Questions about physics - for everyone to ponder and wonder,.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Note: The first ten questions have been posted earlier in sci.physics. Some more are added now.

1. How does the Sun have a very large and constant magnetic field if as per
modern physics the core of the Sun is incredibly hot in order to create fusion
temperatures?

2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
from all directions? And no pressure means no temperature.

3. How does the Earth form its constant magnetic field without the existence
of a continuously circulating current tha can only happen with a superconducting
very cold core that is denied by current notions in physics?

4. Why do they still believe that light speed is independent of the speed of
the emitter when the MMI experiment shows that either the Earth is still or
the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter?

5. If light is a particle of energy then why does it follow the inverse
square law for intensity with respect to distance? Why does light spread out if
it is a bundle of energy? When the phenomenon of refraction show that light
is a travelling wave, why should we think it is a particle of energy?

6. Why do not physicists accept the validity of the formula relating mass
and energy kinetically, as e=0.5mVVN(N-k) when natural phenomena such as
explosions are explained by this equation?

7. Whey do physicists persist with rockets for space research when they should
be starting to work with Internal Force Engines based upon the principle that
the Lorenz force does not have a reaction?

8. Why are carbon emissions on ground thought to be a culprit for global
warming when carbon dioxide as a heavy gas does not climb to great heights to
create global warming?

9. Why do physicists place so heavy an emphasis on the Nobel Prize as an
estimate for worth, and use it as a tool for oppression and suppression of
new challenging ideas?

10. Why is complete obscurantism with meaningless mathematical mumbo-jumbo
 the sole measure of worth for publication in any reputed physics journal?

11. Why is the Doppler effect explained in terms of changing the wavelength
as opposed to changing the velocity of sound/light? Like (frequency = (velocity
of sound/light in non-moving scheme + velocity of emitter of
sound/light)/wavelength) is a very good way of predicting the frequencies due
to moving object - it also matches what we can directly find from a swimmer
experiencing water waves.

12. Why is the bending of light due to the Sun as found from a total eclipse
not seen as a simple optical effect but as an evidence of General Relativity?
It is well known that light bends when going from a lighter to a denser
medium and the solar atmosphere must act as an optical lens.

13. Why is only redshift taken into account to explain the expanding universe
and the blueshift ignored?

14. Why is there very little interest about Hubble telescope showing that the
universe is vastly larger than earlier supposed?

15. How is it that the age of the universe has been steadily increasing in
the literature from 8 billion years to now 13 billion years?

16. Why is the radiation from the stars amounting to electrical noise supposed
to be the "remains of big bang explosion" and taken as an evidence of the
big bang theory?

17. Why do we still believe in heat engines and entropy when we can get
perpetual motion machines using nanotechnology where the background noise from
the stars is the permanent energy input?

18. Why is it so difficult for the modern physicists to accept that the Lorenz
force has no equal and opposite reaction as proved by my rail gun experiments
where the working rail gun firing a heavy armature is suspended as a pendulum
bob and shows no greater swingback when the armature exits with greater
velocity as a result of high current passing through it from a capacitor bank?

19. Why do not the physicists seize upon the earlier fact to make a new motor
for space conquest as shown in my video films?

20. Why is it impossible for the physicists to believe that we can easily
make ships to go to the Moon and back in a day or two, and to Mars and back
in a matter of months, as shown in my video films?

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[reber G=emc^2]

[Serg io]

the velocity of sound in a media is constant, as it should be.
take 3 or 4 moving items in water, should the velocity of sound in water
be changed for each one ?

>>
>> 12. Why is the bending of light due to the Sun as found from a total eclipse
>> not seen as a simple optical effect but as an evidence of General Relativity?
>> It is well known that light bends when going from a lighter to a denser
>> medium and the solar atmosphere must act as an optical lens.

so, what is the difference in density in the path taken by the sun of
one star ? this can be calculated, give it a try, use the internet too .

>>
>> 13. Why is only redshift taken into account to explain the expanding universe
>> and the blueshift ignored?

redshift has been observed most places. blue with Andromeda Galaxy

>> 14. Why is there very little interest about Hubble telescope showing that the
>> universe is vastly larger than earlier supposed?

not sure what you mean, try here;

http://hla.stsci.edu/

http://archive.stsci.edu/

https://archive.stsci.edu/hst/

>>
>> 15. How is it that the age of the universe has been steadily increasing in
>> the literature from 8 billion years to now 13 billion years?

The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021
billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. (wiki)

>>
>> 16. Why is the radiation from the stars amounting to electrical noise supposed
>> to be the "remains of big bang explosion" and taken as an evidence of the
>> big bang theory?
>>

exciting discovery! The horn antenna at Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ that
Penzias and Wilson used to discover the 3 K cosmic microwave background
radiation in 1965.When Penzias and Wilson reduced their data they found
a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in their receiver. This
residual noise was 100 times more intense than they had expected, was
evenly spread over the sky, and was present day and night. They were
certain that the radiation they detected on a wavelength of 7.35
centimeters did not come from the Earth, the Sun, or our galaxy. After
thoroughly checking their equipment, removing some pigeons nesting in
the antenna and cleaning out the accumulated droppings, the noise
remained. Both concluded that this noise was coming from outside our own
galaxy—although they were not aware of any radio source that would
account for it.

>> 17. Why do we still believe in heat engines and entropy when we can get
>> perpetual motion machines using nanotechnology where the background noise from
>> the stars is the permanent energy input?

malformed question.

>>
>> 18. Why is it so difficult for the modern physicists to accept that the Lorenz
>> force has no equal and opposite reaction as proved by my rail gun experiments
>> where the working rail gun firing a heavy armature is suspended as a pendulum
>> bob and shows no greater swingback when the armature exits with greater
>> velocity as a result of high current passing through it from a capacitor bank?

put a box around it, (dosent matter what is insice) if mass leaves at a
velocity from the box, there is a reaction vector opposite direction.

>>
>> 19. Why do not the physicists seize upon the earlier fact to make a new motor
>> for space conquest as shown in my video films?

they already tried that.

>>
>> 20. Why is it impossible for the physicists to believe that we can easily
>> make ships to go to the Moon and back in a day or two, and to Mars and back
>> in a matter of months, as shown in my video films?

do you always believe what you see on the internet ?


>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>

[hanson]

<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig> aka
"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote
Nothing because
>
Glazier's neo-tutor Sam Wormley <olli...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Herb — You should be sued by the LIGO Nobel Laureates
for call thing them con men — you should be ashamed of
yourself with no formal education. You can't do algebra,
geometry, or the calculus. You don’t know the difference
between gravity and gravitational wave. Fucking pathetic.
Herb, you have spun a few too many times and are now
in a fucking stupor. Fits your theory of spin is in--sane,.
& is part of you dead brain theory, eh Herb. Oh Ya!"
>
Loud-mouth SwineBert, the cretin wrote:
ollie I give talks on astronomy where people ROTFLTAO
& daily I write lots of pitiful self-praising Glazierola. So ollli
you're just hot air. Put up or shut up. You are a loser ollie
you have to have a brain to understand me.Get lost loser. TreBert
>
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."

[Arindam Banerjee]

True.
But the relative velocity of sound/light with respect to mutual movement
varies with the velocity of mutual movement.

> take 3 or 4 moving items in water, should the velocity of sound in water
> be changed for each one ?

Oh absolutely.
Every moving item will receive a different frequency wrt the relative velocity
which is the speed of the sound in the media added to the movement velocity.

For every moving item thus the waves will go fast it faster or slower while
the wavelength itself will remain the same, never get distorted.

>
> >>
> >> 12. Why is the bending of light due to the Sun as found from a total eclipse
> >> not seen as a simple optical effect but as an evidence of General Relativity?
> >> It is well known that light bends when going from a lighter to a denser
> >> medium and the solar atmosphere must act as an optical lens.
>
> so, what is the difference in density in the path taken by the sun of
> one star ? this can be calculated, give it a try, use the internet too

Since the GR people took the Sun as a point mass, totally neglected the
optical effect, which simply has to exist, this for me is a pointless
exercise.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <4cd7e463-a048-4b6a...@googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
>no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
>from all directions?

Have you *still* not seen your mistake here?

-- Richard

[benj]

And not being aware of any source for it and thus totally ignorant of
what it was, everyone immediately imagined they knew what is was that
supported their favorite theory as to the origin of the universe. This
is how modern physics is done especially in cosmology where virtually
nothing is known for certain and almost all is pure speculation.

