Her grabbing hand gestures made it look like she was continually grabbing her breasts--not the orbs--however wonderful--that I need to study for my class.
The Sun is located inside the inner-arm of the Milky Way galaxy. It's15,000 light years from the galactic center and not part of a major spiraling arm. It's unclear how the sun moves about in space. If galactic centers are twirling stars in a spiral direction, the sun must also be moving in a spiral direction. Whether it moves about on its own, on its axis, is unknown.
The distances in space is just mind-boggling to me. Our solar system is vast and huge, however, when you consider that it's a part of the Milky Way, it's just a small part of an enormously vast galaxy... which in itself is just a very small part of the universe.
It's kinda funny... I'm studying to become a scientist. And when she asks - "why do scientists want to explore the solar system?" I do agree with all the sensible things she says. But to be quite honest, my base and honest answer is "Because it's COOL!"
@fertilizerspike What an apt screen name. Why don't you go stick yourself in the ground somewhere and feed a plant? At least that way you'd be doing the world some good. You make moronic assertions for which you have NO evidence, and then get offended when people point out that you're just plain WRONG!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That's what Trolls do.
LOL...I know I shouldn't feed you, Mr. Troll...but you are just too stooopid to resist!
THE LORD OF THE RINGS ONLINE™ WILL BE FREE TO PLAY STARTING SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 :: "we can’t wait to welcome millions of new players to Middle-earth! ,play one of the world’s best online games"
Seriously, are you stuck in a loop? Stop repeating yourself and point to actual publications! Also stop saying we can find the evidence ourselves, all i can find on scholar/google were the basic "WE HAVE TRUTH" (but no proof) sites without any factual evidence whatsoever..
I've given you many lines of evidence that support the claims I've made, it's up to you to verify them for yourself. I can't force you to learn. I can lead a horse's ass to water but I can not make one drink.
You don't give 'lines' as evidence, you refer to published research papers instead.
I tried finding those at university database aswell as on scholar/google related to the subject, strangely nothing turns up, i bet you're going to tell me i don't know how to spell?
Anyway, i don't want to turn this into a flamewar, my point is made, come up with real references or don't say anything at all.
Thats how science works, you log and publish your work.
I've given you many lines of evidence to research, it's up to you to actually research it. If you need me to repeat some of it (again), just tell me what claims I've made that you'd like me to explore further. I'll be more than happy to go over the evidence again for you, in as much detail as you need so that you can understand it.
You seem peculiarly fixated on "published papers". Publication is not part of the scientific method. While it's comforting to simply assume that any published paper is valid, history has shown that peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science, and empirical study has shown peer review does more harm than good, reinforcing common bias and error, failing to catch deliberate and glaring errors, and rejecting valid papers when "credentialism" is controlled out.
I think you just made it clear to everybody that you're either not a scientist, or don't understand anything about how it works to begin with.
We don't need papers to tell us whats true, we need them to verify the research process, find errors in the methods, assumptions, and interpretation of the results etc etc.
I doubt you'll come around and show us what 'study' shows that peer harms science in general. I guess thats for us to find out?
I think you've made it clear to everybody that you're a smarmy little prick.
The "peer review" process is an irrelevant political process that only hinders the progress of science, it does not help. Empirical studies have shown that "peer review" reinforces common bias and error and fails to catch deliberate error and generally rejects even valid, previously published information when it lacks "credentials". Do your own research on "peer review", you'll find abundant criticism of it.
"Empirical studies have shown that "peer review" ... fails to catch deliberate error ..."
Another flat out lie, luckily for you i stopped counting at 10. Nobody claims peer review is perfect, least of all scientists, that's why they evaluate it in reports that simpletons like you can then twist to say it's useless. You're like a living crank talking point machine man, excuses left and right, lies to hide incompetence, and dead silence on points where you get challenged.
Empirical studies show that "peer review" is detrimental to the progress of science, not beneficial. It is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. Objective research shows again and again that "peer review" reinforces common error and bias, fails to identify deliberate error and routinely rejects previously published material when it is stripped of its "credentials".
You can count on me correcting your errors whenever I see you make them.
I know the research you're referring to, and I'm afraid it just confirms again that your giving your own biased interpretation to what it actually says and means in the real world.
You can pretend to go around correcting people to satisfy the paranoia in your head, but in the mean time, peer review is still a very useful component of research. None of your complaints about peer review address the problem that there is no credible research to establish your pet crank theories.
You can baldly make the claim all day long that everything I say is wrong, it won't cut any ice with me.
The data is in, peer review is not only worthless, it's detrimental to the progress of science, and it is not part of the scientific method, therefore not part of science.
I haven't complained about peer review, just noted repeatedly that is does absolutely no good and impedes scientific progress. Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease.
"You can baldly make the claim all day long that everything I say is wrong,"
The problem here is that i never said that. You paranoia is taking over again.
"Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease."
Yea, i hear that often from cranks without any actual knowledge of the subjects they try to debate. Yet, credentials still matter, just like peer review still matters, And it does for you too, because you won't go to a car mechanic to get tips on knitting either.
It's not a problem at all, because you have implied it, here and in other comments sections. Don't project your paranoia onto me. You keep bringing up paranoia, clearly you're fixated on it.
Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease. Credentials don't ensure valid information. Credentials are not required to do science. Notoriety among the ignorant masses is no substitute for scientific rigor. Peer review is an irrelevant political process.
@fertilizerspike Bullshit. Peer review is the only thing that keeps science accurate and in constant check. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it is simply wrong.
Paranoia keeps coming up because you keep displaying it. It's really that simple.
I'm not sure what you think you did with your second paragraph here, but there's FOUR non sequiturs in a row and one blatant, obvious and demonstrable lie there.
What's your beef with science? Why do you feel the need to make up some version of science of your own that suits you crank ideas better? Science seems pretty fucking successful as it is, and you know it is, since you're not starving.
@fertilizerspike Okay, I'll bite. What would you suggest as a replacement of peer review? I'm not trolling, I'm asking a SERIOUS question and would honestly like to know what you would replace peer review with.
Here is a quote from a document that outlines just a few of the many problems of "peer review":
"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."
I assume it was peer review that in the end found that something was wrong with the publications...? Or did the original writer come out and say "Hah! I scammed you all!"?
Ofcourse there's criticism about peer review, but thats more of a practical (lack of time, resources, data) thing then the principle of the system itself. How would you suggest to validate research? I assume we both agree we need verification on the process and findings...?
You know what they say about assumption, it's the mother of all fuckups.
The problems of peer review are never going to be solved by peer review. The problems of peer review were revealed by scientists making observations, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses by using controlled experiments, you know, performing actual science, not peer review. Experiments support the notion that peer review is a biased, error-prone mechanism that can not detect fraud or eliminate error.
@kwukduck Moreover "the evidence is out there, seek and you will find" is an intellectually bankrupt position that is indistinguishable from ANY other wild claims: from UFOs, to flat earths, to tectonic plate denial, to creationism, to Zeus-theists, to magic-dragon-in-my-back-yard-ers. Most of the people reading the comments are (rightfully so) simply laughing at fertilizerspike for holding such an inane assertion-based evidence-less position.
@geniusjas87 that is all you have got? you know I feel sorry for you, a person who hasnt better work to do than insulting people, but thanks this is quite entertaining, I was a little bored
@biozamadotcom I don't know about that. But by 2012 a star from space is gonna shoot from space and penetrate the earths atmosphere fall right on you and blow your fucking head of for being retarded enough to ask that stupid question.
Lol, I love how recent high school graduates use their fresh knowledge of astronomical cosmology to try and disprove the other. Quite the show, indeed!
for millennia of solar flares, so as you analyze these images since the time these atmospheric perturbations in the earth and a human cause before the creation of our earth Oceanic No, was not salty it would have to wait another big bang was a reaction thermounucleaire sepctre off the moment they discovered the, anti matter plasma
i find it dubious when European names are credited with the discovery of anything especially when one considers the constant destruction of foreign knowledge that was contrary to Christian doctrine throughout European expansion and social evolution... whether it were Asian Latin American Arabic or African knowledge the sources were always suppressed absorbed or destroyed...
It is great that we have moved past those superiority complexes which have hindered human progression for thousands of yrs
@ProjectDecade how can you not go within a set distance of the sun for example? its gravity extends all the way to the farthers planet and beyond, we' ll be needing to have the engine thrusters on on a spaceship the whole time to just win over the suns pull, or we just fall back and ultimately crash on it. also, even if we break away from suns gravity, we' ll still be pulled by the masive gravitational force of the black hole in the galactic center. we can never navigate where we want to go.
@M0THERKN0WSBEST: Makemake is also known as 2005FY9 - which name do you prefer? Makemake is the name of the chief diety on the original religion of Rapanui (aka Easter Island). Take your complaints to the IAU; they'll know what to do with them. :)
@puncheex So, I was mistakenly pronouncing or spelling the E for an I? ... sounds less Hawiian anyhow, but what pray tell is the IAU ( and pardon me if its a dumb question, but I havent quite woken up yet )
@M0THERKN0WSBEST: The IAU (International Union of Astronomers) is the international body which sets the names of all objects beyond Earth: planets, craters, moons, mountains, valleys, stars, etc.
As for the spelling, that is the correct spelling. I didn't correct yours; I merely used the correct one. It is Polynesian, but a very old form, as Easter Island was out of touch for at least several hundred years after they used all the trees and had no boat materials.
This was interesting. I found the speaker's tendency to talk with her hands distracting, but other than that, well done! Often in narrated documentaries where the narrator is visible, they have to be coached to keep their hands still, so I don't fault Ms. Barnes. She probably hasn't received the proper coaching.
@PlasteredDragon: I think, in this case, that most people find it rather charming and come back to see it. She's been doing these broadcasts for a rather longish time, and remarks like yours follow her around like little fish.
@puncheex I wouldn't deign to speak for "most people", nor would I belittle the remarks of others. You seem to have mistaken my opinion for some sort of personal attack on the narrator. I've been watching these videos for awhile now too, and I think they are wonderful, but nothing is above critique, and my intent is to be helpful.
@PlasteredDragon: Nor was I making a personal attack on you. I was pointing out that she has been narrating ESA shows for perhaps four years, and everyone has comments about her hands on them, and many about her clothes. AFAICT, she has ignored them all and carries on. I find her refreshing after all the stilted talking heads one normally sees.
shes pretty and her accent is hot. and im not sexist.....i listened 2 every word she said so dont reply 2 this by saying "yeah, u think shes hot, but did u listen 2 what she had 2 say"? the answer is yes, i watched the whole thing and i listened 2 every word. that being said, isn't she gorgious?
Could you have found a less attractive woman with a worse fashion sence. With those manly paws you would think she would keep them down at her sides or behind her back naturally. And I've seen used car dealer ad's where the speaker put less "sell" into the material.
@ProjectDecade I've tried comprehending them and the sizes + distances in space and each time I feel like I'll go mad. My mind is way too weak to fully grasp the scale we're talking about here.... and then I feel really stupid. Well, at least I'm not a creationist. :D
Scientists estimate that Voyager 1 - the most distant man-made object from Earth - will reach heliopause in 2015. It is already giving us information about outer regions of the solar system.
2:43 was the solar system a cloud or nebula of gas and dust or one locale of the previously generalized, a large area of gas and dust? The former doesn't make any sense because the latter would result in denser areas and the formation of the solar system.
Can they get somebody who can pronounce solar system and neighborhood properly. Also who sticky taped 2 black Caterpillar's to this poor womans eyebrows.
@myjizzureye I never knew you were the High Commissioner of pronounciation. Please quote from the manual where it states the contruary of her vernacular.
@HAVEAKITKAT The word I think you are trying for is contrary. Sargent first class of annunciation and obtuse infections would be a more accurate description. A simpleton with a thesaurus might be a good one for you.
A decent command of the English lexicon is one thing but knowing how to use it is another and when you dont it stands out like a dogs...
Its transparently obvious one of us is trying a might hard to sound clever, shall leave it to the viewers to discern who that might be (^.o)
@myjizzureye: *Giggle* Oh, you really didn't mean that, did you? "Sargent first class of annunciation and obtuse infections" is a phrase fraught with such misspellings, religious implications, misapplication of adjectives and malapropism as to have to have been a veritable singing sword of your sarcasm. As a stalwart of the art of vocabulary arts, I salute you!!
Comets are also not a "record of the solar system's history". They are not the residue of some primordial "planetary nebulae". Many direct observations and samples of comets show compounds that do NOT form in bitterly cold temperatures but in fact require high pressures caused by "z pinch" effects of electric arcs.
The "oort cloud" is another hypothetical and unnecessary construct. Neither it nor "kuiper belt" are needed to explain anything we see in the solar system. We do not need to imagine a "deep freeze" in the solar system where comets lie. Comets are not made of ice or "volatiles", direct observation of comets shows clearly that they are rocks. They flare electrically, not from ice sublimation from solar heating.
This video also states that "gravity" of the sun binds the planets in their orbits. That is not the case. The motion of the planets around the sun is driven by electric currents in space.
The video also states planets like Jupiter and Saturn have "no solid surface", which is another glaring error. All the so-called "gas giant" planets are huge rocky bodies with dense atmospheres.
Also, the "kuiper belt" is a purely hypothetical and unnecessary construct. It's not needed to explain comets.
You're the one who's simply wrong here. Experiments have verified that charged bodies in plasma interacting electrically ignore "gravity", they are dominated by electromagnetic forces. This is not theory, it's verified in plasma labs routinely, and has been for about a century. The sun and planets share electrical connections, they are charged bodies in plasma, thus they ignore "gravity". Using "gravity" models to derive masses produces specious numbers. The universe is electric.
@fertilizerspike What's more likely, that every ship sent successfully to the Moon, Mars and comets got to their target by an absurd chance, or that their trajectories were carefully planned and calculated by scientists using GRAVITY forces?
Vehicles sent into space don't obey "gravity", check into the "pioneer anomaly" if you think they do. That attraction in the universe exists is undeniable. That this attraction is caused by "gravity" is speculative and hypothetical. This "gravity" is tied only metaphysically to reality. There is no known way to generate, amplify, block or manipulate "gravity" in any fashion. That suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.
The "pioneer anomaly" testifies against "gravity" models. Period. Inventing "other forces" is a favorite pastime of astronogers. Occam's razor suggests this is wrong-headed.
"Gravity" is tied only metaphysically to reality. Attraction is measurable. Electric and magnetic forces can be generated, amplified, blocked and manipulated. "Gravity" can not. Electromagnetic forces are real, "gravity" is a colossal misunderstanding that impedes scientific progress. The universe is electric.
The "pioneer anomaly" testifies against "gravity" models. Period. Inventing "other forces" is a favorite pastime of astronogers.
It testifies against either gravity being the sole force or against our current description of gravity. Period.
As for answering your irrelevant question about what is "more likely", you might just as well forget it. What's "likely" is not nearly as important as what "is".
As for answering your irrelevant question about what is "more likely", you might just as well forget it. What's "likely" is not nearly as important as what "is". "Gravity" is a philosophical concept tied in no way to matter other than metaphysically. It can not be generated, amplified, blocked or manipulated in any fashion. This suggests quite strongly that it is fictional. "Gravity" models routinely fail: shape and motion of galaxies, derived mass of planets, etcetera
@fertilizerspike uhm... how about the bigger the celestial body the higher gravity it upholds. The actual gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That's an extremely small number which accounts for the fact that we can not effectively generate it... we need mass for gravity... lots and lots of mass to create an acceleration like the Earths....
The Pioneer anomaly is from a slight imperfection in the equations. In the medium ranges of the solar-system (Venus out to around Uranus) the equations line up. But at the extremes the equations begin to diverge slightly. This can be seen at the pioneer probe going out. We have however fixed the equation for gravity in the other extreme (close to sun), this makes us capable with great accuracy to send a probe in orbit around Mercury (the MESSENGER probe).
"Gravity" models have been used to erroneously derive masses for the sun and planets. The observed orbits are plugged into "gravity" models, which spit out mass numbers. In nearly every case these numbers are stupidly implausible. For example, the so derived mass of the sun indicates it is a ball of gas. We know from direct observation the sun is essentially a solid rock. "Gravity" is wrong, the universe as a whole generally ignores it and is dominated by electromagnetic forces.
@fertilizerspike lol the sun isn't rock. It is a dense mass in one of the 7 states of matter, plasma to be exact. It is a gigantic ball of nuclear explosions cause by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This fusion happens due to extreme pressure inside the sun's core, this pressure is caused by... gravity!!!!
Yes, the sun is a rock. TRACE, SOHO and other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond any doubt, the sun has a rigid surface that is primarily calcium-rich and iron-rich rock. The sun is not powered internally by fusion. It is lit electrically. It is not a ball of gas self-compressing. Gases don't self-compress, they expand to fill available space. You are right about it being plasma, though.
@fertilizerspike No, It being a plasma means it is not a rock firstly. Secondly, it is not a GASS ether. Gasses do expand but the sun is not in the gaseous state... plasma.... again.
Plasma is just ionized (charged) matter. Rock can be ionized. So can metal. So can solutions in water. So can the diffuse "gas" in a fluorescent light tube. The sun is definitely not gaseous, nor is it diffuse, as "gravity" models suggest. The sun's density is approximately the same as rock...because it's a rock. Just like the Earth is a rock. Just like the moon is a rock. Just like Jupiter is a rock. Rock appears to be the most stable substance in the solar system.
