Method for accepting science

[Michael]

No we do not.

Yes, we do in fact create fusion reactions here on Earth! Fusion occurs here on Earth. I therefore have no problem pointing at objects in the sky and theorizing that fusion happens there too.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of July 2010, the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec. Its successor, ITER, was officially announced as part of a seven-country consortium.[1] ITER is designed to produce ten times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma. ITER is currently under construction in Cadarache, France.

I don't care if fusion occurs EXACTLY the same way everywhere. All I care about is the fact that fusion has been shown to be a possible source of energy and fusion reactions occur here on Earth. I therefore have no problem at all with someone theorizing fusion as an energy source somewhere else in the universe. That also holds true for fission, chemical reactions, etc.

 

[NGC 6712]

Yes, we do in fact create fusion reactions here on Earth! Fusion occurs here on Earth. I therefore have no problem pointing at objects in the sky and theorizing that fusion happens there too.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I don't care if fusion occurs EXACTLY the same way everywhere. All I care about is the fact that fusion has been shown to be a possible source of energy and fusion reactions occur here on Earth. I therefore have no problem at all with someone theorizing fusion as an energy source somewhere else in the universe. That also holds true for fission, chemical reactions, etc.

You are being disingenuous here. You keep saying we simulate solar core conditions on Earth (to bolster your "we do it in a lab" criteria). We do not. Fusion in a lab is nothing like fusion in a stellar core. The conditions are very different and the reactions occurring are not the same at all.

Solar fusion does not pass your "we can do it in a lab so it is real science" criteria. No amount of waffling by you can change this.

Either you have not understood what you have read about fusion research or you are deliberately being obtuse so as to maintain the "we can do it in lab therefore it is real science" position you want so as to criticise other science you don't like that we cannot do in a lab either.

 

[Michael]

You are being disingenuous here.

I feel the same way about your comments.

You keep saying we simulate solar core conditions on Earth (to bolster your "we do it in a lab" criteria). We do not.

Yes we heat the plasma to high temperatures. Yes, we CONFINE the particles. That is an attempt to simulate the temperatures and pressures associated with fusion reactions PERIOD regardless of WHERE or HOW exactly they occur.

Fusion in a lab is nothing like fusion in a stellar core. The conditions are very different and the reactions occurring are not the same at all.

So what if it's not EXACTLY the same? Is the plasma hot? Is it "contained"?

Solar fusion does not pass your "we can do it in a lab so it is real science" criteria. No amount of waffling by you can change this.

Oh boloney. It fits MY criteria just fine. It just doesn't fit your strawman argument and YOUR criteria. Totally different criteria from totally different individuals.

Either you have not understood what you have read about fusion research or you are deliberately being obtuse so as to maintain the "we can do it in lab therefore it is real science" position you want so as to criticise other science you don't like that we cannot do in a lab either.

We can and do generate fusion reactions in the lab. If you can't handle that fact, it's no skin off my nose.

 

[NGC 6712]

I feel the same way about your comments.

You shouldn't.

Yes we heat the plasma to high temperatures. Yes, we CONFINE the particles. That is an attempt to simulate the temperatures and pressures associated with fusion reactions PERIOD regardless of WHERE or HOW exactly they occur.

Different reactions requiring very different conditions. They are nowhere near the same, period.

So what if it's not EXACTLY the same? Is the plasma hot? Is it "contained"?

If you are asking this then you have never even looked into this. Go check it out !!!!!

Oh boloney. It fits MY criteria just fine. It just doesn't fit your strawman argument and YOUR criteria. Totally different criteria from totally different individuals.

No it does not and you are dangerously close to lying here. You state we simulate solar conditions on Earth to get fusion. We do not - not even close. Go check the darn facts associated with this. Different reactions with very different conditions.

Why will you not acknowledge this????????????????????

We can and do generate fusion reactions in the lab. If you can't handle that fact, it's no skin off my nose.