I'm not going to say any more on this.

[benj]

Banjo is the greatest genius on the entire planet. He does NOT make
mistakes!

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 4:43:44 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:

> Banjo is the greatest genius on the entire planet...

Or he is not...

> He does NOT make mistakes.

Or he does...

[Arindam Banerjee]

Have you seen any mistake?
That I do not agree to the current dogma I do not consider a mistake in the
scientific sense.
>
> -- Richard

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:01:24 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Have you seen any mistake?

Yes, hundreds of them, for virtually everything you say is simply wrong.

> That I do not agree to the current dogma I do not consider a mistake in the
> scientific sense.

Unfortunately, you know nothing about 'the scientific sense'.

That you do not agree to the current dogma simple proves that you do not have the background to understand mainstream physics. If you think any particular modern theory is wrong, it is up to you to provide experimental or observational evidence to the contrary. That's how science works, you show a situation where a current theory fails to make a prediction. There is no other way to prove your own claims. Period. End of discussion.

Read this, for example, about the Scientific Method...

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion."

You clearly think that mainstream physics is nothing but "lies and delusions", which is fine, *if* you can actually prove it. If you can't do that, just get lost, OK?

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 3:46:08 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Note: The first ten questions have been posted earlier in sci.physics. Some more are added now.
>
> 1. How does the Sun have a very large and constant magnetic field if as per
> modern physics the core of the Sun is incredibly hot in order to create fusion
> temperatures?

Flow of electrons creates a magnetic field.

>
> 2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
> no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
> from all directions? And no pressure means no temperature.

Gravity is zero at the center, but that doesn't mean there is no pressure. The huge pressure is due to the gravity of the other parts of the sun that are not at the center.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:18:52 PM UTC+11, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 3:46:08 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Note: The first ten questions have been posted earlier in sci.physics. Some more are added now.
> >
> > 1. How does the Sun have a very large and constant magnetic field if as per
> > modern physics the core of the Sun is incredibly hot in order to create fusion
> > temperatures?
>
> Flow of electrons creates a magnetic field.
>
> >
> > 2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
> > no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
> > from all directions? And no pressure means no temperature.
>
> Gravity is zero at the center, but that doesn't mean there is no pressure. The huge pressure is due to the gravity of the other parts of the sun that are not at the center.

Since they all pull at the mass in the center of sun because of symmetry, the
pressure at the centre must be zero.
As an analogy, consider air pressure. We are living at the bottom of an ocean
of air. There is thus air pressure. Why are we not getting crushed? We know
that the air pressure is - that was shown by Torricelli with his barometer
experiment, and the experiment with the Magdeburg hemispheres.
We are not getting crushed for the simple reason that the air pressure acts
equally from all sides, so there is no net force because of air pressure.
When there is a pressure differential, as for the wing of an airplane, there
is lift - that is, a force comes into play.
Similarly, at the centre of the Earth or Sun, gravitational forces acting from
all the symmetric masses cancel each other out, leaving no gravitational force,
and hence, no pressure from gravity.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[pora...@gmail.com]

--------------------
idiot blockhed
btween middle and the surfacr of the planet
there are alot of locations
that gravity has a dominant direction
that is not balanced !!
(because its a -symetric location

complicsted for you ??

TIA
Y.Porat
===========================

[pora...@gmail.com]

and right at the middleof it
forces are all ditrctrd to the middle
one agaist the other
canceling each other towaeds outside
but not at the middle
and namke the maximum pressure
aan about locations thatr are not at he middle
pressure is not maximum but still
becoming stronger and stronger towasrs the middle

towards outside
it is another issue thast hss to be studied
point by point
==
Y.P
========================

[Serg io]

left over noise,
love to see their error analysis how they got there,
very hard measurement to do
their value is 2.725 K @ 160Ghz says wiki

classic equation for noise is P=kTB
where
k is boltzmans constant 1.3807 E-23 [J/K]
T is temperature [K]
B is Bandwidth [Hz]

k error bounds;
The Boltzmann constant (kB or k), which is named after Ludwig Boltzmann,
is a physical constant relating the average kinetic energy of particles
in a gas with the temperature of the gas.[2] It is the gas constant R
divided by the Avogadro constant NA:
k = R/NA

The Boltzmann constant has the dimension energy divided by temperature,
the same as entropy. As of 2017, its value in SI units is a measured
quantity. The recommended value (as of 2015, with standard uncertainty
in brackets) is 1.38064852(79)×10−23 J/K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

T error bounds;
one has to calculate the noise temperature of the receiver, using MFGR
data on the first amplifier, or measure it, one can bracket the value,
1.7 K cryogenic amp here;
http://www.lownoisefactory.com/products/cryogenic/06-2a/

T error bounds;. Then there is an additional factor due to the antenna
pattern, picking up backlobes or sidelobes of the warm earth. the
pattern can be calculated and measured withing a few dB, except for
backlobes which rely on phase cancelations.

B error bounds; this can be measured.

so two main sources of error are the antenna pattern w backlobes, and
noise temperature of the reciever.
note I have not specified a frequency band yet,
nor addressed the noise power from stars in the main beam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

from wiki
The cosmic microwave background was first predicted in 1948 by Ralph
Alpher and Robert Herman.[19][20][21] Alpher and Herman were able to
estimate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K,
though two years later they re-estimated it at 28 K. This high estimate
was due to a mis-estimate of the Hubble constant by Alfred Behr, which
could not be replicated and was later abandoned for the earlier
estimate. Although there were several previous estimates of the
temperature of space, these suffered from two flaws. First, they were
measurements of the effective temperature of space and did not suggest
that space was filled with a thermal Planck spectrum. Next, they depend
on our being at a special spot at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and
they did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. The estimates would
yield very different predictions if Earth happened to be located
elsewhere in the universe.[22]

even more from wiki;
The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background was a
controversial issue in the 1960s with some proponents of the steady
state theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of
scattered starlight from distant galaxies.[29] Using this model, and
based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of
stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar wrote in 1941: "It can be
calculated that the 'rotational temperature' of interstellar space is 2
K."[30] However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the
cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was
largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that
the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the
steady state model was unable to reproduce.[31]

[Arindam Banerjee]

oy pig-worshipping imbecile poart the foart, this is no way to begin any
polite discussion unless you are as we all know a complete ass braying from
both front and rear

> > btween middle and the surfacr of the planet
> > there are alot of locations
> > that gravity has a dominant direction
> > that is not balanced !!

Just making stupid noises is never considered scientific.

> > (because its a -symetric location
> >
> > complicsted for you ??

Idiot. You cannot even write a proper sentence. Slum children of India
write far better English than you could ever dream of writing.

> > TIA
> > Y.Porat


> > ===========================
>
> and right at the middleof it
> forces are all ditrctrd to the middle
> one agaist the other

No, at the centre the mass is pulled by gravity from the masses from all sides.
So there is no force upon the mass at the centre of the Earth or Sun or Moon.
No force, no pressure. No pressure, no temperature.
Get this clear into your stupid pighead.

> canceling each other towaeds outside
> but not at the middle
> and namke the maximum pressure

As the mass at or near the centre of the Earth or Sun is pulled
by gravitational forces from all directions, there is NO NET gravitational
force upon it.

The pressure is maximum a few hundred kilometers under the surface, when
the rock melts. This is so because there is still a lot of matter below it.
But as we go towards the core, the temperature drops as the pressure decreases
with the mass above exerting upward gravity force and the mass below not
pulling it down with the same force as there is less mass to create the
down pull.

It is easily shown by school level physics that g varies with distance from
the centre of the Earth. It is zero at the centre, increases to 9.8m/s^2 at
the surface, and then starts dropping off as we go into space.

Any decent school education will teach you that, as I was taught back in 1970.

> aan about locations thatr are not at he middle
> pressure is not maximum but still
> becoming stronger and stronger towasrs the middle

Pressure is maximum because of gravity only a few tens or hundreds of kilometers
below the surface, but after that it decreases and becomes zero at the centre.
Simple maths will show this.

Most obviously at the centre the mass will be pulled from all directions so
there will be no net force upon it. g is zero at the centre. There is no
question of any force upon it.