@fertilizerspike Density can be the same as a rock as long as the attraction between the particles makes them pack tightly enough AND the heat from this tight packing causes nuclear fusion keeping the temperature high enough for the matter to remain in the plasma state. Also, suns are not stable like "giant rocks", they explode into super novas... and implode into black wholes (theoretically). The sun is actually much denser than a rock btw, its massive size + gravity ensure so.
The problem with your "explanation" here is that the sun is not powered internally by fusion, it is powered externally by electric currents in space. The "temperature" of the sun is all but irrelevant to its energy output. The sun's (and all stars') output is determined solely by electric current density at the surface. It is not "heat" and "temperature" that ionize matter, it is electricity.
Black hole is a preposterous fiction. Also, stars do not "explode" into "super novas".
after 10 billion years, sun will explode!(supernova)
henson506 1 month ago
@henson506 this will happen after our time...
123ebeth 1 week ago
Her grabbing hand gestures made it look like she was continually grabbing her breasts--not the orbs--however wonderful--that I need to study for my class.
NestoriusAlpha 1 month ago
this is so interesting
andreeaweed 1 month ago
I'm glad I found your video
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great video
andreeaweed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this video!
TheSanovita 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great video
andreeaweed 2 months ago
Very Cool Vishual video, Thanks for shared
Spasatcom 2 months ago
like it
jayUK2009 2 months ago
Good Video!! Thanks for shared.
directorygod 2 months ago
Cool Video!!
ngeliatduit 2 months ago
admirable
MyDavidsun 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Sun is located inside the inner-arm of the Milky Way galaxy. It's15,000 light years from the galactic center and not part of a major spiraling arm. It's unclear how the sun moves about in space. If galactic centers are twirling stars in a spiral direction, the sun must also be moving in a spiral direction. Whether it moves about on its own, on its axis, is unknown.
heartlessvietboy 3 months ago
Thank you for this video.
hallucination22 5 months ago
informative and beautiful video
thanks for the uploading .
mnightsky 7 months ago
@MrHossen1223
no it not
her name is rebecca barnes and justin bieber mother name is Pattie Mallette
MusicLoveLifeStuff 11 months ago
Great Video! She is Justin Bieber's mother!
MrHossen1223 1 year ago
The distances in space is just mind-boggling to me. Our solar system is vast and huge, however, when you consider that it's a part of the Milky Way, it's just a small part of an enormously vast galaxy... which in itself is just a very small part of the universe.
kljMN2 1 year ago
Would somebody, please point to where Heaven is? (LOL) Please, you religious nut jobs, this is whats real. Get with the program.
gettingolder2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, check out this video of fertilizerspike!
watch?v=x9gN2hdybFY
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
It's kinda funny... I'm studying to become a scientist. And when she asks - "why do scientists want to explore the solar system?" I do agree with all the sensible things she says. But to be quite honest, my base and honest answer is "Because it's COOL!"
Somehow I've always felt that to be enough.
Scurmicurv 1 year ago 2
Fertilizerspike= Manurespike= Shitspike!! ;-P
kannonshot 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike What an apt screen name. Why don't you go stick yourself in the ground somewhere and feed a plant? At least that way you'd be doing the world some good. You make moronic assertions for which you have NO evidence, and then get offended when people point out that you're just plain WRONG!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That's what Trolls do.
LOL...I know I shouldn't feed you, Mr. Troll...but you are just too stooopid to resist!
lenbartz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An alternative to "gravity" driven cosmology can be found here:
plasma-universe (dot) com
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This is the sexiest voice I have ever heard. Not to mention she is hot and has a cute face. And, above all, talking of science. Perfect marriage.
jvictorthegreat 1 year ago
I wish the narrators wouldn't talk so slow... they put me to sleep.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
... 1:50 and then the church silenced the early scientists by death or imprisonment...
Kargoneth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNER BROS. INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES
THE LORD OF THE RINGS ONLINE™ WILL BE FREE TO PLAY STARTING SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 :: "we can’t wait to welcome millions of new players to Middle-earth! ,play one of the world’s best online games"
kloakenskansen 1 year ago
4.4 b
firewallx 1 year ago
Hot damn Rebeca Bonds is a hottie EARTH GIRLS ROCK
Zoroasterrrr 1 year ago 4
@Zoroasterrrr Sorry, but i oppened mi notepad to drag it over her face, so i dont see her gestures
lokoxxxxx 1 year ago
@lokoxxxxx So what you are saying is you hate her. No shortage of aholes online I see..
Zoroasterrrr 1 year ago 2
@Zoroasterrrr i hate her gestures, im interested in facts, not in her, and she is not hot,thats all i say
lokoxxxxx 1 year ago
@lokoxxxxx well you obviously have shirty taste
Zoroasterrrr 1 year ago
@Zoroasterrrr no, i just like nice vomans, not this:-)
lokoxxxxx 1 year ago
vheck out odendahlt
odendahlt 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Seriously, are you stuck in a loop? Stop repeating yourself and point to actual publications! Also stop saying we can find the evidence ourselves, all i can find on scholar/google were the basic "WE HAVE TRUTH" (but no proof) sites without any factual evidence whatsoever..
kwukduck 1 year ago
@kwukduck please share information with me if he actually does show it
jnthnbush 1 year ago
@kwukduck
I've given you many lines of evidence that support the claims I've made, it's up to you to verify them for yourself. I can't force you to learn. I can lead a horse's ass to water but I can not make one drink.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You don't give 'lines' as evidence, you refer to published research papers instead.
I tried finding those at university database aswell as on scholar/google related to the subject, strangely nothing turns up, i bet you're going to tell me i don't know how to spell?
Anyway, i don't want to turn this into a flamewar, my point is made, come up with real references or don't say anything at all.
