JEROME - Life and Linear Time

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Blatant falsehood. I respond to the vast majority of posts.


The fact that you and many others have to lie about me personally shows that your faith is superior to your knowledge.
Click to expand...
That's just silly jerome. I'm simply holding you to account. You make arguments you don't understand, are illogical, and/or are based upon information you never read. You did it regarding radioactive decay, you did it regarding nylonase bacteria, and now you did it with fusion.

People are simply holding you to account.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is the game---a chorus of you are wrong without any evidence of such.
Click to expand...

So you do not believe that you were wrong when you called out Sol for *fail* on all of those counts?

Hydrogen bombs and fission/fusion, ect.?

You can do about 15 seconds worth of research on the subject before you make a statement like *you fail*, so that you do not like like a huge *** when you realize that you were completely wrong.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is the game---a chorus of you are wrong without any evidence of such.
Click to expand...

Very well

Sol said:
There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).
Click to expand...

You responded...

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

So lets see...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/h-bomb.htm

The process of combining nuclei (the protons and neutrons inside an atomic nucleus) together with a release of kinetic energy is called fusion. This process powers the Sun, it contributes to the world stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and may one day generate safe, clean electrical power.
Click to expand...

Fusion (or ‘‘thermonuclear’) weapons derive a significant amount of their total energy from fusion reactions.
Click to expand...

I could find plenty more if you so wish?
 
Last edited:
Jerome... Take a step back from the people that you are arguing with. I know that you think we are all a bunch of uninformed jerks, but you really do need to research this fusion bit. Please.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
No, but the fact that you've willing to deny even the most basic concepts of science is certainly telling of your mental state, Jerome.
Click to expand...

I don't think he will deny it if he actually researches fusion. I want to give him some sort of a chance here, I just think that he put his foot in his mouth and flipped out on Sol thinking about the old A-Bombs that were fission based?

Seems to me like even JdG could admit he is wrong on this one *if* he looks it all up.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I respond to the vast majority of posts.
Click to expand...
Hmm, ok ...

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind adding my posts to that vast majority please?

I'm particularly keen to read your answers to my two questions, the ones that I added numbers to ...
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is insane.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

You are exhibiting the classic symptoms of psychosis - gross impairment of your perception of reality, irrational and disturbed mental process, inability to communicate with others.

Step away from the keyboard.

Take a deep breath, another, another...

Try to calm down.
 
Last edited:
Hindmost said:
As we are an educational group...

The sun is mainly hydrogen and helium. Due to the heat and gravitational force at the core, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium. The helium formed is just a bit less massive than the original hydrogen...the release of energy based on Einstein's famous formula is what keeps us warm.

As the sun ages, it will continue to fuse elements until carbon, oxygen...etc form. This will continue until Iron and Nickel are formed. Nickel and Iron have the highest binding energy per nucleon holding the nuclei together--the nucleai of iron and nickel are the most "stuck together" with the strong nuclear force. Therefore elements higher on the periodic table are not formed.

Eventually, the fusion reaction will spread out from the core and the sun will become a red giant and toast the inner planets...in about 5 billion years; when that happens, it will pulse and blow iron and other stuff out into space. Then it will collapse into a white dwarf.

Our sun isn't big enough to blow up like a super nova...in super novas, the energy of the explosion will actually manufactor the entire periodic table of elements--since they are rare, the heavier elements are rare as well. (this has sort of been reproduced during underground hydrogen bomb tests.)

Hmmm forgot fission

fission is splitting heavy elements with a neutron...such as uranium 235. This doesn't happen in the sun, but does occur at your local nuclear power plant.


glenn

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.
Click to expand...

I was truly joking..I will use the :D in the future...

Well, I have to quote myself...but I have shown reasonable evidence above.

glenn
 
I just wanted to add that I've never read anything about the Big Bang, but I know it must be impossible. For starters, everyone knows there's no sound in space, so how could anyone have heard it go "Bang"? Secondly, if all the mass in existence was confined to a very tiny space, how could it have been "Big" by any stretch of the imagination? You're all complete lunatics for disagreeing with my views, because I never make mistakes! I don't exactly know what my own views are, and I have yet to bother to explain them or propose any alternatives to established theories, but who cares? The initial premise is wrong!
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?
Click to expand...


Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"


Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.

Guilluame, 1896, 6.1 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Eddington, 1926, 3.2 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Regener, 1933, 2.8 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Nernst and Born, 1937, 2.8 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

McKeller, 1941, 2.3 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Hermann and Alpher, 5-7 Kelvin, The Big Bang

F. Freunlich, 1953, 2.3 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Gold, Bondi, Hoyle, 1955, 2.78 Kelvin, Steady state universe

Gamow, 1961, 50 Kelvin, The Big Bang

Penzias, Wilson, 1965, 3.0 Kelvin, Detected
Click to expand...

The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.
 
Last edited:
Jerome, I am just a lurker here and I love to read you argue and provoke others, very entertaining stuff, to me anyways...
You were doing so good until you denied fusion.
It all fell apart after that...

I hope you can get it back on track, I am looking forward to reading more.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"


Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.



The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.
Click to expand...

I would refer you to: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

In reference to some of the older predictions.

They were made based on our position in the universe and did not suggest that the measurements would be the same if made ANYWHERE in ANY DIRECTION.

I am just a layman (High school grad with years of experience reading about cosmology on the Internet!) however, and I could be wrong.

:cool::cool::cool:
 
He has been responding in other threads... I fear that he may have abandoned this one due to his epic fail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom