all your ducks in a row on defending your positions and explaining exactly how one gets from the old theory to the new, and most importantly, to be taken seriously you don't tell backers of the current theory "you're all dogmatic running dogs supporting the bourgeois hegemony!"

 

Cuz that just sounds stupid in addition to being offensive to the very people you're ultimately going to need to convince.

 

The irony in all this is that Hypography is one of the only science forums that even lets people post stuff like the OP, but it's precisely because of the fact that whack job theories need to be debunked somewhere, and "that's what we do."

 

Now I actually thought that although the OP got a little off into the weeds, it's primary point of "DNA converts organic material into electricity" is kind of interesting, but then we got off into an "all established science is wrong" argument, and that's where any of these discussions goes wrong because--apropos to some of your points above--it really is avoiding the topic at hand.

 

So bottom line, saying stuff like "we don't know anything at all about fusion" is just plain a great way to trigger a lot of anger, and that's generally considered to be a bad idea.

 

 

PHRENOLOGY, n. The science of picking the pocket through the scalp. It consists in locating and exploiting the organ that one is a dupe with, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

Sorry Heterogenic.

 

That statement does not seem to make sense. The more energy is released,  the harder it is to contain the reacting plasma. That is part of the challenge of controlled fusion in a tokamak.

 

In a star, gravity does the containment. It has been calculated as part of the stellar fusion model that it can do so. In fact it is calculating the compression from gravitational collapse that leads to estimations of the temperatures, which are in turn found to be sufficient to smash nuclei together hard enough to overcome their Coulomb repulsion and enable fusion to occur. The model can account for the initial firing up of the fusion reaction, when a protostellar dust and gas cloud collapses sufficiently.

 

This is the same physics as we try to use in our tokamaks etc, where we have the devil of job to contain the plasma precisely because we can't use the gravity of the plasma as a star does, and have to resort to compressing it using external energy sources to power very complex magnetic fields.

 

And we know from nuclear physics the energy released from each of the fusion reactions involved in stars. So the the energy balance can be calculated, and this fits observation of the different types of star and the different elemental abundances we see in them.  

As I understand it, gravity doesn't contain the reaction. The reaction never takes place. If it did then all stars would explode. Once that reaction starts it becomes progressively harder to contain. So if gravity doesn't contain it then the energy released from the fusion process would have to somehow prevent it and still have enough left over to not only prevent collapse but also to throw out ****-tons of radiation.

 

"a great deal" isn't very precise. Would you like to quantify that? A little bit? A lot? Does it allow Hamsters?

I will, promise. I'll do it when I can dig up the full list that I saw before. I could list a few now but I'd prefer to list them all, there's around twelve. No hamsters.

 

In addition to McCutcheon craziness I mentioned above, this is of course exactly the argument that Young Earth Creationists use to justify a 5,000-mumble year old universe.

No it isn't. Now you're just being silly. It six thousand.

 

If one is just going to cast aspersions--seemingly because of anger at the fact that all minority ideas aren't given "full respect"--that's fine, but that's all they are: random epithets at people who are "unfair."

I have a problem with science presenting theories as facts, I think that's fair. Most people with a casual interest in science blindly accept the accepted models. It's not their fault, it's scientists' and that's not fair.

 

Heck I'm as big a fan of Ambrose Bierce as anyone, but you know what? The reason for a lot of skepticism about "new theories" is that there are so many so often promoted by people who have not taken the time to actually learn enough about the current theories to be able to address the obvious objections, and are so often accompanied by wails of "conspiracy" and "they just hate me because I'm more brilliant than they are."

 

It honestly gets tiresome.

 

Now I've read your posts, and I wouldn't put you in the nutcase category and you've spent time learning the current theory. But what a lot of scientists have learned in the past few decades is that science needs marketing: if you want to sell your idea, you'd better have all your ducks in a row on defending your positions and explaining exactly how one gets from the old theory to the new, and most importantly, to be taken seriously you don't tell backers of the current theory "you're all dogmatic running dogs supporting the bourgeois hegemony!"

 

Cuz that just sounds stupid in addition to being offensive to the very people you're ultimately going to need to convince.

 

The irony in all this is that Hypography is one of the only science forums that even lets people post stuff like the OP, but it's precisely because of the fact that whack job theories need to be debunked somewhere, and "that's what we do."

 

Now I actually thought that although the OP got a little off into the weeds, it's primary point of "DNA converts organic material into electricity" is kind of interesting, but then we got off into an "all established science is wrong" argument, and that's where any of these discussions goes wrong because--apropos to some of your points above--it really is avoiding the topic at hand.

 

So bottom line, saying stuff like "we don't know anything at all about fusion" is just plain a great way to trigger a lot of anger, and that's generally considered to be a bad idea.

That's not what I said. If you're going to you quotation marks then you really should actually quote. What I actually said was: "Stars are not well understood." That's a claim that I'll back up shortly.

 

PHRENOLOGY, n. The science of picking the pocket through the scalp. It consists in locating and exploiting the organ that one is a dupe with, :phones:

Buffy

SCIENCE, n The practice of reaching a consensus about how nature works and interpreting all data to fit that model while actively discrediting those that oppose it.

Edited April 28, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

I will, promise. I'll do it when I can dig up the full list that I saw before. I could list a few now but I'd prefer to list them all, there's around twelve...

 

Twelve! Impressive! How's that compare to the number of the rest of the hypotheses that come out of the currently accepted model for stellar fusion? Do those still hold under these objections or not? That's really the issue: if these objections are of the form "the theory doesn't explain X," you'll find that not many scientists have a problem with a theory not explaining everything. Most theories fail to explain everything.

 

No hamsters.

 

Aye, that's the rub: The *stability* in science--where things become "accepted theory"--is when the theory has held up to scrutiny about *the predictions it actually makes* and if it doesn't predict everything, "we don't know" is an acceptable answer, but it doesn't invalidate the entire theory, or even most of it.

 

What that means of course is that if someone comes along and says "it's hamsters!" then laughing at them is actually completely legitimate, because we know enough about the theory of how stars work to be able to say with an extremely high level of confidence that hamster-driven fusion is not really possible without claiming that aliens--or goodness knows, natural stellar evolution--has been able to construct a star in which one big or a bazillion tiny hamsters on wheels is hidden inside a star with that star somehow having the same mass/size as it would if it were a mostly-hydrogen ball and they've got a nice 70F degree environment inside for them to run in.

 

Now "hamsters" is apocryphal here and used as an extreme example for emphasis, but it's exactly the situation that most scientists besieged by complaints of "actively discrediting those that oppose" their theories have to deal with constantly. So...

 

I have a problem with science presenting theories as facts, I think that's fair. Most people with a casual interest in science blindly accept the accepted models. It's not their fault, it's scientists' and that's not fair.

 

 

That's unfortunate. I think the problem is your definition of "fact" though. If you mean that the only thing that is a fact is that something that is true invariant under all conceivable circumstances, your definition is so strict it will never be satisfied. I recommend Doctor Dick's threads for more on that issue. The advantage of this strict definition is that it basically allows you to question reality. Are there circumstances under which gravity can be halted and reversed? Sure, Star Trek episodes have been written about changing the cosmological constant to do so, and who's to say that isn't possible.

 

Hell, with a broad enough definition of reality, unicorns and Santa Claus are real. (and I can say that because I do, in fact, believe in Santa).

 

Now you'll complain that's not what you said, and it's indeed a slight overstatement, but what you think you're saying is irrelevant here because I'm letting you know how *others perceive you*.

 

The problem is that you're completely dismissing that anyone could see your complaints as being anything other than a reasonable level of "skepticism," when you're really implying that nothing can really be accepted as "fact." And then you follow it up with a "there's a conspiracy to silence people who question accepted science because scientists are fragile flowers and prove it because they won't take me seriously."

