Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

I've seen a couple of this Dave guys videos.
In my opinion this guy has issues.
His back ground is in chemistry not in cosmology.
Yet he thinks since some of the people at the EU don't have what Dave thinks are the correct title's behind their names they have no credibility.
Of course that doesn't pertain to him.
He also resorts to personal attacks on people that disagree with him.
It seems to me that he is an " I am right and everyone else is wrong " person.
Perhaps something , or something lacking , in his up bringing.

MaxGain wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:40 pm I've seen a couple of this Dave guys videos.
In my opinion this guy has issues.
His back ground is in chemistry not in cosmology.
Yet he thinks since some of the people at the EU don't have what Dave thinks are the correct title's behind their names they have no credibility.
Of course that doesn't pertain to him.
He also resorts to personal attacks on people that disagree with him.
It seems to me that he is an " I am right and everyone else is wrong " person.
Perhaps something , or something lacking , in his up bringing.

Dave defines the term "electric universe" to suit himself, apparently completely oblivious to the work of Kristian Birkeland, the first "electric universe" proponent in modern times.

Nothing like ignoring a full century of lab work which doesn't jive with his own preconceived ideas. Sheesh <moderator edit>

Pierre-Marie Robitaille Debunks "Professor" Dave! - The Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4

spark wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:05 am Pierre-Marie Robitaille Debunks "Professor" Dave! - The Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrTvP95kf4

Ah yes, the "CMB is from Earth's oceans" guy, the "virial theorem is wrong" guy, the "astrophysics violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics" guy, the "Sun is liquid metallic hydrogen" guy, the "there is no pressure in a gas not in contact with a solid or liquid surface" guy, the "Kirchhoff's law is wrong" guy that guy. Why didn't he stick to the day job where he did fantastic work and had a great reputation? Now he makes YouTube videos "debunking" other YouTubers and promoting his papers in low-rent journals. Sad.

What's wrong with liquid metallic hydrogen? NASA already said that's inside Jupiter. And curious that, since there are theories of Jupiter being a Star in the past. It would make sense in that case.

Cargo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:43 pm What's wrong with liquid metallic hydrogen?

There's nothing "wrong" with liquid metallic hydrogen.

NASA already said that's inside Jupiter.

Yes, and given Jupiter's temperature and pressure versus depth, the metallic liquid hydrogen phase transition occurs at about 100GPa and a few thousand Kelvin, which occurs some distance below the top of the atmosphere.

And curious that, since there are theories of Jupiter being a Star in the past.

Jupiter has never been massive enough to be a star fusing hydrogen.

It would make sense in that case.

No a) that argument doesn't make sense because the phases present in the Sun do not depend on what Jupiter was or was not in the past, but only the current equation of state and b) the temperature in the Sun above the transition pressure for liquid metallic hydrogen is way above the plasma/metallic fluid critical temperature (100,000K to 15 x 10^6K versus about 10,000K critical temperature), so the Sun is in the plasma phase throughout its volume.

Interesting use of the words 'phase' and 'state'. I think I sense the next phase of mainstream reality bending to coop the Plasma Universe without actual letting go of anything else, Big Dark Unicorns forever..

There is no more proof that Jupiter can never be a Star, then there is that is Was/Will be a Star. Where you there? Did you record it? Make one to prove it@! (@SAFIRE)

A science system that kowtows to Stellar Nursery and We Know how Stars/Planets are Made, Big-Bang-All-Dark, is high-religion zealotry. The hypothesis of Plasma/EU Star and Planet formation is so far beyond the Gravity Universe model, and such much more LOGICAL, that it's light explaining how a light-bulb works to a monkey. And the Monkey is pretty smart, relatively.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille Debunks "Professor" Dave! - The Sun

I'd say Pierre opened up a can of whoopass on Dave. The present models of astronomy and astrophysics will be shown to be obsolete but how long it will take for these truths to break through the academic roadblocks remains to be seen. Of course now I need to try and ask Pierre if he believes the Sun emits sufficient visible light and heat to be seen and felt from Earth.

Cargo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:06 am Interesting use of the words 'phase' and 'state'.

Completely conventional and routine use of those words. If you think I have used them in some exceptional way, I suggest you look up the meanings of "phase of matter", "phase diagram" and "equation of state". You asked why hydrogen cannot exist in its liquid metallic phase in the Sun and I explained why it is in the plasma phase throughout its volume.

There is no more proof that Jupiter can never be a Star, then there is that is Was/Will be a Star.

Jupiter cannot be a star because it is not massive enough for the conditions for nuclear fusion to exist in its core. Its mass is 1000 times less than the Sun, and 90 times less than the least massive star known undergoing fusion.

GaryN wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:59 am

Pierre-Marie Robitaille Debunks "Professor" Dave! - The Sun

I'd say Pierre opened up a can of whoopass on Dave.