I have stated every single time we do generate fusion in lab. But it is NOT the fusion that occurs in the sun.

You are the one who cannot accept facts here.

Tell you what - post the typical conditions of fusion experiments on Earth and the reactions occurring - I will do the same for stellar fusion. If they are the same I will delete my CF account - will you do the same if you are wrong?

 

[Davian]

You are being disingenuous here. You keep saying we simulate solar core conditions on Earth (to bolster your "we do it in a lab" criteria). We do not. Fusion in a lab is nothing like fusion in a stellar core. The conditions are very different and the reactions occurring are not the same at all.

Solar fusion does not pass your "we can do it in a lab so it is real science" criteria. No amount of waffling by you can change this.

Either you have not understood what you have read about fusion research or you are deliberately being obtuse so as to maintain the "we can do it in lab therefore it is real science" position you want so as to criticise other science you don't like that we cannot do in a lab either.

I was reading some critiques on a physics board where they were discussing some of the concepts put forth by Michael. Paraphrasing, they said that it appears that where it may disprove his ideas, (Michael is using) 'arguments by press release'. That is, he is not using referencing original papers done by the scientists, but falling back on the press release, or worse, a public relations interpretation of that information.

In this case, he says we have 'fusion' on earth. That the scientific papers on it do not support scaling it to conditions in the sun does not concern him.

Here, he found an article with the word 'mature' in it, to support his argument that the cosmos is not expanding and it static. The full article and the paper published in the journal lend no support to his argument beyond having the word 'mature' in them.

He is not doing science.

 

[Michael]

I have stated every single time we do generate fusion in lab. But it is NOT the fusion that occurs in the sun.

And I have stated every single time that I don't care if the SAME EXACT KIND of "fusion" done EXACTLY the same way, it's still FUSION!

 

[Michael]

I was reading some critiques on a physics board where they were discussing some of the concepts put forth by Michael. Paraphrasing, they said that it appears that where it may disprove his ideas, (Michael is using) 'arguments by press release'. That is, he is not using referencing original papers done by the scientists, but falling back on the press release, or worse, a public relations interpretation of that information.

FYI, I typically start on message boards by citing the article (assuming there is one) first so anyone interested in a quick synopsis can get the relevant information quickly. Typically there are published papers associated with each and every one of the articles I have cited.

Here, he found an article with the word 'mature' in it, to support his argument that the cosmos is not expanding and it static. The full article and the paper published in the journal lend no support to his argument beyond having the word 'mature' in them.

He is not doing science.

I'm simply not conforming to your way of presenting science on message boards evidently.

Oh well.

 

[mkatzwork]

And I have stated every single time that I don't care if the SAME EXACT KIND of "fusion" done EXACTLY the same way, it's still FUSION!

So you "don't care" about basic accuracy. Great basis to work from. Good luck with that.

 

[NGC 6712]

And I have stated every single time that I don't care if the SAME EXACT KIND of "fusion" done EXACTLY the same way, it's still FUSION!

WOW !!!!! That sums it all up Michael - you don't care.

Not every single time Michael, go back and look at your earlier posts - you were saying that the fusion in a lab is like the solar fusion. Now you changed that to you don't care if it is the same. Talk about a backtrack.

You know darn well they are not the same if you have read anything about this topic.

You also know this invalidates your initial claim that fusion supported your "it must be in a lab to be science" argument.

Since solar fusion (conditions and reactions) are not possible in a lab then you must follow through and say it isn't science to be consistent.

But the overriding thing here is that you do not care - your own words.

 

[Michael]

WOW !!!!! That sums it all up Michael - you don't care.

Yep, it pretty much sums up my position alright.

Not every single time Michael, go back and look at your earlier posts - you were saying that the fusion in a lab is like the solar fusion. Now you changed that to you don't care if it is the same. Talk about a backtrack.

