Comments by "Peter \x26 Pete" (@PeterPete) on "Термоядерная энергетика - Будущее, или провал" video.

@0:49 The sun shines because of nuclear fusion - lol!!!!!! And the proof is?????
1
@hobogrifter But how do you know it's not down to something else? What tests have you carried out to show the sun works by nuclear fusion? I put forward that man hasn't a clue what the sun really is and how it actually works. All man can do is apply his understanding to what he can achieve and apply that understanding to the sun - that's the best he can do!! How can you prove me wrong?
1
@darkner2390 So how does passing sunlight through a prism or diffusion grating in order to generate a spectral emission and comparing that to known spectral lines of known substances prove the sun is composed of those substances?
1
@darkner2390 You're also not proving the sun works by nuclear fusion. You're demonstrating you can type a generally accepted ideology that has been based upon the achievements of man yet you need to prove what's happening in reality.
1
@darkner2390 But the sun's light isn't electromagnetic in my opinion. The sun's light will produce a flat line on an oscilloscope reminiscent of DC whereas any light on the electromagnetic spectrum would produce a waveform because it's produced using pulsed electricity. So how does the spectrometer prove the sun works on nuclear fusion and contains hydrogen, helium, carbon and oxygen? We're still back to square 1.
1
@darkner2390 I totally understand where you're going with your comment but you're not addressing any of my points and yet you're the one who's applying science - i'm only giving my opinions. It's my opinion the sun's light is not electromagnetic based upon photovoltaic readings indicating a non-pulsed, non-electromagnetic source. The spectral lines of sunlight do not prove the sun contains hydrogen, helium, carbon and oxygen. And lastly, there's no proof the sun work's by nuclear fusion - it's just the best guess man can conjure up based on what he can do!!! My view is man can never come to know the true nature of reality. The best he can ever do is to fabricate an understanding based on ideas and contrived demonstrations.
1
@atlas8827 just because the emission lines gained from passing Sun's light through a spectrometer or spectroscope, are in some way comparable to hydrogen, helium etc doesn't mean the Sun contains hydrogen and helium etc. It merely means that emission lines gained from passing the Sun's light through a spectrometer or spectroscope, are comparable to hydrogen, helium etc! Extending the actual reality (the observable use of the instrument) and applying that to explain a facet of nature ie The Sun and how it works, is ludicrous as it needs proof to support the claim. The info from a spectrometer can only provide any reasonable person with enough info for them to form a hypothesis ie The Sun contains hydrogen, helium etc. That hypothesis needs to be tested! How are you going to do that?
1
@atlas8827 How do you know the spectral line of the sun's light isn't collectively associated with one unknown element? What testing have you carried out to eliminate that possibility? As far as I'm concerned one cannot test the composition of the sun because one can never get there to know what the sun is actually made of!!! So imo stating the sun work's by nuclear fusion is a clear fabrication because there's no proof to support it!
1
@atlas8827 But you're not showing me any PROOF that you're understanding is true! You're merely applying a man made, artifical construct ie the periodic table of elements and man's ability to undertake nuclear fusion to something that occurs naturally ie the Sun! quote - There is no demonstrable mechanism that can make the sun have the properties it currently has without fusion. You're applying a man made mechanism ie nuclear fusion to something that is not man made! That's insane! You make it out as if man's created the Sun! Anybody needs proof to state they know how the Sun works and imo, nobody has any! People, including you, just got ideas!
1
@atlas8827 you don't get it do you as you're not proving your hypothesis about the sun working by nuclear fusion is true! Remember nuclear fusion is a process developed by man and the Sun is a naturally occurring phenomena! Mankind has not created the SUN! Man can tell you what's in a stainless steel fork because he made the fork! Man hasn't made the Sun!
1
@atlas8827 and btw there's no proof atoms exist so clearly man has created an artificial construct being his understanding of the atom! You really need to live and think in the natural world more!