You say that confidently, as though you are familiar with and have weighed Dave's arguments and Pierre's arguments, and rationally considered Pierre to have whoopassed Dave. Perhaps you'd like to take Pierre's strongest argument (in your opinion) from that video and explain why you think it trumps Dave's so that we can understand why you believe Mr "The CMB is from Earth's oceans" guy whoopassed Dave.

Only Mass Fusion can make a Star. What archaic nonsense you subscribe to. No wonder you're stuck in the dark ages. Maybe someday you'll break out of your circular reasoning.

Higgsy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:40 pmCompletely conventional and routine use of those words [phase, state]

It's not conventional at all, unless you think 8-10years is all it takes to replace classical physics. If the EU could be so lucky.
How many phases of matter are there?
I hope you don't resort to quantum entanglement as proof.

Cargo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:22 am Only Mass Fusion can make a Star. What archaic nonsense you subscribe to. No wonder you're stuck in the dark ages. Maybe someday you'll break out of your circular reasoning.

I assume by, "mass fusion" you mean nuclear fusion? So you have an alternative and quantified working model for stars? Let's have it then. Otherwise you are just flapping your jaw.

Higgsy wrote:Completely conventional and routine use of those words [phase, state]

It's not conventional at all, unless you think 8-10years is all it takes to replace classical physics. If the EU could be so lucky.

You think the terms "equation of state" and "phases" of matter are unconventional and have arisen in the last ten years? Really? You should get out more. And what have they got to do with classical or "non-classical" physics.

I guess you believe the work of SAFIRE is crackpot nonsense that has been completely debunked. Dave strike again, lol.
The mainstreams only method of star formation involves creating enough mass in a small enough space so that gravity is strong enough to ignite the mass with infinite crushing force and then still have enough mass left over to contain the whole thing in a ball of fusion. Right? Egro, Gravity Mass Fusion. Circular Logic and self-fulfilling prophecies.
I call that ridiculous and unproven poppy cock. You have no physical evidence that it's even possible. If you do, you should call the National Ignition Facility because after decades they are still trying to create contained fusion with lasers. Unsuccessfully.

How many phases of matter are there?

You also misread, I didn't say 'arisen' I said 'replace'. Classical as in the States of Matter. Plasma/Gas/Liquid/Solid. I am referencing mainstream science publications about the quantum sciences attempt to replace States with Phases. You should get out more.

Should we return to our early discord about what percentage of the Universe is in what State?

Cargo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:30 am I guess you believe the work of SAFIRE is crackpot nonsense that has been completely debunked.

I think most of the claims made by the SAFIRE team for the experiment are unsupported and reckless. I suppose you are suggesting that SAFIRE is some sort of viable alternative to the conventional stellar model, which is ridiculous since a) SAFIRE is not in itself a solar model or representative of one and b) SAFIRE, deriving its energy from the local power station, does not provide any evidence for an alternative solar power source of the order of 4x10^26W, which is the solar output.

The mainstreams only method of star formation involves creating enough mass in a small enough space so that gravity is strong enough to ignite the mass with infinite crushing force and then still have enough mass left over to contain the whole thing in a ball of fusion. Right? Egro, Gravity Mass Fusion. Circular Logic and self-fulfilling prophecies.

The models of stellar structure and formation are extremely detailed and constantly tested and refined against observation. For a relatively elementary introduction to stellar theory, I recommend, for example, R J Tayler's The Stars: their Structure and Evolution, Cambridge University Press. I fail to see where the circular logic or "self-fulfilling prophecies" are, even in your careless misrepresentation of stellar theory . Where is the circular logic? Do you even know what circular logic means? There is no "infinite crushing force" required and mass that results in the force and temperature required to result in nuclear fusion at an appropriate rate is the same mass which maintains the star against the gas and radiative pressures - the idea of "left over" mass is silly.

I call that ridiculous and unproven poppy cock.

You can call it what you like, but as you have presented no actual evidence or argument against it, and as you have proposed no alternative model, you are just chattering meaninglessly.

How many phases of matter are there?

How long is a piece of string? It seems that an elementary science and history lesson is required. The number of phases depend on the material in question. A phase of matter is a stable thermodynamically distinct entity with essentially uniform physical properties. For example, carbon comes in five common phases: vapour, liquid, amorphous, graphite, and diamond, and many more exotic phases such as fullerenes.

You also misread, I didn't say 'arisen' I said 'replace'. Classical as in the States of Matter. Plasma/Gas/Liquid/Solid. I am referencing mainstream science publications about the quantum sciences attempt to replace States with Phases.

What utter drivel. This has got nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it is all based on entirely classical thermodynamics and material science. The whole concept of phases of matter and their associated phase diagrams is more than a hundred years old; in fact the first step in developing the concept dastes back to a paper by Johannes van der Waals published in 1891. The use of phase diagrams as we know them has been in place since before the 1930s. So, as I said, my use of the term "phase" is entirely conventional and has a long history.

As for states of matter, there are certainly more than four, but not as many as phases, as several phases of the same substance can exist in the same state (see carbon above for the several solid phases).