I said fusion occurs in the lab. Period. I didn't claim it was done EXACTLY one way or another. That's YOUR criteria, not mine.

You know darn well they are not the same if you have read anything about this topic.

Where did I claim they were *EXACTLY* the same? You have a bad habit of accusing me of things I never said!

You also know this invalidates your initial claim that fusion supported your "it must be in a lab to be science" argument.

Fusion reactions do occur in the lab, so your point is moot and your claim is false.

Since solar fusion (conditions and reactions) are not possible in a lab then you must follow through and say it isn't science to be consistent.

No, *I* don't. *I* allow for scaling. You're putting your own limitations in there now.

But the overriding thing here is that you do not care - your own words.

And I still don't care about YOUR personal criteria, just mine.

 

[NGC 6712]

It's still a bad analogy. When we DO simulate solar core conditions (similar temperature/pressure) fusion does occur. The sustainability aspect is simply a "scaling' issue at that point and all theories will require some amount of scaling.

So I take it you retract this earlier quote - I can find others on other threads where you say the same thing !!!!!

We do NOT simulate solar core conditions. The temperatures and pressures/densities are totally different. The fusion reactions are totally different. This is NOT a scaling issue.

You argument is akin to saying that since bumble bees and F22 Raptors both fly they are doing it in the same manner and it is just "scaling" - hogwash !!!!

 

[[serious]]

And I have stated every single time that I don't care if the SAME EXACT KIND of "fusion" done EXACTLY the same way, it's still FUSION!

But you care if it's not exactly the same kind of gravity carrying particle?

H-1 H-1 fusion hasn't been observed in the lab.
Gravitational forces of Dark matter haven't been observed in the lab.

H-1 H-1 fusion appears to be the main fusion in the sun. Similar, but different fusions have been shown in the lab. We know it's a different form of fusion than we see in the lab because we can measure how much deutrium and so forth is in the stars. Thus, we know fusion is happening, but we know it isn't the same fusion we see in the lab.
Gravitational forces due to dark matter appear to be the main gravitational force in observed galaxies. We know it isn't the same type of massive particle we see in the lab, because we can measure the absorption spectrum of non luminous particles and the luminosity of stars.

 

[Michael]

We do NOT simulate solar core conditions. The temperatures and pressures/densities are totally different.

We're increasing the temperature (as a core would do) and confining the plasma (as a core would do). You keep ignoring the fact they're adding heat and pressure to the mix and do in fact produce FUSION! As I've explained to you, I don't CARE about YOUR criteria, only mine. I'm satisfied that fusion reactions occur on Earth and release energy here on Earth. I therefore have no problem with someone theorizing that fusion occurs somewhere else in the universe and releases energy as a result of that process.

The fusion reactions are totally different.

So what? Fusion is fusion is fusion is fusion.

This is NOT a scaling issue.

It is a scaling issue. We CAN'T completely simulate the heat and confinement of a solar core, but we can add heat like a core adds heat and we can confine the plasma as a solar core might do. The fact they are "different" is in fact a limitation related to SCALING!

Like I've said many times now, I satisfied that fusion reactions can and do occur on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith' to believe they might happen somewhere else, perhaps on GREATER SCALES that are even possible to simulate here on Earth.

 

[Michael]

But you care if it's not exactly the same kind of gravity carrying particle?

No. I don't care if you want to use Newton's formulas to go to the moon, or GR theory, or some graviton based theoretical model if you like. Whatever floats your boat. I'm CERTAIN that gravity exists, and I don't particularly care how you wish to mathematically express it or use it. If however you expect me to believe that one of these methods is superior to the other, or that some PARTICLE is responsible, I'll expect some type of falsification mechanism and hopefully some "evidence' to support it.

H-1 H-1 fusion hasn't been observed in the lab.

But fusion reactions have been observed. That's good enough for me to accept it as a viable possible energy source.

Gravitational forces of Dark matter haven't been observed in the lab.

