Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?? Theory of Mass Extinctions due to decline of SolarRadiation

(Michael Moroney) wrote:

writes:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snip)

[against my better judgement] You say "there is not enough time" but
you don't have any theory or calculation to support that statement.

Just for once, instead of pontificating, why don't you explain how you
come to that conclusion. And I don't mean "I guess..." or "it seems
likely that..." - I'd like to see a proper explanation of the claim.

Before you argue with Archie, realize that he doesn't comprehend how
science or the scientific method work at all. He has no concept about
how the scientific process of hypothesis, testing and verification cycle
work. For him an idea starts out with "I guess" or "perhaps" or "it seems
likely", then later on what was "likely" in his mind a day or two ago
becomes a firmly established fact to him. In fact, his posts follow
a regular cycle. He will ask an interesting and somewhat wild question,
such as what would happen to the sun if a planet crashed into it, debate
those who answer him, ignore their actual answers while presenting his
own ideas, debate those who disagree with him while his earlier ideas
become firmly established facts in his mind, then try to belittle those
who disagree with his "facts" as 'unscientific' and 'childish' while, of
course, he's being totally unscientific.

Now that you know this, either read his posts for their entertainment
value or ignore/killfile them. Just realize that debating them is a
dead-end path.

Thanks - I was coming to that conclusion myself

He may be mildly entertaining for a short while, but I've got lots
more useful things I could be doing than trying to debate nonsense
with him, so I think the killfile option might be the best for now.

Cheers,

DP


--
David_Paterson = ¦ ;

Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world -
Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Raziel

wrote
on Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:30:09 -0700
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message news
In sci.physics, Archimedes Plutonium

wrote
on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:09:45 -0500
:

[snip for brevity]

But there is not enough time, and so approx 75% of Mercury
will end up in the center of the Sun and be vaporized in the center.

And....?

Star Trek: Generations had the rather fanciful notion of missiles
instantly shrinking a star into a white dwarf. Your idea
is just about as ridiculous.

what? you don't believe in TriLithium?

Haven't seen it; can't say I believe in it. :-) I can't
say I've seen lithium either but at least I have some
hard evidence of its existence. If nothing else,
"spodumene" is just too weird a word to make up... :-)

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Li/key.html

Even were the missiles equipped with a warp drive motor
to somehow get the Sun to shrink instantly once launched,
it would still take about 8 minutes to see the effect. Nor
is it clear that merely shrinking the Sun would reduce
or increase its gravitational pull on that weirdish "thread"
(I can't think of the actual name right now, but it involved
Whoopi Goldberg :-) ), as the mass is the same.

This is a not-so-subtle point that was apparently lost
on the screenwriters. :-)

yes, their "physics" advisers often blow it. I remember a TNG episode where
they reported the average temperature of a planet as -300 Celcius. I
thought that was rather interesting.

Raz

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...


(formerly)" wrote:

Dear Archimedes Plutonium:

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
...
If the idea that the most electronegative element-- flourine would
interfer
with hydrogen and stall it from fusing properly that the temperature
can
be lowered steadily causing more loss of fusion.

What part of "plasma" do you not understand? How many electrons do you
think either hydrogen or fluorine nucleii retain at 25 million degrees,
at
the core, where fusion takes place? Fusion is not occurring where
electronegativity even factors in...

David A. Smith

I am not so sure that all chemistry is insignificant in plasma physics.

then you know very little about plasma physics, particularly at the
temperatures we are talking about here.

One test would be to detonate a fusion bomb that is containing iodine,
fluorine and see if it is inconsequental.

how, exactly, do you think that would test anything?

Raz

"Raziel" writes:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Raziel

wrote
on Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:30:09 -0700
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message news In sci.physics, Archimedes Plutonium

wrote
on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:09:45 -0500
:

[...]
Even were the missiles equipped with a warp drive motor
to somehow get the Sun to shrink instantly once launched,
it would still take about 8 minutes to see the effect. Nor
is it clear that merely shrinking the Sun would reduce
or increase its gravitational pull on that weirdish "thread"
(I can't think of the actual name right now, but it involved
Whoopi Goldberg :-) ), as the mass is the same.

This is a not-so-subtle point that was apparently lost
on the screenwriters. :-)

yes, their "physics" advisers often blow it. I remember a TNG episode
where they reported the average temperature of a planet as -300 Celcius.
I thought that was rather interesting.

Their "physics" advisors know _very_ little physics, since they happened
to be the Staff Artist Rick Sternbach, and the Graphics Designer Mike Okuda.
Okuda and Sternbach were approached to create ST:TNG's technobabble because
in their other careers Science Fiction Magazine Illustrators, they had at
least _read_ some science fiction in order to know what they should paint,
and therefore knew some of the "jargon." _None_ of the staff scriptwriters
were science fiction fans, and several of them actually _resented_ the fact
that they had been assigned to an SF show, as they considered that genre
to be "beneath" them...


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

In sci.physics, Raziel

wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:53:15 -0700
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

[snip for brevity -- discussing _Star Trek: Generations_]

Even were the missiles equipped with a warp drive motor
to somehow get the Sun to shrink instantly once launched,
it would still take about 8 minutes to see the effect. Nor
is it clear that merely shrinking the Sun would reduce
or increase its gravitational pull on that weirdish "thread"
(I can't think of the actual name right now, but it involved
Whoopi Goldberg :-) ), as the mass is the same.

This is a not-so-subtle point that was apparently lost
on the screenwriters. :-)

yes, their "physics" advisers often blow it. I remember a TNG episode where
they reported the average temperature of a planet as -300 Celcius. I
thought that was rather interesting.

This must have been the Extra Cold Universe Option. :-)


Raz


--
#191, -- could be worse; there was also the
episodes involving a gigantic single-celled amoeba
It's still legal to go .sigless.