Thats how science works, you log and publish your work.
kwukduck 1 year ago
@kwukduck
I've given you many lines of evidence to research, it's up to you to actually research it. If you need me to repeat some of it (again), just tell me what claims I've made that you'd like me to explore further. I'll be more than happy to go over the evidence again for you, in as much detail as you need so that you can understand it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@kwukduck
You seem peculiarly fixated on "published papers". Publication is not part of the scientific method. While it's comforting to simply assume that any published paper is valid, history has shown that peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science, and empirical study has shown peer review does more harm than good, reinforcing common bias and error, failing to catch deliberate and glaring errors, and rejecting valid papers when "credentialism" is controlled out.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I think you just made it clear to everybody that you're either not a scientist, or don't understand anything about how it works to begin with.
We don't need papers to tell us whats true, we need them to verify the research process, find errors in the methods, assumptions, and interpretation of the results etc etc.
I doubt you'll come around and show us what 'study' shows that peer harms science in general. I guess thats for us to find out?
kwukduck 1 year ago
@kwukduck
I think you've made it clear to everybody that you're a smarmy little prick.
The "peer review" process is an irrelevant political process that only hinders the progress of science, it does not help. Empirical studies have shown that "peer review" reinforces common bias and error and fails to catch deliberate error and generally rejects even valid, previously published information when it lacks "credentials". Do your own research on "peer review", you'll find abundant criticism of it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"Empirical studies have shown that "peer review" ... fails to catch deliberate error ..."
Another flat out lie, luckily for you i stopped counting at 10. Nobody claims peer review is perfect, least of all scientists, that's why they evaluate it in reports that simpletons like you can then twist to say it's useless. You're like a living crank talking point machine man, excuses left and right, lies to hide incompetence, and dead silence on points where you get challenged.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 4
@Rhine0Cowboy
Empirical studies show that "peer review" is detrimental to the progress of science, not beneficial. It is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. Objective research shows again and again that "peer review" reinforces common error and bias, fails to identify deliberate error and routinely rejects previously published material when it is stripped of its "credentials".
You can count on me correcting your errors whenever I see you make them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I know the research you're referring to, and I'm afraid it just confirms again that your giving your own biased interpretation to what it actually says and means in the real world.
You can pretend to go around correcting people to satisfy the paranoia in your head, but in the mean time, peer review is still a very useful component of research. None of your complaints about peer review address the problem that there is no credible research to establish your pet crank theories.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 4
@Rhine0Cowboy
You can baldly make the claim all day long that everything I say is wrong, it won't cut any ice with me.
The data is in, peer review is not only worthless, it's detrimental to the progress of science, and it is not part of the scientific method, therefore not part of science.
I haven't complained about peer review, just noted repeatedly that is does absolutely no good and impedes scientific progress. Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"You can baldly make the claim all day long that everything I say is wrong,"
The problem here is that i never said that. You paranoia is taking over again.
"Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease."
Yea, i hear that often from cranks without any actual knowledge of the subjects they try to debate. Yet, credentials still matter, just like peer review still matters, And it does for you too, because you won't go to a car mechanic to get tips on knitting either.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
It's not a problem at all, because you have implied it, here and in other comments sections. Don't project your paranoia onto me. You keep bringing up paranoia, clearly you're fixated on it.
Credentialism is a cultural and institutional disease. Credentials don't ensure valid information. Credentials are not required to do science. Notoriety among the ignorant masses is no substitute for scientific rigor. Peer review is an irrelevant political process.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Bullshit. Peer review is the only thing that keeps science accurate and in constant check. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it is simply wrong.
oexnorth 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Paranoia keeps coming up because you keep displaying it. It's really that simple.
I'm not sure what you think you did with your second paragraph here, but there's FOUR non sequiturs in a row and one blatant, obvious and demonstrable lie there.
What's your beef with science? Why do you feel the need to make up some version of science of your own that suits you crank ideas better? Science seems pretty fucking successful as it is, and you know it is, since you're not starving.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 5
@fertilizerspike Okay, I'll bite. What would you suggest as a replacement of peer review? I'm not trolling, I'm asking a SERIOUS question and would honestly like to know what you would replace peer review with.
ElvisKnucklehead 1 year ago
@kwukduck
Here is a quote from a document that outlines just a few of the many problems of "peer review":
"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I assume it was peer review that in the end found that something was wrong with the publications...? Or did the original writer come out and say "Hah! I scammed you all!"?
Ofcourse there's criticism about peer review, but thats more of a practical (lack of time, resources, data) thing then the principle of the system itself. How would you suggest to validate research? I assume we both agree we need verification on the process and findings...?
kwukduck 1 year ago
@kwukduck
You know what they say about assumption, it's the mother of all fuckups.
The problems of peer review are never going to be solved by peer review. The problems of peer review were revealed by scientists making observations, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses by using controlled experiments, you know, performing actual science, not peer review. Experiments support the notion that peer review is a biased, error-prone mechanism that can not detect fraud or eliminate error.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@kwukduck Moreover "the evidence is out there, seek and you will find" is an intellectually bankrupt position that is indistinguishable from ANY other wild claims: from UFOs, to flat earths, to tectonic plate denial, to creationism, to Zeus-theists, to magic-dragon-in-my-back-yard-ers. Most of the people reading the comments are (rightfully so) simply laughing at fertilizerspike for holding such an inane assertion-based evidence-less position.
borrofburi 1 year ago 14
I likeher Elfish style
superfisto 1 year ago
@xoxkillers
1 - im not writing to you
2 - yes, im a troll, and..? what u going to do? cry all the night..? call the police..? :) go and f. some doll, kid :)
hahahahahahah!
2plus2to5 1 year ago
I bet you could see her eyebrows from space!
Pluck those brows baby
adamlee007 1 year ago
@adamlee007 lmfao XD ya you're totally right.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
Нам всем пиздец !
Westfak 1 year ago
Is that just me or they didnt say anything new and all??
Ferbbie 1 year ago
@Ferbbie Well thats because you're a fucking nerd
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 sorry, but by insulting me you just have made you looking as an idiot....congrats
Ferbbie 1 year ago
@Ferbbie Whatever you say nerd. Now go read a book about how to not be a loser.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 you mean that one you have read? well, I should better listen to the master
Ferbbie 1 year ago
@Ferbbie Lmao on the stupidedst nerdy comback of all time... hahahaha you FAIL sir.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 that is all you have got? you know I feel sorry for you, a person who hasnt better work to do than insulting people, but thanks this is quite entertaining, I was a little bored
Ferbbie 1 year ago
@Ferbbie You know whats more entertaining? Watching you FAIL at life.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 let me say "sir" that you know a shit about my life, but I am starting to get a picture about yours
Ferbbie 1 year ago
@Ferbbie Okay seriously quit wasting my time. Ive wasted enough time on you. Good luck getting a life. See ya.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87 hope not....and put this conversation on your list of "Things I totally balled up"
Ferbbie 1 year ago
when are we able to find a new planet so that our species can live on
because when the sun dies we die
Shotoran 1 year ago
are we all going to perish 2012?
biozamadotcom 1 year ago
@biozamadotcom I don't know about that. But by 2012 a star from space is gonna shoot from space and penetrate the earths atmosphere fall right on you and blow your fucking head of for being retarded enough to ask that stupid question.
geniusjas87 1 year ago
@geniusjas87
Is 2012 really the end of us and the world?
biozamadotcom 1 year ago
@biozamadotcom no. its just a show money maker.
aLTeC87 1 year ago
Using science and reason for social concern will lead us to sustainability, and abundant capabilities.
silversobe 1 year ago
Whats That in the sky! is it a bird! is it a Plane! No Its...Chuck Norris in a spaceship 0_0
vireak209 1 year ago
Lol, I love how recent high school graduates use their fresh knowledge of astronomical cosmology to try and disprove the other. Quite the show, indeed!
bergy305 1 year ago
her hair is good for blowjobs because very seldom should it get in the way
CombustTheChronic 1 year ago
Very good and very educational
MCProductions 1 year ago
she talks with her hands way too much it's distracting...
janboogy 1 year ago
She looks like brezhnev xD
warkarma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAKE!
the solar system is god...and the black hole is god black hole...
...the bibble say to suck dicks....so guess i should get busy
REDTEAM22003 1 year ago
@REDTEAM22003 Задрали вы уже весь мир со своим Исламским богом нет его и не было
Ratibor999 1 year ago
Comment removed
REDTEAM22003 1 year ago
Amazing graphics during the forming of our solar system part
BFDK 1 year ago
for millennia of solar flares, so as you analyze these images since the time these atmospheric perturbations in the earth and a human cause before the creation of our earth Oceanic No, was not salty it would have to wait another big bang was a reaction thermounucleaire sepctre off the moment they discovered the, anti matter plasma
shawnee2014 1 year ago
#LOL Mainstream science is such bullshit.
detubator 1 year ago
i find it dubious when European names are credited with the discovery of anything especially when one considers the constant destruction of foreign knowledge that was contrary to Christian doctrine throughout European expansion and social evolution... whether it were Asian Latin American Arabic or African knowledge the sources were always suppressed absorbed or destroyed...
It is great that we have moved past those superiority complexes which have hindered human progression for thousands of yrs
Th3Wab3 1 year ago 3
@Th3Wab3
I agree
excepto94 1 year ago
Pause at 1:14-1:15...she's reading my mind.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago 2
"of the Meelkeey wey"
HAHA! this dudes voice is retarded XD
winterXphoenix 1 year ago
hmmm I'd tap dat
Diarmuidp07 1 year ago
You dont mention "Ahad's sphere", do you? A key thing to do with the sun and the solar system!
duchevellas 1 year ago
Superb graphics, and Rebecca Barnes is gorgeous too.
BBMix 1 year ago 2
There is no such thing as gravity. The Earth sucks.
ladydigger 1 year ago 2
She has man hands.
LBTennis 1 year ago
cool vid! shes hot! :)
2plus2to5 1 year ago
Great video. What formed the dust cloud that is our solar system?
sk8progression 1 year ago
@ProjectDecade how can you not go within a set distance of the sun for example? its gravity extends all the way to the farthers planet and beyond, we' ll be needing to have the engine thrusters on on a spaceship the whole time to just win over the suns pull, or we just fall back and ultimately crash on it. also, even if we break away from suns gravity, we' ll still be pulled by the masive gravitational force of the black hole in the galactic center. we can never navigate where we want to go.
6SpAr6TAN69 1 year ago
she is hot,,,great combo hot and smart :D
botlight 1 year ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but i thought that pluto wasn't a planet but a moon.
pancakesmasher102 1 year ago
@pancakesmasher102
Pluto is a dwarf planet. Some might call it a binary dwarf planet because of it's large moon.
jxvwp 1 year ago
Suns are sexy.
d3st88 1 year ago
At 1:28 Copernicus was like "HOLY SHIT! I'M SURROUNDED BY MORONS ON THE INTERWEBZ!"
TheBenEEeee 1 year ago
jade goody...?
I can't tell, you humans are all alike to me
natmanprime 1 year ago
Maki Maki ??? sounds more like a tropical drink than a planet, ... never heard of it before, ... which bartender discovered and named that one!?
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
@M0THERKN0WSBEST: Makemake is also known as 2005FY9 - which name do you prefer? Makemake is the name of the chief diety on the original religion of Rapanui (aka Easter Island). Take your complaints to the IAU; they'll know what to do with them. :)
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex So, I was mistakenly pronouncing or spelling the E for an I? ... sounds less Hawiian anyhow, but what pray tell is the IAU ( and pardon me if its a dumb question, but I havent quite woken up yet )
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
@M0THERKN0WSBEST: The IAU (International Union of Astronomers) is the international body which sets the names of all objects beyond Earth: planets, craters, moons, mountains, valleys, stars, etc.
