Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Elendur" data-source="post: 64345692" data-attributes="member: 303170"><p>Well it wouldn't be the first and hopefully not the last.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You write that the stars consume energy "*locally*" (according to the two latter mentioned models), yet you state that there is no " 'power requirement' ".</p><p>I don't get it.</p><p>That first part is included in my question (or do you mean something different with the term *locally*?), while the latter seems plain weird.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So.</p><p>The stars generate the energy to maintain those giant circuits? (As I implicitly stated in my question)</p><p>Yet it's not possible to calculate the energy required to produce/maintain them because it's powered from inside the stars?</p><p>I don't get it.</p><p>Aren't there calculations that predicts the total energy gain from the fusion happening withing the core of the star?</p><p>Aren't there calculations that predicts the total energy emitted as photons from the star?</p><p></p><p>Why is it not possible to produce a calculation for the gigantic circuit?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok.</p><p></p><p>But why I'm asking is that I work by the assumptions:</p><p>Those gigantic circuits exist and are maintained. (Which you haven't denied)</p><p>Those gigantic circuits require energy to maintain. (Which you haven't denied, at least not explicitly, which I wouldn't mind if you went into more detail about)</p><p></p><p>Therefore there is an energy from somewhere that is required to maintain those gigantic circuits.</p><p></p><p>My question(-s):</p><p></p><p>I've bolded the text that indicates that I was careful to implicitly state the star as the source of the energy.</p><p></p><p>Or is it something more fundamental I've missed?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Elendur, post: 64345692, member: 303170"] Well it wouldn't be the first and hopefully not the last. You write that the stars consume energy "*locally*" (according to the two latter mentioned models), yet you state that there is no " 'power requirement' ". I don't get it. That first part is included in my question (or do you mean something different with the term *locally*?), while the latter seems plain weird. So. The stars generate the energy to maintain those giant circuits? (As I implicitly stated in my question) Yet it's not possible to calculate the energy required to produce/maintain them because it's powered from inside the stars? I don't get it. Aren't there calculations that predicts the total energy gain from the fusion happening withing the core of the star? Aren't there calculations that predicts the total energy emitted as photons from the star? Why is it not possible to produce a calculation for the gigantic circuit? Ok. But why I'm asking is that I work by the assumptions: Those gigantic circuits exist and are maintained. (Which you haven't denied) Those gigantic circuits require energy to maintain. (Which you haven't denied, at least not explicitly, which I wouldn't mind if you went into more detail about) Therefore there is an energy from somewhere that is required to maintain those gigantic circuits. My question(-s): I've bolded the text that indicates that I was careful to implicitly state the star as the source of the energy. Or is it something more fundamental I've missed? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
Top
Bottom