Magnetic Stars: Rebuttal to Max Planck Institute (Advanced Draft Release: The Grant Chronicles)

"No you threw the first stone by coming in as "anon" hoping to take advantage of someone's thread."

No law against anonymity. I fail to see what effect that has on the quality of my arguments. Sound like another squirrel to me, using any excuse to avoid awkward questions.

What exactly do you mean by "take advantage?" I would have called it "participating". For the record, I only just found this site, so I haven't created a nym. If you are typical of the level of debate, maybe I'll leave it that way. Once again, I did not resort to immediate abuse. I asked a question to clarify a point you made. You responded by calling me names. Way to convince someone, dude!

"If you want ask your own independent question and use a name, coward. "

As for "independent", I assure you I received no remuneration of any sort for participating in a public debate. If you want to offer something for the edification of all, then you should be prepared to handle any questions that arise, buiding on what others have said before. It would seem to me that you would consider this "ganging up" on you, rather than evidence that others are of a similar mind, or see similar flaws in your arguments.

"If you believe in your words then there is no need to hide unless you have a devious agenda."

I'm not hiding, "Grant". Call me "Your Evil Twin, Skippy" if you like. Call me whatever you want. What difference would it make if I created a nym? You still wouldn't know anything about me, and my question would still stand.

Well posters- Welcome to THE GRANT TACTICS.

When one Doesn't have a CLUE As to the Answer of a Question ATACK The person who Asked the Question.

Typical DeBunker Tactic just ask Idol she Does the Same thing.

GRANT You should be Ashamed with Your Self for Such LOW LIFE Activities.

If you CAN NOT Answer a Question Posed to YOU Then Just SAY SO.

Now watch Him say Some derogatory Thing about this Post.

James.

Juust as a reminder for you Grant....

------------------

How to Be a crackpot

1) Pick a piece of reputable science that seems beautiful to you, preferably one
at a high-school or earlier level (since, after all, you didn't take any
collegiate science courses). Bonus points are assigned for choosing a piece that
has been proven wrong and abandoned by modern science. The Bohr "solar-system"
model of the atom, for example, will do nicely.

2) Misunderstand some fundamental point of your pet scientific principle.

3) Read about your pet scientific principle in a variety of $5.95 paperbacks
sold at the front counter of the newsstands in malls.

4) Misunderstand even the qualitative descriptions and word-bound "math"
provided therein.

5) Use that one piece of trivial scientific theory to explain everything in the
observable universe. Yes, the beginning of time, the size of the Universe, black
holes, and all the rest. Ascribe some silly properties to things that don't
actually have those properties; for example, talk about the "speed" of
electrons, and use the speed to explain the beginning of time. Don't be greedy
and try to involve any other bits of real science; your theory has to have a
definite focal point. What better focal point is there for an all-encompassing
theory of the Universe than that piece of beautiful outdated science you learned
in ninth grade?

6) Forego all use of math, since math is hard (you abandoned real science for
the same reason, remember?). Besides, you've already convinced yourself that no
one would ever order a Universe so complex that you'd actually need something as
hard as math to describe it. If you do attempt to use math, make sure it's
entirely unrelated to your thesis. Make use of the prettiest symbols as often as
possible -- if say, you like the looks of the symbol for an integral over a
closed region, just make all of your integrals over a closed region. Since
you're making up dimensions, quantities, and symbols anyway, you can do what you
like. Just think of the symbols as window dressing.

7) Make up at least a dozen new words. Even better, reuse the same words
scientists use, but give them new, entirely different, meanings. Be careful not
to give them precise definitions, though; leave a little wiggle room. Using your
new lexicon, you can escape the barrage of criticism you'll receive later by
revealing "your" definitions piecemeal. This bait-and-switch tactic soon wears
out any would-be critics; when they give up on you, pat yourself on the back for
having created an impregnable fortress of a theory.

8) Write at least one sentence that uses all of your new words at the same time.
Make liberal use of nested prepositional phrases and passive voice. Since you
don't actually understand science, you read a science book and see nothing but
meaningless jumbles of words grouped into complicated sentence structures; it
makes sense that you should emulate this as best you can. This "topic sentence"
also becomes a great tool for weeding out your crackpot fellows from the
background noise of reputable scientists. Anyone who reads the sentence "The
force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex
Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a 'tilting' of the W
axis of the fourth spatial dimensions." and actually claims to "get it" is
immediately identified as a colleague.

9) Do your best to ignore every shred of the contrary evidence collected by
hundreds of thousands of independent scientists, in millions of experiments,
over the span of hundreds of years. There are a variety of ways in which you can
dodge the evidence:

- You can simply ignore it.
- You can explain that all of those scientists, helplessly unarmed by having not
yet experienced the epiphany embodied in your theory, simply did the wrong
experiments, or intepreted the experimental results incorrectly.
- You can refer to the International Scientific Conspiracy, who has encased all
of the real scientists (who would immediately give you the Nobel prize for your
discovery) in concrete, leaving only the riff-raff underachievers to do such
poor experiments.
- You can make use of the paranoid idea that the only experiments which are
conclusive are those which involve the human senses directly. If you can't feel
it heating up with your hand, or see it glowing with your eye, then you haven't
done a real experiment. Why should anyone, especially you, believe anything that
a machine says? After all, the International Scientific Conspiracy certainly has
a few well-stocked machine shops.

10) Whenever someone criticizes you, be sure to try to make him feel guilty for
being so closed-minded that the only thing he'll accept is cold, hard reality.
Tell him that scientists like Einstein invented new branches of physics only by
being as open-minded as you are; ignore the fact that the assertion is not true
(or invoke the International Scientific Conspiracy).

11) Submit your paper to reputable scientific authorities, like PRL and Nature.
When no one bothers to even respond with a rejection letter, come to one of two
possible conclusions: either that modern science has no rebuttal to your theory,
you have shattered their collective scientific ego with your brilliance, and
they have chosen not to respond because they are too proud to admit defeat; or
that the International Scientific Conspiracy has immediately destroyed your
paper because you got too close to the Truth. Either way, your theory is
actually strengthened by the silent dismissal, and that's all that really
matters anyway. Now you can tell anyone who cares to listen that modern science
cannot rebut your theory, so it must be right. You can go a step further, become
proactive, and actually solicit rebuttals directly from the individuals in the
reputable scientific community. When none of these scientists is willing to
waste his time trying to teach you tenth-grade physics, you can proudly announce
that science cannot disprove your theory.

12) Misunderstand the essence of the scientific method. Forget the fact that
theories must provide falsifiable or directly verifiable predictions to be taken
seriously. Since your theory is a crackpot theory, it is incapable of providing
directly verifiable predictions. You were careful to avoid making your
definitions precise, weren't you? The same wiggle room that allows your theory
to explain just about any experimental result is also responsible for preventing
your theory from making any concrete predictions of anything. It doesn't matter
what number pops out of the particle physicist's machine; your theory doesn't
even use math, so any number you'd like can be explained by it. Your theory is
immune to the scientific method, and that makes it better. Your theory cannot be
proven wrong, so it must be right.

==Grant==
Your right
=========

I assume you meant "you're" (you are).

==Grant==
I just cn't seem to comprehend pressure...
=========

Finally, a true statement from Grant.

==Grant==
Damn Deacon how foolish do you think I am
=========

On a scale of 1-10?
Some where in the high 20s

==Grant==
remember many are watching this and no matter how you spin it truth is coming out.
=========

Right back at you!
Remember many are watching this and no matter how you spin it the truth is coming out.

Grant,
Just what part of:

Cloud contracts -> density goes up -> pressure goes up

do you not understand?

Grant,
Just what part of:

Cloud contracts -> density goes up -> pressure goes up

do you not understand?
Clouds contract due to temperature drop and condensation and tend to cease in the absence of water vapor. Now you are trying a vain effort to compare it to a cloud self collapsing on itself due to gravity. What a laugh

And neither do you Grant, so quit acting like you do

CB so your adding in your 2 cents fine join the discussion if you can. By the way I do describe Gravity. [link to www.grantchronicles.com]

What exactly do you mean by "take advantage?" I would have called it "participating". For the record, I only just found this site, so I haven't created a nym. OK sorry for the assumption there are many cowards here that pop in all the time hard to tell them apart.

What exactly do you mean by "take advantage?" I would have called it "participating". For the record, I only just found this site, so I haven't created a nym. OK sorry for the assumption there are many cowards here that pop in all the time hard to tell them apart.

Well posters- Welcome to THE GRANT TACTICS.

What pointing out flaws, double statements, using theories that work one way then change to fit another scenario, then so be it.

There are many points that Krill & Deacon were caught on and no one will touch them why?

=====
Clouds contract due to temperature drop and condensation and tend to cease in the absence of water vapor. Now you are trying a vain effort to compare it to a cloud self collapsing on itself due to gravity.
=====

Damn it Grant. We all know that you are incredibly stupid. Please stop provimng it over and over and over...


NOBODY here is talking about rain clouds!

Nebula = cloud. Look it up!



What a laugh!

=====
There are many points that Krill & Deacon were caught on ...
=====

The only one who has been caught here is you ... over and over and over ...

NOBODY here is talking about rain clouds!
As dumb as your answers are, who knew.