>
> towards outside
> it is another issue thast hss to be studied
> point by point

This is very easily done by simple school level maths.
To repeat, g is zero at the centre of the Earth, increases till it becomes
maximum at the surface, and then of course decreases as we go off into space.

pressure is zero at the centre, increases to a maximum some tens or hundreds
of kilometers below the surface and then decreases to zero at the surface as
there is no more mass to press it down except the air.
> ==
> Y.P
> ========================

[Arindam Banerjee]

I correct mistakes, and replace them with genius.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

None so blind as those who won't see. Failing miserably to answer my questions,
the pseudo-scientists want me to go away so that they can continue with their
lies and nonsense.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:22:26 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:01:24 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Have you seen any mistake?
>
> Yes, hundreds of them, for virtually everything you say is simply wrong.

Typical, brain-dead, church-lady response. You know what science says, but you don't know why. You can't explain anything. You are just a believer, not a scientist. Go away. Find another hobby, you moron.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:50:38 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > > 2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
> > > no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
> > > from all directions? And no pressure means no temperature.
> >
> > Gravity is zero at the center, but that doesn't mean there is no pressure. The huge pressure is due to the gravity of the other parts of the sun that are not at the center.
>
> Since they all pull at the mass in the center of sun because of symmetry, the
> pressure at the centre must be zero.

> As an analogy, consider air pressure.

It's not an analogy.

> We are living at the bottom of an ocean
> of air. There is thus air pressure. Why are we not getting crushed?

Irrelevant. We aren't getting crushed because our pressure equals the air pressure. This fact is INDEPENDENT from your claim that there is no pressure at the center of a star or planet.

We know
> that the air pressure is - that was shown by Torricelli with his barometer
> experiment, and the experiment with the Magdeburg hemispheres.

Yeah, so?

> We are not getting crushed for the simple reason that the air pressure acts
> equally from all sides, so there is no net force because of air pressure.
> When there is a pressure differential, as for the wing of an airplane, there
> is lift - that is, a force comes into play.
> Similarly, at the centre of the Earth or Sun, gravitational forces acting from
> all the symmetric masses cancel each other out, leaving no gravitational force,
> and hence, no pressure from gravity.

Plainly false. Our bodies have pressure. We don't notice it because we are surrounded by pressure.

False analogies are a big part of pseudoscience. Learn what an analogy is and why analogies often make bad arguments.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:23:24 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

> and right at the middleof it
> forces are all ditrctrd to the middle
> one agaist the other
> canceling each other towaeds outside
> but not at the middle
> and namke the maximum pressure
> aan about locations thatr are not at he middle
> pressure is not maximum but still
> becoming stronger and stronger towasrs the middle

You are absolutely correct. The rate of pressure increase drops to zero as you approach the center. But the center will always have the highest pressure. Arindham tends to over-analogize. He is making the mistake of analogizing between the rate of pressure increase and the pressure. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE IS NOTHING ANALOGOUS ABOUT THEM.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:17:48 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> As the mass at or near the centre of the Earth or Sun is pulled
> by gravitational forces from all directions, there is NO NET gravitational
> force upon it.

This is correct. The rate of pressure increase drops to zero as you get closer to the center.

> The pressure is maximum a few hundred kilometers under the surface,

Wrong. The pressure is greatest at the center.

when
> the rock melts. This is so because there is still a lot of matter below it.

Faulty reasoning.

> But as we go towards the core, the temperature drops as the pressure decreases
> with the mass above exerting upward gravity force and the mass below not
> pulling it down with the same force as there is less mass to create the
> down pull.

You lack the ability to compartimentalize different concepts. This is giving you false confidence that you understand what you do not. IOW, you are severely confused.

The retarded responses you are getting from Pnal, Sergio, and Benj leaves you with the impression that you understand what you do not.

> It is easily shown by school level physics that g varies with distance from
> the centre of the Earth. It is zero at the centre, increases to 9.8m/s^2 at
> the surface, and then starts dropping off as we go into space.
>
> Any decent school education will teach you that, as I was taught back in 1970.

Pressure, gravity, and rate of pressure increase with depth are three distinct concepts that you use interchangeably, like a child.

You are not a critical thinker. And the dunces here are only giving you false confidence.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 6:21:04 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:


> None so blind as those who won't see. Failing miserably to answer my questions,
> the pseudo-scientists want me to go away so that they can continue with their
> lies and nonsense.