1
@atlas8827 And yet after all that type you can't prove to me an atom exists; you can't prove to me nuclear fusion is what makes the sun work; you can't prove to me the sun contains hydrogen and helium; you can't prove to me lots of other things..........all you can do, like everyone else, is THINK atoms are real, imagine atoms are real. Please show me a hydrogen molecule? Tell me how would you prove to me an atom exists in the manner portrayed by mainstream science?
1
@atlas8827 You seem to promote science yet misundrstand how it works - you've used a spectrometer and discovered the spectral emission on sunlight indicates a similarity to other known elements, providing you with the idea the sun is comprised of these substances/elements. What are you going to do to test the veracity of your hypothesis?
1
@darkner2390 You seem to promote science yet misundrstand how it works - you've used a spectrometer/ spectroscope and discovered the spectral emission on sunlight indicates a similarity to other known elements, providing you with the idea the sun is comprised of these substances/elements. What are you going to do to test the veracity of your hypothesis?
1
@darkner2390 Quote - Have you yourself done any spectroscopy to study the sun to come to a conclusion which differs from the current consensus? Let's just stck with this particular point. I can't understand how anyone can formulate a hypothesis and present it to be factually without testing it. You bring in the word consensus which just means an agreement, doesn't mean it's true. You should be stating it's a verifiable fact the sun contains hydrogen and helium but you can't because you can't prove it. Anyone can come to consensus on anything especially if they're paid enough money. So how do you intend to test your hypothesis? Just admit it you can't!! You've accepted something to be the case when you haven't tested it to be the case, when nobody has tested it to be the case. To me that's insanity!!
1
@whafflete6721 I couldn't tell you how the sun shines, what generates the heat, how it works etc etc. Imho nobody can ever come to know the true nature of reality which leaves 'man' merely fabricating an understanding based on how he interacts with his environment and what he can achieve within his environment. Stating the sun works by nuclear fusion because man can achieve nuclear fusion is a clear example but you can prove me wrong, like everyone else on this thread but please provide proof the sun works by nuclear fusion and does contain all these elements!!!
1
@atlas8827 noooo - you're not proving the Sun comprises those elements by comparing the spectral emission of the Sun's light to the known spectral emission lines of known substances!! Let's say I look at the spectral lines of the Sun's light and say that the signature is what it is comprised of; the Sun has its own signature to which is unknown to man! How would you disprove my opinion? Furthermore, if you say hydrogen/helium are within the sun's signature along with many other elements then where is the signature for water that allegedly also contains hydrogen and oxygen?
1
@darkner2390 by using spectroscopy you are only looking at the effects of the Sun ie the Sun's light! Therefore one can only arrive at a hypothesis using a spectroscope regarding the Sun and then that hypothesis requires testing to see if the hypothesis is true or not! What have you done to test your hypothesis? Fuck all I'm sure!
1
@atlas8827 so I don't have to prove anything as I only offer my opinion but I never put something forward as factually true unless I can prove it or demonstrate it to be the case. It seems, even though you're relying on 'trusted science' we're caught up in a circular argument because you can't discount the idea that the sunlight's signature could have it's own distinct emission set apart from each individual element to create an unknown element in its own right. Now that is out of this world; magical as you say, because it's beyond man's capabilities to reproduce this!! Btw, I still haven't found any hydrogen and oxygen emissions in the spectral line of water, any chance you can point me in the right direction?
1
@atlas8827 Quote - The idea you presented is unfalsifiable That's just your opinion because you dislike the idea. You can't discount it!!!
1
@atlas8827 My idea is my idea, I couldn't tell you whether it is true or false so it remains a possibility. Your idea the sun containing hydrogen and helium is your idea. That's just a possibility too because you can't prove it to be true.
1
@atlas8827 the sun will always rise as long as you're alive - it's a possibility you or I could die tonight and not able to experience the sun to rise but other people will continue to experience a sunrise. Your methods of argument are reaching an all-time low as you're having difficulty accepting my idea, even as a possibility because it goes against your idea that you think is true.
1