And I don't personally believe in any exotic brands of matter. IMO 'dark matter' is nothing more than mass in the plasma state the astronomers simply haven't found yet or identified yet.

H-1 H-1 fusion appears to be the main fusion in the sun. Similar, but different fusions have been shown in the lab. We know it's a different form of fusion than we see in the lab because we can measure how much deutrium and so forth is in the stars. Thus, we know fusion is happening, but we know it isn't the same fusion we see in the lab.

As long as you can demonstrate A type of fusion, I'm willing to let you propose other types too. You don't hear me complaining about and sort of fusion theory.

Gravitational forces due to dark matter appear to be the main gravitational force in observed galaxies. We know it isn't the same type of massive particle we see in the lab, because we can measure the absorption spectrum of non luminous particles and the luminosity of stars.

Somewhere around here I've posted links to recent published papers and articles that show that astronomers underestimated the mass of larger stars in galaxies, they underestimated (by a factor of 4) the number of 'smaller' suns we CANNOT see from a distance (like the larger ones) and they're 'predictions' related to exotic matter in our area of the Milky Way went up in smoke in just the last 4 years. PC theory doesn't even REQUIRES DM in the first place to explain galaxy mass layouts. Peratt's PIC experiments produced all sorts of structures that look and function like 'galaxies' with ordinary EM fields.

 

[Michael]

So you "don't care" about basic accuracy. Great basis to work from. Good luck with that.

Strawman. Good luck with that.

 

[NGC 6712]

We're increasing the temperature (as a core would do) and confining the plasma (as a core would do). You keep ignoring the fact they're adding heat and pressure to the mix and do in fact produce FUSION!

No this is not how a stellar core works. Man made fusion is using different reactions with very different conditions. We cannot do solar fusion in a lab!!!

As I've explained to you, I don't CARE about YOUR criteria, only mine. I'm satisfied that fusion reactions occur on Earth and release energy here on Earth. I therefore have no problem with someone theorizing that fusion occurs somewhere else in the universe and releases energy as a result of that process.

But the fusion in a lab is not the same. Your criteria are worthless here. The statements I have made are correct. You have painted yourself into a corner here based on your past posts (and you know it) and are now putting your fingers in your ear and chanting na na na na na. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

So what? Fusion is fusion is fusion is fusion.

No it is not.

It is a scaling issue. We CAN'T completely simulate the heat and confinement of a solar core, but we can add heat like a core adds heat and we can confine the plasma as a solar core might do. The fact they are "different" is in fact a limitation related to SCALING!

It is NOT a scaling issue. You evidently don't understand what scaling means. A scaling issue would be we perform fusion like the Sun and ramp up the conditions to increase the energy yield to a worthwhile level. But that is not what we do - we have to use different reactions in vastly different conditions - this is chalk and cheese.

Like I've said many times now, I satisfied that fusion reactions can and do occur on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith' to believe they might happen somewhere else, perhaps on GREATER SCALES that are even possible to simulate here on Earth.

But they are NOT the same reactions - this argument of yours is meaningless. The solar fusion reactions are useless in a lab.

 

[Michael]

No this is not how a stellar core works.

So a solar core is not hot, or it doesn't confine the plasma, which one?

 

[Michael]

Double post.

 

[NGC 6712]

So a solar core is not hot, or it doesn't confine the plasma, which one?

It's not hot compared to fusion experiments (in fact it is quite cold). And the plasma is not confined in the sense of a fusion experiment which has much lower densities.

 

[Michael]

It's not hot compared to fusion experiments. And the plasma is not confined in the sense of a fusion experiment which has much lower densities.

You're really avoiding the fact that we are adding two primary features to the plasma to produce fusion, heat and confinement as any solar core would produce heat, confinement and thereby produce FUSION!

The lack of confinement is our BIGGEST problem in terms of creating sustained fusion, and that *IS* a "scaling" problem related to living on Earth.