Don't allow Pnal's brain-dead response to give you false confidence. There are three distinct concepts here that you are using interchangeably.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

You guys are soooo stupid. Can't you just look things up on your own?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

"The pressure in the Earth's inner core is slightly higher than it is at the boundary between the outer and inner cores: it ranges from about 330 to 360 gigapascals (3,300,000 to 3,600,000 atm)."

So, pressure about 14 atmospheres at the surface and about 3.6 million atmospheres neat the center. Pretty clear that claiming the pressure is zero at the center is a very bad bet.

Of course, if you have any legitimate references that claim otherwise, let's see them. There aren't any, of course, so you will undoubtedly just continue with your standard "you've got nothing" dumbfuck response...

[James McGinn]

This is what I said, you retard. The difference is that I didn't have to look it up.

Idiots like you give Arindham false confidence that he understands what he does not understand.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Wow, never thought I would say this of you, McGinn, but you are a man!

It takes much to be a man among such pullulating mice as this no-name creature,
a disgrace in every way.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 2:06:43 AM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> You guys are soooo stupid. Can't you just look things up on your own?
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core
>
> "The pressure in the Earth's inner core is slightly higher than it is at the boundary between the outer and inner cores: it ranges from about 330 to 360 gigapascals (3,300,000 to 3,600,000 atm)."

Why believe this? It is unscientific. Not backed by any real evidence.
Why truts wiki?
These are just bland statements showing numbers.
How they are derived amounts to faith.
If one is scientific one cannot have any use for blind belief.
Only in FACTS leading to results with logical assumptions, that will become
more valid with their verification.

This sort of attitude is there to subdue the questioning mind.

>
> So, pressure about 14 atmospheres at the surface and about 3.6 million atmospheres neat the center. Pretty clear that claiming the pressure is zero at the center is a very bad bet.

Rubbish. With this same attitude one should believe anything. Someone is going
to give me a million pounds! He says so in an email!

Why should scientists be expected to believe in bland statements.
No one has measured the temperature of the Earth a thousand kilometers below
us.

Pressure at the core of the Sun and Earth has to be zero as the masses are
all around and pulling at the mass in the core from ALL directions, so there
is no net force or pressure on the mass.

In the 19th century they all thought the Earth was hollow at least at the
core. But when they invented e=mcc they got the notion that the Sun was
radioactive.

To "prove" this was so, they imagined gamma rays in outer space, and declared
the core of the Sun to be very hot.

By that same twisted logic, they had to show that the core of the Earth was
also hot!

This went directly against the correct 19th century thinking, of course.

Which will be revived in due course, when the present bunch of thugs finally
lose all credibility.

>
> Of course, if you have any legitimate references that claim otherwise, let's see them. There aren't any, of course, so you will undoubtedly just continue with your standard "you've got nothing" dumbfuck response...

You are dumbfucks to believe in every data you see in wiki or elsewhere,
that is not substantiated with theoretical and practical experiments.

You are dumbfucks to ignore my practical experiments and you are evil
dumbfucks to abuse me instead.

Cheers,

Arindam Banerjee

Ignoring logic, and new ideas from logic, that throw out the old and replace
them with better ideas, is the task of the malicious pseudo-scientist and at
that job, I must say, you dumbfucks are proficient.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:17:37 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:50:38 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > 2. Why is the centre of the Sun supposed to be very hot when there should be
> > > > no pressure at the centre of the Sun due to gravitional pull of the masses
> > > > from all directions? And no pressure means no temperature.
> > >
> > > Gravity is zero at the center, but that doesn't mean there is no pressure. The huge pressure is due to the gravity of the other parts of the sun that are not at the center.
> >
> > Since they all pull at the mass in the center of sun because of symmetry, the
> > pressure at the centre must be zero.
>
> > As an analogy, consider air pressure.
>
> It's not an analogy.

It is, for air pressure acts from all directions.
Just as, at the core of the Earth, the surrounding masses pull from all
directions.

>
>
> > We are living at the bottom of an ocean
> > of air. There is thus air pressure. Why are we not getting crushed?
>
> Irrelevant. We aren't getting crushed because our pressure equals the air pressure. This fact is INDEPENDENT from your claim that there is no pressure at the center of a star or planet.

