[QUOTE=TheFonz]
<snip> As it stands, though, your lack of knowledge in the models you defend allows you to keep talking smack all the while I have to answer each and every little question. Then you forget everything about the last question I answered or even the relevance of it, and you move on to the next thing.
[/QUOTE]
The models we defend have been developed and reinforced using the scientific method.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
HaHahA, I lied to you. I was waiting to see if you actually knew anything about this, but we DO know tornadoes have magnetic fields.
[/QUOTE]
This wasn’t a good idea.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
One thing to remember: THEY’RE ALL THEORIES.
[/QUOTE]
This has gotta be some sort of Godwin’s Law for Kooky Pseudoscience. Game over.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
One thing to remember: THEY’RE ALL THEORIES.
[/QUOTE]
Once there was a theory that the Moon was made of cheese. We got past that one, too.
[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
Once there was a theory that the Moon was made of cheese. We got past that one, too.
[/QUOTE]
Naah; that one was barely a hypothesis.
Your tornado cite, as you know, is a Google search result set. I’m probably treating you with more seriousness and politeness than you deserve, but that is not usually considered a valid citation in this forum. When asked for a cite, one is usually expected to supply a link to a reputable, objective site which contains information that specifically addresses and supports one’s claim. Most of the results I looked at involved tornadoes in space, not on earth. One that did cover magnetic fields in terrestrial tornadoes appeared to be another crackpot site. Are you claiming that tornadoes generate magnetic fields, and meteorologist just don’t know or don’t care?
Because it doesn’t emit anything itself, that’s why it is called “dark energy.” Did you know that mainstream science talks about these things as well, in fact basing their entire suppositions on the order of the galaxies on “dark matter,” and that they place it anywhere they want in order to make their theoretical equations fit our observations?
It simply flows to the star, from there we detect its movements through the solar “wind.” I find it amusing that people say things like “Oh so this magical invisible energy powers the Sun, huh? And I’m supposed to believe that?” when the mainstream science community proposes the same thing: some things in space just don’t emit electromagnetic radiation.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
If the mainstream still hasn’t figured it all out, how do you suppose anyone else had? Once again you’re asking for the impossible. If the mathematics of it all had been worked out there would no longer be any questions, and you all would be thoroughly silenced. As it stands, though, your lack of knowledge in the models you defend allows you to keep talking smack all the while I have to answer each and every little question. Then you forget everything about the last question I answered or even the relevance of it, and you move on to the next thing.
[/quote]
I’ve asked you for a mathematical model. Newton had one, any he never figured out what gravity was. But the model worked and makes predictions that match reality extremely well. But in the end they were not sufficient and General Relative emerged to take their place.
But Newtonian gravity emerges out of GR at low velocities. It’s an accurate description for the range of phenomena it was crafted to address.
Besides, it’s you making grand claims that modern cosmology, stellar physics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, general relativity, special relativity etc. are all flawed. Which is fair in a way; they are all approximations to the actual happenings of the universe. Incredibly successful approximation though.
You however, have gone further and insisted that your theory not only is equally capable of approximating nature but is able to correct these flaws.
The burden of proof then is on you.
Ah excellent! Almost impossible means we might be able to. This where your theory could make a prediction. How do you ascertain the existence of the ether? Could we use light?
Well yes, but you see you’ve got the small matter of the sun’s mass attempting to gravitationally minimize the solar radius. Does this theory of your provide sufficient energy to counter balance that tendency?
Well, yes, you can get some fusion out of that, but then how do you explain the relative lack of non H and He elements in early generation stars, which would have experienced the same effect? Also since the elements progressively precipitate out how likely is it to have sufficient heavy metals to fuse to create even heavier one?
That goes back to my ratio comment.
You’re still missing the excellent blackbody question and an explanation on how such a massive positive charge could be maintained along with an actual star (B2 I think)
Funny thing about puddles, the holes always seem the right size to hold the water.
Which sounds very sagely, but has nothing to do with the rings around a planet.
Oops? We KNOW dust devils have electric fields and magnetic fields. This we know for a FACT! Are you trying to say that tornadoes and hurricanes, with MUCH larger electric fields, don’t have magnetic fields as well? The relationship is called electromagnetics for a reason, because they go hand in hand. I thought that the search would have pulled up something about tornadoes having magnetic fields so maybe I jumped the gun and posted that Google link a little too fast. Also, they don’t know that dust devils on Mars are electrified or magnified since they haven’t actually measured them, it’s only a prediction that they will be just like their Earthly cousins and share many of the same features. Why wouldn’t they?
So what do YOU think? Magnetic fields in tornadoes and hurricanes, or no?
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Which sounds very sagely, but has nothing to do with the rings around a planet.
[/QUOTE]
I know, your writing style is apparently contagious.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
So what do YOU think? Magnetic fields in tornadoes and hurricanes, or no?
[/QUOTE]
I think magnetic fields will be present when charged particles move.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Which sounds very sagely, but has nothing to do with the rings around a planet.
Oops? We KNOW dust devils have electric fields and magnetic fields. This we know for a FACT! Are you trying to say that tornadoes and hurricanes, with MUCH larger electric fields, don’t have magnetic fields as well? The relationship is called electromagnetics for a reason, because they go hand in hand. I thought that the search would have pulled up something about tornadoes having magnetic fields so maybe I jumped the gun and posted that Google link a little too fast. Also, they don’t know that dust devils on Mars are electrified or magnified since they haven’t actually measured them, it’s only a prediction that they will be just like their Earthly cousins and share many of the same features. Why wouldn’t they?