Tell me Deacon since the clouds are compressed by gravity by a collective mass that spans lightyears how does gravity focus in a compact area in the cloud what keeps the pressure contained, why wouldn't the nebula gas move from high pressure zone to low density zones if the gravitational field emcompasses the whole cloud. Again there are too many holes in your explanation.

"CB so your adding in your 2 cents fine join the discussion if you can. By the way I do describe Gravity."

And your explanation of gravity is WRONG, which has been pointed out to you several times.

Deacon overlooks the obvious when he equates gravity to pressure. Using a simplistic example we look at gravitation compression in relation to a defined spherical cloud starting in equilibrium. As the radius of the cloud was reduced the increase in pressure surpasses the increase rate of gravitational attraction. Since the temperature of outer space is near absolute zero gravity would only allow little contraction before the process is stopped far short of the presses needed to create fusion and ignite a stellar object.

And your explanation of gravity is WRONG, which has been pointed out to you several times.

It has, well that is news to me for a group that doesn't even know what gravity is.

"Using a simplistic example we look at gravitation compression in relation to a defined spherical cloud starting in equilibrium."

How can it be in equilibrium to start with? The fact that it *isn't in equilibrium* is, like, the entire fucking point. Do you even understand what the word "equilibrium" means? Oy.




"As the radius of the cloud was reduced the increase in pressure surpasses the increase rate of gravitational attraction."

Why? Just because you say so doesn't make it so.




"Since the temperature of outer space is near absolute zero gravity would only allow little contraction before the process is stopped far short of the presses needed to create fusion and ignite a stellar object."

Again, why? Just because you say so doesn't make it the case.

The only way you could easily determine what would happen (just thinking off the top of my head) would be to perform a large numerical simulation, using all the physical models that we've been talking about (gravity, gas pressure etc) and see what happens.

Luckily, it's already been done. In fact, it's been done many, many times by different people, and the result replicated. Here's a quote from one:

"The simulation followed the collapse of an interstellar gas cloud more than 1 light-year in diameter and containing a mass of gas and dust equal to 50 Suns. The end result, after 266,000 years, was the formation of a cluster of stars typical to our galaxy."

[link to www.space.com]

of course, this is just a report on a popular science website. If you want details and actual papers, just do a google search. You'll find more than you have time to read.

Regards
Krill

Do the numbers Krill, they don't match so it is not me just saying so.

"Do the numbers Krill, they don't match so it is not me just saying so."

I don't understand... I just provided you with a link to research which is *exactly* on point, and which shows the reverse of what you're saying.

So where are your results?

Regards
Duncan

That's funny Krill it talks the whole cloud collasping with a group of stars formed in a tightly knit group then being ejected gravitationally. This sure doesn't sound like Deacon's version of pressure. You each of you has a different story of which none are correct.

by the way, these images showing the actual simulation in progress should be quite illustrative:

[link to www.space.com]

do you have anything comparable to show?

Regards
Krill

Regards
Duncan

Krill why did you sign your name as Duncan that old debunker, a slip?

"That's funny Krill it talks the whole cloud collasping with a group of stars formed in a tightly knit group then being ejected gravitationally. This sure doesn't sound like Deacon's version of pressure. You each of you has a different story of which none are correct."

I don't see where the disconnect is...

Pressure is only going to be a significant factor in the denser areas.

Regards
Krill

"Krill why did you sign your name as Duncan that old debunker, a slip?"

yes, that was a slip - it happens to be my name. But I'm not who you're thinking of

Regards
Krill

So where are your results?
Results you need me to show you the increase in pressure for a sphere when its radius is reduced to 25 % of its original radius vs. the increase of gravitional force the volume of the the same mass reduced accordingly. Krill we have done this the past get real.

yes, that was a slip - it happens to be my name. But I'm not who you're thinking of
OK

"Results you need me to show you the increase in pressure for a sphere when its radius is reduced to 25 % of its original radius vs. the increase of gravitional force the volume of the the same mass reduced accordingly. Krill we have done this the past get real."

...except for a couple of things:

1. you're assuming it's uniform, when it isn't. The pressure at the surface of a star is approximately nil, beacuse there isn't any mass with a gravity acting on it to produce the pressure. We've been over this before...

2. if it isn't in equilibrium to start with, why does it follow that there isn't enough gravitational force to keep shrinking the thing until it ignites?

the only way you could reasonably find that out would be to do a numerical simulation. I already provided a link to just such a result

Regards
Krill

Pressure is only going to be a significant factor in the denser areas.


Really so the gravitational is variable since it is the binding factor against pressure. How is this so?

"Really so the gravitational is variable since it is the binding factor against pressure. How is this so?"

why would the gravity not be variable? It's dependent on the distribution of density, since it acts on mass

Regards
Krill