See above. We are not getting crushed because our blood pressure matches
the air pressure. The point is that air pressure acts FROM ALL DIRECTIONS.
I will elaborate on this in another post.

>
>
> We know
> > that the air pressure is - that was shown by Torricelli with his barometer
> > experiment, and the experiment with the Magdeburg hemispheres.
>
> Yeah, so?

So get this, air pressure acts from all directions creating no net force.
When air is removed from a closed container, it gets force as shown.

>
> > We are not getting crushed for the simple reason that the air pressure acts
> > equally from all sides, so there is no net force because of air pressure.
> > When there is a pressure differential, as for the wing of an airplane, there
> > is lift - that is, a force comes into play.
> > Similarly, at the centre of the Earth or Sun, gravitational forces acting from
> > all the symmetric masses cancel each other out, leaving no gravitational force,
> > and hence, no pressure from gravity.
>
> Plainly false. Our bodies have pressure. We don't notice it because we are surrounded by pressure.

Nothing false that I have said. Get this, air pressure acts from all directions
upon ANY body so there is no net force upon any body from air pressure.
At the centre of the star the gravitational forces from all the surrounding
masses act from all directions so there is no net force upon the mass at the
core of the Sun or Earth. So, by air pressure alone there is no force. Only
air pressure differntials cause a force.

>
> False analogies are a big part of pseudoscience. Learn what an analogy is and why analogies often make bad arguments.

It ia not a false analogy, you just didn't get it. Hope I made it clear. I will
write another post on this matter, repeating what i posted in Usenet many
years ago, about the two-Earth collision effect.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:41:07 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Why truts wiki?

HA! I see your spelling is just as poor as your scientific chops, which is essentially nil.

OK, so a lot of people don't trust Wiki, but Wiki has the good sense to list a ton of references for their articles. Note that this particular article has 30 references to support the information presented in the article, and only a complete fool would discount all of the information contained therein.

You continue to be clueless regarding the machinations of the Sun and other stars. Zero pressure in the center? Really? You remain bat-shit crazy!

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:49:11 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> It is, for air pressure acts from all directions.
> Just as, at the core of the Earth, the surrounding masses pull from all
> directions.

That's a terrible analogy. The zeroing of gravity at the center of the sun is the result of forces canceling each other out. Air pressure is the result of the momentum of air molecules. These are two very different things.

> See above. We are not getting crushed because our blood pressure matches
> the air pressure. The point is that air pressure acts FROM ALL DIRECTIONS.

Our bodies exert the same amount of force outwards or we would be crushed.

> I will elaborate on this in another post.
> >
> >
> > We know
> > > that the air pressure is - that was shown by Torricelli with his barometer
> > > experiment, and the experiment with the Magdeburg hemispheres.
> >
> > Yeah, so?
>
> So get this, air pressure acts from all directions creating no net force.

Yeah, so? This is a third independent fact that does not engender any obvious analogies. You are creating these analogies in your mind.

> When air is removed from a closed container, it gets force as shown.
> >
> > > We are not getting crushed for the simple reason that the air pressure acts
> > > equally from all sides, so there is no net force because of air pressure.
> > > When there is a pressure differential, as for the wing of an airplane, there
> > > is lift - that is, a force comes into play.
> > > Similarly, at the centre of the Earth or Sun, gravitational forces acting from
> > > all the symmetric masses cancel each other out, leaving no gravitational force,
> > > and hence, no pressure from gravity.
> >
> > Plainly false. Our bodies have pressure. We don't notice it because we are surrounded by pressure.
>
> Nothing false that I have said. Get this, air pressure acts from all directions
> upon ANY body so there is no net force upon any body from air pressure.
> At the centre of the star the gravitational forces from all the surrounding
> masses act from all directions so there is no net force upon the mass at the
> core of the Sun or Earth. So, by air pressure alone there is no force. Only
> air pressure differntials cause a force.
> >
> > False analogies are a big part of pseudoscience. Learn what an analogy is and why analogies often make bad arguments.
>
> It ia not a false analogy,

Science based on reproducible experimental evidence is almost alway correct and sound. Science based on analogy can be right and can be wrong.

Analogies are good for explanatory brevity. They are bad for scientific certainty.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:49:11 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Just as, at the core of the Earth, the surrounding masses pull from all
> directions.