 

That's the obnoxious part. Sorry.

 

That's not what I said. If you're going to you quotation marks then you really should actually quote. What I actually said was: "Stars are not well understood." That's a claim that I'll back up shortly.

 

So, yah, you may not think so, but that's what people are hearing.

 

SCIENCE, n The practice of reaching a consensus about how nature works and interpreting all data to fit that model while actively discrediting those that oppose it.

 

Ambrose Bierce didn't say that! :cheer:

 

 

SOPHISTRY, n. The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

Sorry Heterogenic.

 

As I understand it, gravity doesn't contain the reaction. The reaction never takes place. If it did then all stars would explode. Once that reaction starts it becomes progressively harder to contain. So if gravity doesn't contain it then the energy released from the fusion process would have to somehow prevent it and still have enough left over to not only prevent collapse but also to throw out ****-tons of radiation.

 

 

This illustrates the problems you get into when you pontificate about science without understanding it. To say stars would "explode" is an astonishingly ignorant remark.

 

A fusion reaction is just a reaction: it proceeds with release of energy for as long as there are reactants to sustain it. In a star, there is a plentiful supply of fuel and a containing force - gravity. This enables the fusion reaction to proceed at a steady state for millions or even billions of years. The conditions in the sun are like the conditions in the centre of an H bomb explosion that just goes on and on. The sun loses energy as radiation at a rate equal to the rate at which the fusion reaction liberates it. It gets hotter and hotter until the equilibrium point is reached and then it is stable. 

 

On Earth, in a terrestrial H bomb, we replicate, for a few brief instants, with a tiny amount of fuel, the temperatures and pressures found in the sun, in the midst of an environment that is much more dilute and cold and without the confining pressure of gravity. So, naturally it results in an explosion - and then it stops because there is no more fuel.

 

This is just basic, basic, scientific understanding, man.  

Edited April 28, 2017 by exchemist

[A-wal]

Twelve! Impressive! How's that compare to the number of the rest of the hypotheses that come out of the currently accepted model for stellar fusion? Do those still hold under these objections or not? That's really the issue: if these objections are of the form "the theory doesn't explain X," you'll find that not many scientists have a problem with a theory not explaining everything. Most theories fail to explain everything.

If the behaviour of the subject of the model differs from what the model predicts then it's reasonable to question the model. Obviously it's a matter of degree. If the behaviour displayed only differs from what the model predicts by a small margin that it's fair to assume that the model only needs refinement. That is not the case here.

 

Aye, that's the rub: The *stability* in science--where things become "accepted theory"--is when the theory has held up to scrutiny about *the predictions it actually makes* and if it doesn't predict everything, "we don't know" is an acceptable answer, but it doesn't invalidate the entire theory, or even most of it.

Failing to predict what's observed is exactly why the nuclear fusion model should not be presented as fact. It predicted a cooler photosphere than the corona. Do you know what temperature the photosphere is? It predicted a lot less neutrinos than have been detected (probably from the photosphere where we actually know temperatures are hot enough for fusion).

 

What that means of course is that if someone comes along and says "it's hamsters!" then laughing at them is actually completely legitimate, because we know enough about the theory of how stars work to be able to say with an extremely high level of confidence that hamster-driven fusion is not really possible without claiming that aliens--or goodness knows, natural stellar evolution--has been able to construct a star in which one big or a bazillion tiny hamsters on wheels is hidden inside a star with that star somehow having the same mass/size as it would if it were a mostly-hydrogen ball and they've got a nice 70F degree environment inside for them to run in.

I agree. And if the neutrinos turn out to not be there then the nuclear fusion model is hamsters and laughing at it and the people who supported it is entirely legitimate.

