|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
OK it came into existence 4.5 billion years ago,much larger than it is today,and it was"red"seems it had to contract some more before it became yellow(yes) It probably did not settle in to becoming a yellow star until after.... Than after a dozen million years or so,it began to transform its hydrogen into helium. It probably appeared red because of surrounding dust and gas restricting its output until well after nuclear fusion began in its core. The only difference of man made H-bombs is the fusion output in the core of stars is controlled I do have a theory how we could control fusion. You don't have a theory, in the scientific sense of the word anyway. You have an untested idea which might possibly be molded into an hypothesis which would then possibly be testable (actually to be a valid hypothesis, that is exactly what it would have to be - testable). Still this 90% of all stars (just average) has a planet going around it with much life. Bert There is no observational evidence that such is the case. A majority of stars are in fact multiple star systems that possess very limited potential orbital distances depending on the separation of the stars in the system. This would significantly reduce the number of life-supporting planets. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
protons DO NOT orbit anything eles, THEY are the center of the H1 atom and also
make up the 2nd major unit of all other atom centers. -- In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again. Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars" SIAR www.starlords.org Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com "Andrew McKay" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:17:15 GMT, David Knisely wrote: What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:52:29 -0700, "Starlord"
wrote: protons DO NOT orbit anything eles, THEY are the center of the H1 atom and also make up the 2nd major unit of all other atom centers. From my original message: BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the above then I'm afraid it passed me by. It's just gobbledegook to me Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
Hi there. You posted:
What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake subjective proof. For example the number of protons orbiting (e.g.) a Hydrogen atom. It wasn't as if they could peer into a microscope and count the protons! BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the above then I'm afraid it passed me by. Well, protons are the core of the Hydrogen atom, so they don't "orbit" Hydrogen. Electrons exist in shells or "orbitals" around the proton, so in a sense, they "orbit" the nucleus of Hydrogen. There are several types of Hydrogen which behave chemically almost identically with regular Hydrogen. The first is Deuterium, which has a core or "nucleus" containing one proton and one neutron. Then, there is Tritium, which contains one proton but *two* neutrons. Deuterium is fairly rare when compared with regular Hydrogen, and Tritium is unstable and decays. A Hydrogen Bomb works by using a regular small fission bomb to trigger a fusion reaction involving Deuterium and Tritium (for a complete discussion of this, do an Internet search to see how it is done). In stars, two types of fusion reactions take place naturally which also fuse Hydrogen nucleii (ie: protons) into Helium nucleii (alpha particles), but neither involves a Deuterium-Tritium reaction of the type found in man-made thermonuclear explosions. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
Andrew McKay wrote:
What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake subjective proof. For example the number of protons orbiting (e.g.) a Hydrogen atom. It wasn't as if they could peer into a microscope and count the protons! What do you mean by "subjective proof"? BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the above then I'm afraid it passed me by. Not a very short one, I'm afraid. But here's a brief sketch in which I'll 'drop' a few names and terms that you can look up. The idea that matter is made of "atoms" (_atomos_ means "indivisible" in Greek) goes back something like 2500 years to Democritus, but the first modern atomic theory came in the early nineteenth century, from John Dalton. At roughly the same time people like Antoine Lavoisier introduced quantitative methods to chemistry, leading to the field of stoichiometry, the study of the proportions in which chemicals combine with each other. Studies of gases allowed the relative molecular weights of substances to be determined. Various patterns relating the chemical properties of the elements to their atomic weights were observed, and Dmitri Mendeleev formed them into a 'big picture' that became the modern periodic table. But only atomic weights were known, not atomic numbers, until the discovery of the nucleus by Ernest Rutherford, and subsequent work that identified its composition. By about 75 years ago it was understood that the number of protons in the nucleus determine the chemical properties of an element, manifested through its tendency to bind a like number of electrons, the exchanges or rearrangements of which constitute chemical reactions. --Odysseus |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
During a perfect moment of peace at Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:17:15 GMT,
David Knisely interrupted with: In a nuclear bomb, it is a deuterium-tritium reaction which takes place (used because it works faster than the proton-proton reaction which stars use). It's also worth noting that higher mass stars use the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen chain to help fuse H-He. That is nothing like how the H bomb works. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... Andrew McKay wrote: . . . BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the above then I'm afraid it passed me by. Not a very short one, I'm afraid. But here's a brief sketch in which I'll 'drop' a few names and terms that you can look up. The idea that matter is made of "atoms" (_atomos_ means "indivisible" in Greek) goes back something like 2500 years to Democritus, but the first modern atomic theory came in the early nineteenth century, from John Dalton. At roughly the same time people like Antoine Lavoisier introduced quantitative methods to chemistry, leading to the field of stoichiometry, the study of the proportions in which chemicals combine with each other. Studies of gases allowed the relative molecular weights of substances to be determined. Various patterns relating the chemical properties of the elements to their atomic weights were observed, and Dmitri Mendeleev formed them into a 'big picture' that became the modern periodic table. But only atomic weights were known, not atomic numbers, until the discovery of the nucleus by Ernest Rutherford, and subsequent work that identified its composition. By about 75 years ago it was understood that the number of protons in the nucleus determine the chemical properties of an element, manifested through its tendency to bind a like number of electrons, the exchanges or rearrangements of which constitute chemical reactions. --Odysseus Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first. So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found eventually, and all the gaps were filled. I find it intriguing that science came up with such a useful tool so early on in its modern endeavors. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Life without love is A lamp without oil, Love without prejudice A world without soil, Tool without toil. Paine Ellsworth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
Painius wrote:
Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first. So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found eventually, and all the gaps were filled. IIRC Mendeleev himself predicted the properties of at least two elements that had not yet been discovered (Ga & Ge?), in the face of criticism that his table was a product of numerological mysticism, not of science. When an element with the density, conductivity, electronegativity, &c. he had predicted was discovered, the critics said it was just a lucky guess ... but when a second one was found to fit perfectly in another of his 'gaps' they were forced to admit there might be something to the idea. This goes to show that it's a theory's quantitative predictions that are the 'proof of the pudding'; in science these will always trump philosophical considerations. --Odysseus |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Our very ordinary Sun
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... Painius wrote: Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first. So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found eventually, and all the gaps were filled. IIRC Mendeleev himself predicted the properties of at least two elements that had not yet been discovered (Ga & Ge?), in the face of criticism that his table was a product of numerological mysticism, not of science. When an element with the density, conductivity, electronegativity, &c. he had predicted was discovered, the critics said it was just a lucky guess ... but when a second one was found to fit perfectly in another of his 'gaps' they were forced to admit there might be something to the idea. This goes to show that it's a theory's quantitative predictions that are the 'proof of the pudding'; in science these will always trump philosophical considerations. --Odysseus ....as well as trump die-hard skepticism! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- a Secret of the Universe... so please don't breathe a word of this-- the Moon above will smile perverse whene'er it sees two lovers kiss; (breathe not a single word of this!) Paine Ellsworth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Force from Empty Space: The Casimir Effect | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | August 5th 04 03:39 PM |
Page DOWN!? Free Energy: Cold fusion with ordinary water & thin nickel foil | Carl R. Osterwald | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 9th 04 04:22 PM |
Free Energy: Cold fusion with ordinary water & thin nickel foil | Carl R. Osterwald | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 9th 04 04:20 PM |
Eager astronauts in line... | Steven James Forsberg | Policy | 62 | March 4th 04 02:31 PM |
12" Newtonian with 6% secondary | optidud | Amateur Astronomy | 57 | August 8th 03 07:48 AM |