Sure, and the weight above all pushes downwards, creating tremendous pressure in the center.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:29:05 AM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:41:07 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Why truts wiki?
>
> HA! I see your spelling is just as poor as your scientific chops, which is essentially nil.

A typo. How naturally mean and stupid of you to pounce upon it, but as a
half-wit what else can you do!

>
> OK, so a lot of people don't trust Wiki, but Wiki has the good sense to list a ton of references for their articles. Note that this particular article has 30 references to support the information presented in the article, and only a complete fool would discount all of the information contained therein.
>
> You continue to be clueless regarding the machinations of the Sun and other stars. Zero pressure in the center? Really? You remain bat-shit crazy!

And you remain a cowardly useless abusive piece of pseudo-scientific waste.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

You messed up that sig, Jim, it should be this one...

James McGinn
AKA Claudius Denk
Solving Tornadoes

... the same one you used here...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/HiRSy--pvxo

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:30:18 AM UTC+11, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:49:11 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > It is, for air pressure acts from all directions.
> > Just as, at the core of the Earth, the surrounding masses pull from all
> > directions.
>
> That's a terrible analogy. The zeroing of gravity at the center of the sun is the result of forces canceling each other out. Air pressure is the result of the momentum of air molecules. These are two very different things.

So the contrary momenta of air molecules upon a fixed body cancel each other
out and there is no net force.

It is about having NO NET FORCE in both cases that causes the analogy.

We can be surrounded and impacted upon by extreme forces but if they cancel
each other out we are not under pressure.

And this is the big idea, on the surface of the Earth or in the centre.

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Why truts wiki?
>
> HA! I see your spelling is just as poor as your scientific chops,
> which is essentially nil.

You are a trivial twit.

> OK, so a lot of people don't trust Wiki,

Consensus dopes trust Wiki.

> but Wiki has the good sense to list a ton of references for their
> articles. Note that this particular article has 30 references

Choose one and present it, you moron.

> to support the information presented in the article, and only a
> complete fool would discount all of the information contained therein.

It's not necessary to discount what has not been presented.

> You continue to be clueless regarding the machinations of the Sun and
> other stars. Zero pressure in the center? Really? You remain bat-shit crazy!

Arindham is wrong in this instance. But that doesn't make your consensus methods good science. You got the right answer, but you are unable to explain how or why and that is what matters. Because only if you understand how and why can you know when consensus is wrong, as is often the case.

[Claudius Denk]

[Serg io]

On 10/18/2017 6:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:06:01 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:22:26 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:01:24 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you seen any mistake?
>>>
>>> Yes, hundreds of them, for virtually everything you say is simply wrong.
>>
>> Typical, brain-dead, church-lady response. You know what science says, but you don't know why. You can't explain anything. You are just a believer, not a scientist. Go away. Find another hobby, you moron.
>
> Wow, never thought I would say this of you, McGinn, but you are a man!

na, McGinn is a pussy.
he is always posting here to get negitive attention, never any math.

>
> It takes much to be a man among such pullulating mice as this no-name creature,
> a disgrace in every way.
>

what is this thing with animals you have ?
and when are you going to post a real equation ?

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:34:59 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:30:18 AM UTC+11, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:49:11 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > It is, for air pressure acts from all directions.
> > > Just as, at the core of the Earth, the surrounding masses pull from all
> > > directions.
> >
> > That's a terrible analogy. The zeroing of gravity at the center of the sun is the result of forces canceling each other out. Air pressure is the result of the momentum of air molecules. These are two very different things.
>
> So the contrary momenta of air molecules upon a fixed body cancel each other
> out and there is no net force.
>
> It is about having NO NET FORCE in both cases that causes the analogy.

Who cares. Analogies are just semantics.

>
> We can be surrounded and impacted upon by extreme forces but if they cancel
> each other out we are not under pressure.

Except that we are under pressure.

>
> And this is the big idea, on the surface of the Earth or in the centre.

Who cares.

[Serg io]

Banjo is into sophistry bigtime, he practices sophism.

[Serg io]

James McGinn AKA Claudius Denk AKA Solving Tornadoes will make you
stupider.

[James McGinn]

You just demonstrated how an analogy can bring you to any silly conclusion you wish.

You have no business whatsoever calling yourself a scientist.