As for the spelling, that is the correct spelling. I didn't correct yours; I merely used the correct one. It is Polynesian, but a very old form, as Easter Island was out of touch for at least several hundred years after they used all the trees and had no boat materials.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Well kind Sir / person, I thank you for taking the time ... : )
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
This was interesting. I found the speaker's tendency to talk with her hands distracting, but other than that, well done! Often in narrated documentaries where the narrator is visible, they have to be coached to keep their hands still, so I don't fault Ms. Barnes. She probably hasn't received the proper coaching.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon: I think, in this case, that most people find it rather charming and come back to see it. She's been doing these broadcasts for a rather longish time, and remarks like yours follow her around like little fish.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I wouldn't deign to speak for "most people", nor would I belittle the remarks of others. You seem to have mistaken my opinion for some sort of personal attack on the narrator. I've been watching these videos for awhile now too, and I think they are wonderful, but nothing is above critique, and my intent is to be helpful.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon: Nor was I making a personal attack on you. I was pointing out that she has been narrating ESA shows for perhaps four years, and everyone has comments about her hands on them, and many about her clothes. AFAICT, she has ignored them all and carries on. I find her refreshing after all the stilted talking heads one normally sees.
puncheex 1 year ago
Have you ever noticed something that you can't not notice after. I want tto tell her to stop moving her head like that. Geeze. lol
derman077 1 year ago
magnificent
Ultra4 1 year ago
shes pretty and her accent is hot. and im not sexist.....i listened 2 every word she said so dont reply 2 this by saying "yeah, u think shes hot, but did u listen 2 what she had 2 say"? the answer is yes, i watched the whole thing and i listened 2 every word. that being said, isn't she gorgious?
FuckJeffG0ldblum 1 year ago
Could you have found a less attractive woman with a worse fashion sence. With those manly paws you would think she would keep them down at her sides or behind her back naturally. And I've seen used car dealer ad's where the speaker put less "sell" into the material.
touristinexile 1 year ago
@ProjectDecade I've tried comprehending them and the sizes + distances in space and each time I feel like I'll go mad. My mind is way too weak to fully grasp the scale we're talking about here.... and then I feel really stupid. Well, at least I'm not a creationist. :D
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
It would be fun to fly to the heliopause and see what's going on there. Maybe a space simulator?
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa
Scientists estimate that Voyager 1 - the most distant man-made object from Earth - will reach heliopause in 2015. It is already giving us information about outer regions of the solar system.
roxef 1 year ago
@roxef What instruments are still in contact with the Earth on Voyager 1?
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa
I'm not sure, check out the wikipedia article on Voyager 1.
roxef 1 year ago
2:43 was the solar system a cloud or nebula of gas and dust or one locale of the previously generalized, a large area of gas and dust? The former doesn't make any sense because the latter would result in denser areas and the formation of the solar system.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
And where is the place for God here :D ?
LechuCzechu 1 year ago
@LechuCzechu God is beyond space and time if he created it
Cousigreeno 1 year ago
@Cousigreeno YES! :'D
Hypernerdwithcam 1 year ago
Comment removed
470345 1 year ago
@LechuCzechu Only in the minds of humans.
Thereminator101 1 year ago
Can they get somebody who can pronounce solar system and neighborhood properly. Also who sticky taped 2 black Caterpillar's to this poor womans eyebrows.
myjizzureye 1 year ago
@myjizzureye I never knew you were the High Commissioner of pronounciation. Please quote from the manual where it states the contruary of her vernacular.
HAVEAKITKAT 1 year ago
@HAVEAKITKAT The word I think you are trying for is contrary. Sargent first class of annunciation and obtuse infections would be a more accurate description. A simpleton with a thesaurus might be a good one for you.
A decent command of the English lexicon is one thing but knowing how to use it is another and when you dont it stands out like a dogs...
Its transparently obvious one of us is trying a might hard to sound clever, shall leave it to the viewers to discern who that might be (^.o)
myjizzureye 1 year ago
@myjizzureye: *Giggle* Oh, you really didn't mean that, did you? "Sargent first class of annunciation and obtuse infections" is a phrase fraught with such misspellings, religious implications, misapplication of adjectives and malapropism as to have to have been a veritable singing sword of your sarcasm. As a stalwart of the art of vocabulary arts, I salute you!!
Unless you weren't being sarcastic?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex (takes pants off) Just run your eyes back and forth over that......
myjizzureye 1 year ago
@myjizzureye: you betcha. that's a hell of a shark bite you got there.
puncheex 1 year ago
Well explained, I really enjoyed watching this.
HeatherOfOz 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Comets are also not a "record of the solar system's history". They are not the residue of some primordial "planetary nebulae". Many direct observations and samples of comets show compounds that do NOT form in bitterly cold temperatures but in fact require high pressures caused by "z pinch" effects of electric arcs.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike you electric-man ))
datuna 1 year ago
The "oort cloud" is another hypothetical and unnecessary construct. Neither it nor "kuiper belt" are needed to explain anything we see in the solar system. We do not need to imagine a "deep freeze" in the solar system where comets lie. Comets are not made of ice or "volatiles", direct observation of comets shows clearly that they are rocks. They flare electrically, not from ice sublimation from solar heating.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video also states that "gravity" of the sun binds the planets in their orbits. That is not the case. The motion of the planets around the sun is driven by electric currents in space.
The video also states planets like Jupiter and Saturn have "no solid surface", which is another glaring error. All the so-called "gas giant" planets are huge rocky bodies with dense atmospheres.
Also, the "kuiper belt" is a purely hypothetical and unnecessary construct. It's not needed to explain comets.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Umm no, simply wrong. Gravity does hold the planets together. Ever heard of general relativity?
Azarathos 1 year ago 18
@Azarathos
You're the one who's simply wrong here. Experiments have verified that charged bodies in plasma interacting electrically ignore "gravity", they are dominated by electromagnetic forces. This is not theory, it's verified in plasma labs routinely, and has been for about a century. The sun and planets share electrical connections, they are charged bodies in plasma, thus they ignore "gravity". Using "gravity" models to derive masses produces specious numbers. The universe is electric.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike What's more likely, that every ship sent successfully to the Moon, Mars and comets got to their target by an absurd chance, or that their trajectories were carefully planned and calculated by scientists using GRAVITY forces?
gininginin 1 year ago
@gininginin
Vehicles sent into space don't obey "gravity", check into the "pioneer anomaly" if you think they do. That attraction in the universe exists is undeniable. That this attraction is caused by "gravity" is speculative and hypothetical. This "gravity" is tied only metaphysically to reality. There is no known way to generate, amplify, block or manipulate "gravity" in any fashion. That suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Reread my post and answer the question.
"check into the "pioneer anomaly"
I'm aware of it, and the scientists are thinking that other forces may add to gravity. Your conclusions do not follow at all.
"That this attraction is caused by "gravity" is speculative and hypothetical."
Gravity is the name chosen to describe matter attraction. Just what are you trying to prove?
" This "gravity" is tied only metaphysically to reality."
Gravity is a measurable force, are you sober?
gininginin 1 year ago
@gininginin
The "pioneer anomaly" testifies against "gravity" models. Period. Inventing "other forces" is a favorite pastime of astronogers. Occam's razor suggests this is wrong-headed.
"Gravity" is tied only metaphysically to reality. Attraction is measurable. Electric and magnetic forces can be generated, amplified, blocked and manipulated. "Gravity" can not. Electromagnetic forces are real, "gravity" is a colossal misunderstanding that impedes scientific progress. The universe is electric.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
The "pioneer anomaly" testifies against "gravity" models. Period. Inventing "other forces" is a favorite pastime of astronogers.
It testifies against either gravity being the sole force or against our current description of gravity. Period.
As for answering your irrelevant question about what is "more likely", you might just as well forget it. What's "likely" is not nearly as important as what "is".
Occam's razor suggests this is wrong-headed.
gininginin 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "Gravity" is a philosophical concept tied in no way to matter other than metaphysically.
Repeating it does not make it true.
"It can not be generated, amplified, blocked or manipulated in any fashion."
So? Our current models fit this.
""Gravity" models routinely fail"
Seriously what planet are you living in? After such stupidity I'm taking you as a troll and not answering anymore.
"The universe is electric."
AND with gravity AND with strong/weak nuclear force... bye
gininginin 1 year ago
@gininginin
As for answering your irrelevant question about what is "more likely", you might just as well forget it. What's "likely" is not nearly as important as what "is". "Gravity" is a philosophical concept tied in no way to matter other than metaphysically. It can not be generated, amplified, blocked or manipulated in any fashion. This suggests quite strongly that it is fictional. "Gravity" models routinely fail: shape and motion of galaxies, derived mass of planets, etcetera
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike uhm... how about the bigger the celestial body the higher gravity it upholds. The actual gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10^-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That's an extremely small number which accounts for the fact that we can not effectively generate it... we need mass for gravity... lots and lots of mass to create an acceleration like the Earths....
raidslol 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
The Pioneer anomaly is from a slight imperfection in the equations. In the medium ranges of the solar-system (Venus out to around Uranus) the equations line up. But at the extremes the equations begin to diverge slightly. This can be seen at the pioneer probe going out. We have however fixed the equation for gravity in the other extreme (close to sun), this makes us capable with great accuracy to send a probe in orbit around Mercury (the MESSENGER probe).
jxvwp 1 year ago
@gininginin
"Gravity" models have been used to erroneously derive masses for the sun and planets. The observed orbits are plugged into "gravity" models, which spit out mass numbers. In nearly every case these numbers are stupidly implausible. For example, the so derived mass of the sun indicates it is a ball of gas. We know from direct observation the sun is essentially a solid rock. "Gravity" is wrong, the universe as a whole generally ignores it and is dominated by electromagnetic forces.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike lol the sun isn't rock. It is a dense mass in one of the 7 states of matter, plasma to be exact. It is a gigantic ball of nuclear explosions cause by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This fusion happens due to extreme pressure inside the sun's core, this pressure is caused by... gravity!!!!
raidslol 1 year ago
@raidslol
Yes, the sun is a rock. TRACE, SOHO and other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond any doubt, the sun has a rigid surface that is primarily calcium-rich and iron-rich rock. The sun is not powered internally by fusion. It is lit electrically. It is not a ball of gas self-compressing. Gases don't self-compress, they expand to fill available space. You are right about it being plasma, though.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike No, It being a plasma means it is not a rock firstly. Secondly, it is not a GASS ether. Gasses do expand but the sun is not in the gaseous state... plasma.... again.
raidslol 1 year ago
@raidslol
Plasma is just ionized (charged) matter. Rock can be ionized. So can metal. So can solutions in water. So can the diffuse "gas" in a fluorescent light tube. The sun is definitely not gaseous, nor is it diffuse, as "gravity" models suggest. The sun's density is approximately the same as rock...because it's a rock. Just like the Earth is a rock. Just like the moon is a rock. Just like Jupiter is a rock. Rock appears to be the most stable substance in the solar system.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Density can be the same as a rock as long as the attraction between the particles makes them pack tightly enough AND the heat from this tight packing causes nuclear fusion keeping the temperature high enough for the matter to remain in the plasma state. Also, suns are not stable like "giant rocks", they explode into super novas... and implode into black wholes (theoretically). The sun is actually much denser than a rock btw, its massive size + gravity ensure so.
raidslol 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@raidslol
The problem with your "explanation" here is that the sun is not powered internally by fusion, it is powered externally by electric currents in space. The "temperature" of the sun is all but irrelevant to its energy output. The sun's (and all stars') output is determined solely by electric current density at the surface. It is not "heat" and "temperature" that ionize matter, it is electricity.
Black hole is a preposterous fiction. Also, stars do not "explode" into "super novas".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike <<< Please do not feed the troll.
happyidiottalk 1 year ago