/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15200991]

The sun, just saying.

Without it, we'd ALL be fucked. Just saying.

If it decides it wants to "burp" in our direction? Also fucked.

[Anonymous No.15200994]

This is why real men worship the sun, not some jew on a stick

[Anonymous No.15200999]

[Anonymous No.15201007]

>>15200991
What event would be required to overwhelm the Earth's magnetosphere?

[Anonymous No.15201012]

>>15201007
An X-class flare while the magnetic field is as low as it is now (mid-transition) or a solar micronova at any point.

[Anonymous No.15201042]

>>15200999
>gaymers
Is there another kind of gamer?

[Anonymous No.15201060]

>>15200991
I don't give a FUCK about that gay ass ball of heat.

[Anonymous No.15201110]

>>15201060
I suppose you have another solution to support life then?

[Anonymous No.15201257]

>>15200991
the sun is kind of like a planet but it's nuclear

[Anonymous No.15201260]

>>15200991
That's a nice sun you got there, be a real shame if something happened to it

[Anonymous No.15201286]

it's not a god to trifle with

[Anonymous No.15201379]

>>15201286
oh yeah? I sunbathe naked, so it can lick my balls.

[Anonymous No.15203590]

>>15201012
>solar micronova
meaningless EU buzzword
>Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.15203610]

>>15203590
Midwit.
>Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.15203623]

>>15203610
no argument and to add to the seethe you made up not needing verification

[Anonymous No.15203632]

>>15203623
Struck a little close to home, did I? If you provide evidence that it is just an "EU buzzword" then maybe I'll argue with you.

[Anonymous No.15203636]

the sun, like wow man, its so big and powerful
its so important, omg dude

[Anonymous No.15204097]

>>15201257
>it's nuclear
what's the proof of this
have you visited the sun and asked it?

[Anonymous No.15204111]

the salami one was better by far

[Anonymous No.15204123]

How do they know there is no fission in the core of stars?

[Anonymous No.15204134]

>>15204123
stars are simple enough that you can tell when it starts fusing helium, carbon, and other heavier elements

for fission to occur they must first produce fission material which means the star must be about to collapse. This is because the larger elements you create via fusion the less energy they release, this energy release is what keeps the star from collapsing.

Basically a star is a balancing act between gravity and internal pressure created by fusion. When gravity is stronger the star collapses and the fusion reaction speeds up. When internal fusion pressure is stronger the star expands and cools slowing down the fusion reaction.

[Anonymous No.15204155]

>>15204123
we know there is because fission happens anywhere there are radioactive elements, however it doesnt produce much energy compared to fusion in any known star

[Anonymous No.15204159]

>>15200991
Suns are the primordial creators of literally everything in the universe.

You should be both amazed and fearful of them.

[Anonymous No.15204165]

>>15204159
fag scared of inanimate glowy boi

[Anonymous No.15204171]

>>15201257
The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma

[Anonymous No.15204188]

>>15201042
There really isn't. "Gaming" and homoism are each just a preference of fantasy over reality,

[Anonymous No.15204198]

>>15204188
how is homosexuality a preference of fantasy over reality?

[Anonymous No.15204400]

>>15204198
they fuck each other in the ass, brother. if that isn't delusional against reality idk what is

[Anonymous No.15204551]

>>15204400
what part of that is delusional? what do they believe thats not true?

[Anonymous No.15204926]

>>15204551
That the anus is a sex organ.

[Anonymous No.15204948]

>>15200991
>>15201110
not my problem

[Anonymous No.15204964]

what is the surface of the sun like?
completely flat from the high gravity or a crazy stormy sea with waves like mountains?

[Anonymous No.15205289]

>>15204134
>>15204155
Interesting posts. So what happens to the accreted material which is not hydrogen when the sun first ignites? Is it thrown out, does it remain inert in the centre, simply made irrelevant by the vast quantities of hydrogen?

[Anonymous No.15205297]

>>15201110
i was considering an entire squidbillies hat purchase collection. i figure that'd help someone, and it put some good energy in tot the universe.

[Anonymous No.15205698]

>>15200991
Not that much it would just be a lightshow and the power going out

[Anonymous No.15205988]

>>15201007
A gamma ray burst

[Anonymous No.15205996]

>>15201007
Actually a supernova within 10 ly would do it too but there's no candiate star for that in current year.

[Anonymous No.15206008]

>>15200991
Thank you for bringing attention to this, OP. We must worship the sun for the light and warmth it grants us. I stare directly at the sun every day to admire its beauty. In doing so, my vision is gradually becoming permanently filled with its glorious light.