 

Now "hamsters" is apocryphal here and used as an extreme example for emphasis, but it's exactly the situation that most scientists besieged by complaints of "actively discrediting those that oppose" their theories have to deal with constantly. So...

So... does that mean that all refutations fall into that category and existing models shouldn't be questioned?

 

That's unfortunate. I think the problem is your definition of "fact" though. If you mean that the only thing that is a fact is that something that is true invariant under all conceivable circumstances, your definition is so strict it will never be satisfied. I recommend Doctor Dick's threads for more on that issue. The advantage of this strict definition is that it basically allows you to question reality. Are there circumstances under which gravity can be halted and reversed? Sure, Star Trek episodes have been written about changing the cosmological constant to do so, and who's to say that isn't possible.

 

Hell, with a broad enough definition of reality, unicorns and Santa Claus are real. (and I can say that because I do, in fact, believe in Santa).

 

Now you'll complain that's not what you said, and it's indeed a slight overstatement, but what you think you're saying is irrelevant here because I'm letting you know how *others perceive you*.

 

The problem is that you're completely dismissing that anyone could see your complaints as being anything other than a reasonable level of "skepticism," when you're really implying that nothing can really be accepted as "fact." And then you follow it up with a "there's a conspiracy to silence people who question accepted science because scientists are fragile flowers and prove it because they won't take me seriously."

 

That's the obnoxious part. Sorry.

Nope. I'm well aware that a model can never really be proven in the same way that mathematics can. It can be show to be accurately predict and explain observed behaviour accurately and consistently enough to be reasonably considered as factual. The nuclear fusion model of the stars doesn't come anywhere close to this and to claim that it does is either ignorance or dishonesty.

 

So, yah, you may not think so, but that's what people are hearing.

Then those people should really listen to what people actually say instead of jumping to conclusions. They're not my problem, they're their own.

 

Ambrose Bierce didn't say that! :cheer:

Who never doubted, never half believed. Where doubt is, there truth is - it is her shadow.

 

SOPHISTRY, n. The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling, :phones:

Buffy

You got one for using quotes as snidey remarks?

 

This illustrates the problems you get into when you pontificate about science without understanding it. To say stars would "explode" is an astonishingly ignorant remark.

 

A fusion reaction is just a reaction: it proceeds with release of energy for as long as there are reactants to sustain it. In a star, there is a plentiful supply of fuel and a containing force - gravity. This enables the fusion reaction to proceed at a steady state for millions or even billions of years. The conditions in the sun are like the conditions in the centre of an H bomb explosion that just goes on and on. The sun loses energy as radiation at a rate equal to the rate at which the fusion reaction liberates it. It gets hotter and hotter until the equilibrium point is reached and then it is stable. 

 

On Earth, in a terrestrial H bomb, we replicate, for a few brief instants, with a tiny amount of fuel, the temperatures and pressures found in the sun, in the midst of an environment that is much more dilute and cold and without the confining pressure of gravity. So, naturally it results in an explosion - and then it stops because there is no more fuel.

 

This is just basic, basic, scientific understanding, man.  

I thought that stars supposedly use the same controlled fusion process that scientists have been trying and failing to replicate for decades and that if stars used fusion in the same kind of chain reaction as an H bomb they'd immediately explode because there'd be nowhere near enough gravity to hold them together?

[A-wal]

Oh and most scientists are highly specialised in their particular field and know shockingly little about other scientific fields so if I am wrong about fusion being different in stars (controlled fusion) than the fusion used by an H bomb (uncontrolled) then I'm sure I'm in good (by your standards) company with regards to not fully understanding (still not convinced that I have got this wrong) one particular aspect of science.

 

It's just that most of them never say anything about areas outside their own field for fear of being wrong. Scientists hate to be wrong, intellectual insecurity presumably.

Edited April 28, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

If the behaviour of the subject of the model differs from what the model predicts then it's reasonable to question the model. Obviously it's a matter of degree. If the behaviour displayed only differs from what the model predicts by a small margin that it's fair to assume that the model only needs refinement. That is not the case here.

 

Well there ya go again using imprecise words like "small margin" and applying it to your argument to make it conclusive.

 

I've done a quick read on the missing neutrino problem (exchemist knows more than I and I'll defer most of that to him), but apparently what has happened among astrophysicists is that they're doing exactly what you claim they're not. When 2/3rds of the neutrinos were missing, they went, "Huh, that's not right. Let's question our model." So they did, and you know what they said? "Huh, we've been assuming that since we know that electron neutrinos are produced in stellar fusion, that we'd see nothing but stellar neutrinos, but WE WERE WRONG! We came up with a new theory of "Neutrino Oscillation" where we explain how neutrinos can change from electron neutrinos to muon and tauon neutrinos before they get to our detectors here on Earth." 

 

Now of course people were going to question *that* theory until it was tested, and you know what? Turns out we are seeing pretty much the right number of neutrinos, they're just not only electron neutrinos. So that shows that the observation matches the theory, and guess what? Nothing about stellar fusion theory changed! :o :cheer:

 

A good skeptical scientist would say, "well, maybe those other kinds of neutrinos are coming from a different source, not the sun," which of course is possible, but it's inconsistent with the fact that the counts we're now getting match, they just are the wrong kinds. And there's no other obvious source that would work unless just by chance it's ALWAYS opposite the sun from Earth's position relative to it, and that would violate all laws of planetary and stellar mechanics.

 

So, sure it's still *possible* there's a big problem with neutrinos, but it ain't at that "much much more than a small margin" you're pointing at.

 

What's really fun about Neutrino Oscillation is that it earned a Nobel Prize.

 

Failing to predict what's observed is exactly why the nuclear fusion model should not be presented as fact. It predicted a cooler photosphere than the corona. Do you know what temperature the photosphere is? It predicted a lot less neutrinos than have been detected (probably from the photosphere where we actually know temperatures are hot enough for fusion).

 

Similarly, I took a look at the corona/photosphere temperature issue, and well, were the astrophysicists busy trying to cover up this information and prevent any funding of research?

 

Well, no, they actually got funding for new solar imaging technology to look for reasons why:

 

 

It is believed that the cause of the increased temperature is due to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves that distribute the energy generated below the star's surface to the outer layers of the Sun's atmosphere

Now, for the first time, the team has examined the MHD waves using a UK-designed dedicated solar-imaging telescope known as Rapid Oscillations in the Solar Atmosphere, or ROSA, to observe the chromosphere with a high degree of clarity. The powerful tool enabled some of the highest resolution images of the chromosphere to be obtained, allowing the scientists to study the speed and power of the waves and then estimate the amount of energy that they transport.

Their calculations confirm that the MHD waves could be responsible for transporting energy from below the solar surface, out through the chromosphere, into the corona and leading to heating of the outer layers in excess of a million degrees.

Dr Morton said: "The Sun is our closest star and provides a unique opportunity to study the properties of stars in detail. Stars generate heat through thermonuclear reactions in their core and the temperature decreases towards the star's surface. However, a significant number of stars have higher temperatures at the outer edges of their atmospheres than they do on their surface.

"Our observations have permitted us to estimate the amount of energy transported by the magnetic waves, and these estimates reveal that the waves' energy meets the energy requirement for the unexplained temperature increase in the corona."

Science Daily "Light shone on star mystery: Why sun's corona is much hotter than its surface" February 4, 2013

 

As Dr. Morton indicates, no need to go to hamsters, stellar fusion works, but we had to look for the effects of the magnetic fields in the sun which we've known existed for a long time but which were not completely understood.

 

 

I agree. And if the neutrinos turn out to not be there then the nuclear fusion model is hamsters and laughing at it and the people who supported it is entirely legitimate.

 

Would be if that were true, but they are there, so it's not.