So what do YOU think? Magnetic fields in tornadoes and hurricanes, or no?
[/QUOTE]
In the absence of evidence, I remain happily agnostic on this question. It is not a question I have considered before. Perhaps you could provide a single link to a reputable site which can provide the evidence to remove my ignorance. You keep saying that WE know various things. I, for one, do not know the various things that you have said that WE know. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. It is customary in this forum, when asked for a citation for something that you have asserted, to provide a link to a site which supports your assertion. You consistently evade that responsibility. I am here to learn things. This web site and message board are dedicated to fighting ignorance; you seem dedicated to spreading it.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Which sounds very sagely, but has nothing to do with the rings around a planet.
[/QUOTE]
But everything to do with your style of argument.
Here’s where I get all wise and sagely, too. The Master does not provide the answers, he shows the pupil the direction that they are in. In finding them, the pupil has learned more than the master could have ever shown him.
One thing about the electric fields around dust devils and tornadoes and hurricanes is that in order for such a field to be generated, charged particles must be separating- creating the charge separation which is the electric field! In order for them to separate they must move. Do I really need to cite this stuff? Jeez.
Why do you think all the lightning that has been detected in a hurricane eye wall is cloud to ground? Why do you think that all the hurricanes that blow up into huge ass monster cat 5’s in a matter of hours have lots of lightning in the eye wall? There’s a lot of energy moving around in there.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
One thing about the electric fields around dust devils and tornadoes and hurricanes is that in order for such a field to be generated, charged particles must be separating- creating the charge separation which is the electric field! In order for them to separate they must move. Do I really need to cite this stuff? Jeez.
[/quote]
Your post is all the cite I need.
But I would suggest that you acquire sufficient grounding in basic physics to avoid being the unwitting shill for charlatans.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Here’s where I get all wise and sagely, too. The Master does not provide the answers, he shows the pupil the direction that they are in. In finding them, the pupil has learned more than the master could have ever shown him.
[/QUOTE]
You talking to me? There’s only one Master here, Junior, and his name is Cecil Adams. You haven’t shown me where anything of value is. What I’ve learned is that you don’t know some basic things that are essential to understanding the subjects you find yourself so hopelessly lost in here.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
One thing about the electric fields around dust devils and tornadoes and hurricanes is that in order for such a field to be generated, charged particles must be separating- creating the charge separation which is the electric field! In order for them to separate they must move. Do I really need to cite this stuff? Jeez.
Why do you think all the lightning that has been detected in a hurricane eye wall is cloud to ground? Why do you think that all the hurricanes that blow up into huge ass monster cat 5’s in a matter of hours have lots of lightning in the eye wall? There’s a lot of energy moving around in there.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that an electric field exists in the presence of any charged particle, whether it is moving or not. The field does not require movement. Moving charged particles creates a magnetic field. In other words, what Grey said. Your post is your cite.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Z-pinching, lots and lots of it. The new elements then rain down into the depths of the star.
[/QUOTE]
I know people that work on the Z-Machine at Sandia. (They also worked on basically all the other projects before it.) If using a Z-pinch can create stable heavy elements out of plasma I think we’d know about it.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Because it doesn’t emit anything itself, that’s why it is called “dark energy.” Did you know that mainstream science talks about these things as well, in fact basing their entire suppositions on the order of the galaxies on “dark matter,” and that they place it anywhere they want in order to make their theoretical equations fit our observations?
It simply flows to the star, from there we detect its movements through the solar “wind.” I find it amusing that people say things like “Oh so this magical invisible energy powers the Sun, huh? And I’m supposed to believe that?” when the mainstream science community proposes the same thing: some things in space just don’t emit electromagnetic radiation.
[/QUOTE]
You haven’t thought this through; if it’s driving the sun, then it’s interacting with matter in significant fashion. If it interacts with matter, then there’s no reason why it should be undetectable and the failure to detect it is more likely an indication of its absence or non existence.
… unless of course you’re going to argue that the sun is not made of matter; nothing would surprise me at this point.
[QUOTE=TheFonz]
The energy follows the path of least resistance, which happens to be the water vapor that condensed into clouds during the night time.
[/quote]
Does a nighttime bolt of lightning require an unbroken chain of clouds all the way past the terminator to Earth’s daytime side?
If “plasma” is responsible for solar energy, and it can encircle the globe, why can’t sunlight encircle the globe and light up the night side?
Take your time.
It’s called the charge on an electron, that thing that we think is constant but actually isn’t. It just spread itself out evenly amongst its surroundings, the entire planet.
But oh well, I concede guys. You’re right, I’m wrong. The way I figure it, Prometheus was punished not for revealing to Man the secret of combustion, but for revealing the secret of the green electric fire. I’m not trying to go out like that, but you’ll realize the true nature of all things when the world goes to hell right here real soon. You’ll look back on all the things I’ve said and you’ll wonder why everything is changing so quickly all the way up until the day our soul returns to the energy fields of our planet from whence it came.
I could argue this all the way up until that one day when you realize I’m right, simply because you can’t bury your head in the sand and ignore it anymore… but what would be the point?
Fonzy out. 