[Anonymous No.15206010]

>>15206008
Based and praise the sun pilled

[Anonymous No.15206021]

The sun protects us from the stars.

[Anonymous No.15206032]

>>15205289
cosmology literally skips the step between planetary mass bodies and active stars because they don't want to deal with trying to answer that question

the answer, they will assure you, couldn't be any more complicated than a sphere of diffuse plasma around a sphere of compressed fusing plasma - that's why there's no fine structure to the sun and it's magnetically homogeneous, of course.

[Anonymous No.15206046]

im going to make my own sun. Nigger .

[Anonymous No.15206080]

>>15200991
We’d just use a stellar engine to move it somewhere we like and potentially get a new one. Fixed.

[Anonymous No.15206097]

>>15204159
Ascribing meaning to matter and energy like this is retarded, and only humans seem to do it.

[Anonymous No.15206108]

>>15206032
Brown dwarfs?

[Anonymous No.15206142]

>>15206108

[Anonymous No.15207969]

>>15206108
stellar evolution models actually really struggle to explain brown dwarfs, because the creation of stellar fusion in the standard solar model requires essentially no heavier elements in the core to diffuse the hydrogen to allow it to fuse in the core - it's required in their stellar evolution models that adding hydrogen to brown dwarfs or Jupiter-like objects can never trigger stellar nucleosynthesis, that's why they call brown dwarfs "failed stars" instead of "dormant protostars"

[Anonymous No.15208269]

>>15207969
>requires essentially no heavier elements in the core to diffuse the hydrogen to allow it to fuse in the core
wait, so stars are basically empty?
maybe there's a way for all that hydrogen to diffuse into the core, after all, we know hydrogen embrittlement of metals is a thing

[Anonymous No.15208385]

>>15200994
Unironically the closest thing to a god we have.

[Anonymous No.15208485]

>>15208269
they need to be basically empty to allow for the standard solar model's treatment of kinetics of atomic protium plasmas (i.e. ionized Hydrogen-1, or free protons) that would allow, according to the standard model of particle physics, proton-proton collisions of sufficient energies to create neutrons by rearranging quarks

these processes are extrapolated to define the stellar evolution proposed in the standard model of cosmology, or one of the components of Lambda CDM cosmology (which is also called the standard model of cosmology, as Lambda refers to the coefficient of universal inflation Big Bang models require IN ADDITION to dark energy to avoid gravitational collapse, and CDM stands for "cold dark matter", because dark matter cannot have a temperature because it would create blackbody radiation and thus be visible)

i don't hold "standard models" to be scientific, as they are inherently unfalsifiable - falsification yields only modification of the model's explanation for the inconsistent results, not reexamination of the underlying assumptions. consequently, if those underlying assumptions are incorrect, the model will simply accumulate addendums that are added to the model (inflation, dark matter, etc.) and will thereby protect itself from the scientific process of self-correction.

in short, standard models are great for academic careers and institutions (easy to test and "teach" as rote memorization instead of applied critical thought), and shit for science

[Anonymous No.15210340]

>>15201007
Earth's magnetic field is still stronger than for most of the past ~12,000 years or so, so it's going to take a pretty massive flare to completely overwhelm Earth's magnetosphere
even a Carrington-level event wouldn't come close to doing it, but would of course fuck up a lot of electric equipment (it wouldn't destroy the grid completely, though, as many seem to think)

[Anonymous No.15210344]

>>15210340
also, our dear Sol just fired off a pretty massive flare out of practically nowhere (we're heading towards maximum, so activity is expected, but this was quite abrupt), X2.3
it was very eruptive too, a CME with a speed of over 1000 km/s was launched
it's still being assessed, but it might even have had a small Earth-bound component, which could mean a bit of geomagnetic activity in a day or two
this is now a Sol general thread by my decree

[Anonymous No.15210424]

>>15208485
Everything really is held together with pieces of old string and pre-used duct tape then? How have we achieved so much. What could be possible if we actually knew anything at all.