 

 

 

So... does that mean that all refutations fall into that category and existing models shouldn't be questioned?

 

Well of course that's not the case, and of course in the case of both these points of doubt, no cover up occurred, the mainstream, leading physicists attacked the problem head on, in public, and most important, with no apologies because they had nothing to apologize for. There's no dogma here, only uncertainty and questions and activity to resolve them. 

 

In this case no major revolution or up-ending of the existing basic model of stellar fusion was required. That of course may not be the case with other theories in the future. 

 

But the fundamental truth here is that the idea that the "scientific establishment" blocks all efforts to seek alternative theories is, well. let's say "overstated."

 

 

 

Nope. I'm well aware that a model can never really be proven in the same way that mathematics can. It can be show to be accurately predict and explain observed behaviour accurately and consistently enough to be reasonably considered as factual. The nuclear fusion model of the stars doesn't come anywhere close to this and to claim that it does is either ignorance or dishonesty.

 

...or in some cases, just not keeping up on the literature (or in other cases, dishonestly pursuing willful ignorance).

 

Who never doubted, never half believed. Where doubt is, there truth is - it is her shadow.

 

Now *that's* my Ambrose! :cheer:

 

 

That's not fair! They've got rocks! All we've got are these machine guns. Oh, mother of pearl, here comes another one. :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

Well there ya go again using imprecise words like "small margin" and applying it to your argument to make it conclusive.

It's appropriate in this case.

 

"If the behaviour of the subject of the model differs from what the model predicts then it's reasonable to question the model. Obviously it's a matter of degree. If the behaviour displayed only differs from what the model predicts by a small margin that it's fair to assume that the model only needs refinement."

 

Do you disagree with that assertion?

 

I've done a quick read on the missing neutrino problem (exchemist knows more than I and I'll defer most of that to him), but apparently what has happened among astrophysicists is that they're doing exactly what you claim they're not. When 2/3rds of the neutrinos were missing, they went, "Huh, that's not right. Let's question our model." So they did, and you know what they said? "Huh, we've been assuming that since we know that electron neutrinos are produced in stellar fusion, that we'd see nothing but stellar neutrinos, but WE WERE WRONG! We came up with a new theory of "Neutrino Oscillation" where we explain how neutrinos can change from electron neutrinos to muon and tauon neutrinos before they get to our detectors here on Earth."

I never claimed that they're not looking!

I think they're setting something up to try to detect them. If they don't find them will the just invent another oscillation that can't be detected though?

The poster ID doesn't carry over between threads but that was me,

 

Now of course people were going to question *that* theory until it was tested, and you know what? Turns out we are seeing pretty much the right number of neutrinos, they're just not only electron neutrinos. So that shows that the observation matches the theory, and guess what? Nothing about stellar fusion theory changed!

Really! :0 Are you sure? Pretty much? Now who's using imprecise words? What is it, the one third that Exchemist (I only just read the user name properly, ex-chemist ) mentioned? I'll have to look that up. I hope they have found them, it will end this annoying accusation marathon where I'm forced to defend what I haven't even said.

 

Similarly, I took a look at the corona/photosphere temperature issue, and well, were the astrophysicists busy trying to cover up this information and prevent any funding of research?

 

Well, no, they actually got funding for new solar imaging technology to look for reasons why:

 

...

 

Well of course that's not the case, and of course in the case of both these points of doubt, no cover up occurred, the mainstream, leading physicists attacked the problem head on, in public, and most important, with no apologies because they had nothing to apologize for. There's no dogma here, only uncertainty and questions and activity to resolve them.

I never claimed a cover up!!! :aggressive:

 

I'm loving all these new emoticons!

 

But the fundamental truth here is that the idea that the "scientific establishment" blocks all efforts to seek alternative theories is, well. let's say "overstated."

 :rant:

 

I'm never making another argument again. I shall henceforth conduct all my conversations using nothing but emotis.