Can jupiter be a brown dwarf?
-
There are a number of examples of brown dwarfs. One is a failed star that did not get quite big enough. Another is that of a "dead" star, one that has ended it's life eventually by going through becoming a red giant, then a white dwarf, eventually blowing off everything and cooling down to a brown dwarf (not really brown, more a dark red)
http//www.google.com.pk/imgres?imgurl=http//ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/spitzersite_backup.20031218/Media/guides/images/brown_dwarf.jpg&imgrefurl=http//ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/spitzersite_backup.20031218/Media/guides/brown_dwarf.shtml&h=338&w=450&sz=24&tbnid=M7CbgC48QIbHiM&tbnh=95&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrown%2Bdwarfs&hl=en&usg=__kby1vssRFxZSCjhZf4RFK-UV0JE=&ei=V3jGSvXPBI3U6gODjo2nDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image
-
Salaam,
this link is expressing bad physics, a star is not a nuclear fusion reactor, and the physical evidence is overwhelming to prove that this is the case, unfortunately the conventional university system we suffer today is controlled by the financial cabals, they have intentionally perverted the correct physics of Maxwell, Faraday and Tesla, and propagated the lies of Einstein, which hold no basis in fact.
There is a very good reason for this, they wish you to pay for energy, when energy exists in an open exchange between the fluidic manifold underlying this reality, and physical reality itself.
It is simple to expose the lies, the surface of a star is around 6000c while the atmosphere is around 2000000c, if it were a fusion reactor as you express, why is the outside hotter than the reactor itself?
The other concept you are supporting is infinite compression, consider this if you go down to the deepest part of the ocean, four miles down, the volume of the water is unchanged, the pressure is substantial, the reason you cannot compress matter infinitely, therefore, can not have a big bang theory or black holes etc., is matter is pushing against fluidic space, the density of the underlying fluidic manifold is enormous, one cubic centimetre has more energy within it than all the visible universe combined.
Correct physics is based on the physical evidence, not abstract mathematical models created to confuse, and make the subject so difficult to understand people look no deeper than the truth the so called experts present.
-
Salaam Rev John,
what you are saying is not correct, where are you getting your information?
Do you know that he has a pHD in astrophysics?
-
Salaam,
you think worthless certificates really represent intelligence, or simply acceptance of established doctrine, intelligence is not measured through memorisation and regurgitation of dogma, but the application of reason upon the evidence before you, they refuse to apply reason, what does this say about their documents?
Ask your documented friend to explain his beliefs against the physical evidence, not simply regurgitation of dubious information. My views are presented at length on my website, the three greatest physicists, Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla all confirm my views, the Newtonian / Einsteinian views of documentation are worthless.
-
Salaam,
you think worthless certificates really represent intelligence, or simply acceptance of established doctrine, intelligence is not measured through memorisation and regurgitation of dogma, but the application of reason upon the evidence before you, they refuse to apply reason, what does this say about their documents?
Ask your documented friend to explain his beliefs against the physical evidence, not simply regurgitation of dubious information. My views are presented at length on my website, the three greatest physicists, Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla all confirm my views, the Newtonian / Einsteinian views of documentation are worthless.
Do you know how you can even get a pHD? You have to prove something related to astrophysics and that takes a lot of thinking and brainpower to do that. Memorization does not count in physics. physics is all understanding. To get a pHD you have to do a lot of hard work (especially astrophysics). I am in middle school and I find it a bit difficult to cope with physics because it is much more different than other subjects. It requires mathematics and understanding... Do you think normal people can get pHD? Ok what do you think about stephen hawking?
-
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/HR-diag-no-text-2.svg/525px-HR-diag-no-text-2.svg.png
-
Salaam Munzir Ali,
'You have to prove something related to astrophysics', now please let me know what he proved, this really is a statement, especially within conventional physics, which is almost entirely free of proof.
This is a summary of what he proved (I think)
Basically speed is relative, and it can never be measured from a fixed point. Also the speed of light depends on the density of the medium it is travelling in.
The speed of light is slower in higher density. The speed of sound is higher in higher density. Therefore, at a certain density, sound will travel faster than light.
So it involves creating an expanding bubble of energy traveling at just under the speed of light, then projecting a craft within that bubble at just under the speed of light, the result is the craft is then (as measured from the same point) travelling at just under twice the speed of light.
-
Salaam,
its commonly known that light slows with density, depending on the medium it is travelling through, this has been experimentally proved, as for the travelling twice the speed of light, wheres the proof, or even the logic?
yeah but think about the knowledge needed to design that spacecraft.
-
Salaam,
knowledge? Has a craft been created from his ideas, anybody can imagine any abstract conceptual space craft idea, only physical proof of the concepts presented make it worth anything.
The other problem, or miss conception I see in what you described earlier is the speed of sound, in dry air sound travels 768 miles an hour compared to light which would travel in a vacume 669,600,000 miles per hour, in water sound travels 4.3 times faster so 3302 miles per hour, in a solid sound will travel more slowly in denser materials, and faster in stiffer ones. For instance, sound will travel faster in iron than uranium, and faster in hydrogen than nitrogen, due to the lower density of the first material of each set. At the same time, sound will travel faster in solids than in liquids and faster in liquids than in gases, because the internal bonds in a solid are much stronger than the bonds in a liquid, as are the bonds in liquids compared to gases.
Now show the proof your friend has that contradicts the physical evidence of the speed of sound, shear or pressure waves, not to mention the staggering speed increase required to come anywhere close to the speed of light?
-
Salaam,
knowledge? Has a craft been created from his ideas, anybody can imagine any abstract conceptual space craft idea, only physical proof of the concepts presented make it worth anything.
The other problem, or miss conception I see in what you described earlier is the speed of sound, in dry air sound travels 768 miles an hour compared to light which would travel in a vacume 669,600,000 miles per hour, in water sound travels 4.3 times faster so 3302 miles per hour, in a solid sound will travel more slowly in denser materials, and faster in stiffer ones. For instance, sound will travel faster in iron than uranium, and faster in hydrogen than nitrogen, due to the lower density of the first material of each set. At the same time, sound will travel faster in solids than in liquids and faster in liquids than in gases, because the internal bonds in a solid are much stronger than the bonds in a liquid, as are the bonds in liquids compared to gases.
Now show the proof your friend has that contradicts the physical evidence of the speed of sound, shear or pressure waves, not to mention the staggering speed increase required to come anywhere close to the speed of light?
well I'm no expert at this since i'm at middle school level. You ask rev!!
-
Salaam,
yes conspicuous silence from the Rev John, I have a deep interest in theoretical physics, he should be able to defend his beliefs if they are based in reason. He should not present doubious physics, all I present demonstrates a reasoned logic, which is defendable, although I am open to new information or conceptual expanations.
-
Salaam,
yes conspicuous silence from the Rev John, I have a deep interest in theoretical physics, he should be able to defend his beliefs if they are based in reason. He should not present doubious physics, all I present demonstrates a reasoned logic, which is defendable, although I am open to new information or conceptual expanations.
He is away these days. I think he is busy.
-
He is away these days. I think he is busy.
I am very busy at the moment. Will be back soon. I really don't care if a person on here does not believe me, I already have my PhD so do not have to prove anything to him and as I have him ignored, I cannot read his posts anyway. I do not like arrogant people.
-
Salaam Rev John,
as I said earlier in this thread, university certificates have very little value, as your response demonstrates, if in deed, from your young friends view of your expressed understanding of physics, you have any qualifications in the first instance.