[Anonymous No.15210659]

>>15210424
the blackpill is despair at the consequences of science abandoning the oversight of philosophy
the whitepill is realizing just how much remains to be understood - even where many think it doesn't

[Anonymous No.15210706]

the great sausage slice in the sky

[Anonymous No.15210735]

>>15210340
>>15210344
look at that amazing flare

[Anonymous No.15210739]

yo the sun be trippin lmao

[Anonymous No.15211030]

>>15210344
That's huge

[Anonymous No.15211038]

>>15207969
>it's required in their stellar evolution models that adding hydrogen to brown dwarfs or Jupiter-like objects can never trigger stellar nucleosynthesis
Wait what?
I was lead to believe anything around 11 jupiter mass would start to be a star

[Anonymous No.15211041]

>>15211030
most powerful flare that's been visible to us so far this cycle for sure

[Anonymous No.15211320]

>>15211038
only if it's collapsing from a molecular hydrogen cloud of that mass - there can't be a rocky core or condensed hydrogen in the way because core fusion requires gas-like behaviors, because otherwise the protium doesn't reach the velocities needed for standard model fusion due to friction losses, even at sufficient density

[Anonymous No.15211358]

>>15211320
Sounds reasonable but where is the issue? Mainstream soientists don't agree with this?

[Anonymous No.15211364]

>>15211358
Mainstream sois believe the interior of a gas giant is too rocky to enable the kind of fusion they believe occurs inside the Sun.

[Anonymous No.15211454]

>>15211364
Has such a gas giant of sufficient size been found?

[Anonymous No.15212031]

>>15211454
the standard model of stellar evolution calls them brown dwarfs and still struggles to find an actual way to distinguish them from both massive gas giants and low-mass stars, but needs them to be distinct from both
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
the 13 jupiter masses limit is literally arbitrary IAU bullshit

[Anonymous No.15212051]

>>15211454
if you want some actual facts about brown dwarfs rather than the moronic archaic nuclear furnace model people are clinging to, here you go:
https://youtu.be/fvA3IRWBBus

[Anonymous No.15212082]

heliocentrist idolaters get out this is a christian science board

[Anonymous No.15212092]

>>15200991
Any of these in HD?. I know my desktop would appreciate such images.

[Anonymous No.15212100]

>>15212092

[Anonymous No.15212106]

>>15212092
>>15212100
actually, that's pretty poor resolution
this is better, but not immediately obvious that it's Sol

[Anonymous No.15212558]

>>15212051
NTA but i appreciate the rabbit hole you've sent me down even if im not yet sold

[Anonymous No.15212573]

>>15212558
enjoy, anon
let me know if you have any questions
I can't promise I'm able to answer anything, but I've been an avid watcher of Sol for many years now, and have studied plasma cosmology quite a lot (back in university when I did my computer engineering degree I was always drawn more to both the electronics subjects and the electromagnetism part of the physics subjects than to anything else, so it's always been a great interest of mine)

[Anonymous No.15212625]

>>15212573
so far these competing concepts bother me the most:
redshifting ("tired light", emitted wavelength as intrinsic time-variant property of plasmas, plasma as diffractionary medium)
"stars as thermonuclear reaction" or "stars as arclight" or maybe both together
gravity as repulsive & locally attractive; does this really square with orbital mechanics as we see and have occasionally exploited them? that's the biggest one to get over.

[Anonymous No.15212632]

>>15212625
but the idea of a plasma-filled universe where electric currents and resulting magnetic field organize cosmology was instantly intuitive and appealing, and seems much more open to experimentation whereas standard stuff is hitting deadends.

[Anonymous No.15212656]

>>15212558
hardest thing to digest about that rabbit hole by far is where it links up to catastrophism geology through Velikovsky. i kind of wish they'd just drop the association for the time being and focus on plasma cosmology instead, THEN see if that could explain certain observed features (especially on the moon), or if, as currently seems to be the case, interplanetary charge differentials aren't sufficient for creating violent interplanetary electrical discharges affecting planetary geology anywhere except maybe between Io and Jupiter (and even in that case, it doesn't seem to be violent discharges - just possible current through clouds of diffuse gases and volatiles after accumulating charges)

[Anonymous No.15212659]

>>15212625
well, I agree it's interesting to try to find out what causes redshift, or whether there might be multiple causes simultaneously
what we can throw out immediately is of course the incredibly deranged notion that the entire universe is constantly expanding
this explanation really only originated because people around that time had just started to explain the Doppler effect in acoustics, and thus tried to explain redshift in the same way for distant objects, come hell or high water (which indeed came, because it ultimately required you to construct a model where the entire universe is constantly expanding, which is essentially reducing their own argument to absurdity)
Hubble himself was strongly opposed to notions of an expanding universe, and said that people should work on finding the actual explanations of redshift instead of wasting their time on such nonsense
>gravity as repulsive & locally attractive; does this really square with orbital mechanics as we see and have occasionally exploited them?
yes
gravity is essentially incoherent magnetism, just like diffuse light is incoherent radiation (as opposed to a laser, which is highly coherent)
the magnetic dipole moments remain relatively conserved over long time periods, and so you get exactly what you see
you can pretty much know that this is true by looking at the most ridiculous part of the "mainstream" model, which is the attempt to explain away how galaxy rotation doesn't actually work if Newtonian gravity (or its nonsensical extension, general relativity) is true
>The rotational/orbital speeds of galaxies/stars do not follow the rules found in other orbital systems such as stars/planets and planets/moons that have most of their mass at the centre. Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances.
the invention is "dark matter" to explain this, but that's obviously ridiculous
MOND models are closer, because they approach the electromagnetic truth

[Anonymous No.15212780]

>>15210424
It's just a matter of calculating. We know quarks are real or at least realish. We just still can't get subatomic physics to jive with astronomical physics. Physics does have an issue because it is often derived mathematically first and then proven. But it's not just a shot in the dark. And then when it is proven people say it isn't still. You can prove special relativity many ways and people still say it's unproven. Maybe it is wrong somehow we'll find out. Right now there's an idea called quantum foam, kinda a revisioned space aether lol and dark matter structure. Because the universe isn't just expanding as it shouldn't but it's structured in a way it shouldn't.

And the things physicists are working on. They are trying to determine what happened within a billionth of a second of the big bang not trying to prove the earth is round

[Anonymous No.15212818]

>>15212780
>We know quarks are real or at least realish.

[Anonymous No.15212823]

>>15212780
>You can prove special relativity

[Anonymous No.15212824]

>>15212780
>It's just a matter of calculating.
it's actually a matter of determining the validity of the assumptions underlying your calculatable frameworks, but go off

[Anonymous No.15212825]

>>15212780
>now there's an idea called quantum foam, kinda a revisioned space aether
wow, who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

[Anonymous No.15212829]

>>15212780
>the universe
>expanding

[Anonymous No.15213106]

Bampirino

[Anonymous No.15213225]

>>15205289
>>15204123
stars are so heavy and hot that the atoms in the core are blown completely apart into protons and neutrons, the core would be solid or molten hydrogen metal

[Anonymous No.15213361]

>>15212051
Very interesting. I'm honestly unsettled by some of what this guy theorises. That part about a plasma shroud or whatever he called it, in combination with some stuff I was reading in the Eocene thread... Just a little disturbing.

He does seem to cherry pick data a little though. I find it much more likely that our observational capabilities skew our perception of what is a "normal" planetary system. It's simply much easier to identify larger planets with orbits closer to the star with the few tiny eyes currently available to us.

It gets a bit strange sometimes and my background in EM is pretty basic but I'm still going to go through some more of his content because I feel like there are some gems in there.

>>15212573
This image explains to me how it would be possible for a birthing star to eject material from its core into a protoplanetary disk.

On redshift, is it possible that light can lose energy over distance? Maybe this leans more towards "aether" theories.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who has posted stimulating information. It's nice to have food for thought.

[Anonymous No.15213429]

>>15213361
>lose energy over distance
that's the "tired light" idea, but another is interaction with unobserved diffuse matter (especially if it's ionized) in interstellar and, importantly, intergalactic space

none of these can be ruled out, but you'll have people who buy into LambdaCDM screech until they're blue in the face that redshift can only be distance, and distance can only be age (it makes stuff a hell of a lot simpler at the theory level - a bit like pretending that, in a universe where well over 99% of visible matter is ionized and one of the 'electrically neutral' planets in our own solar system has a magnetic field bigger than the fucking sun, matter is ONLY affected by the forces between neutrally charged mass at large scales), while calling the science "settled"

the only thing that's settled here is the fact they bought into the theory - i don't buy a lot of Wal Thornhill's stuff because i think he gives Velikovsky too much attention and probably generates some spurious connections by extrapolating from fragmented histories with his views on ancient art in regards to the sky, but i'm not going to throw out reasonable critiques and suggestions to cosmological models just because academia can't afford to allow paradigm shifts to threaten careers and grant funding and so must dismiss discredit the person with the threatening idea and not engage with the idea itself

good lord we need philosophy back in charge of the sciences so badly - epistemology especially needs to pull the theoretical physicists out of their own rectums. your models are not fucking religions

[Anonymous No.15214480]

>>15200991 The Sun can do whatever he wants. If God wants to protect us, He will.

[Anonymous No.15214574]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwW8HKBuDNc
ok, after this i am thoroughly convinced that redshift=doppler shift due to expanding universe is a false assumption