Topic: NASA is attempting to ignite a nuclear reaction on Saturn and turn it into a second star.
MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M started this discussion 13 years ago #31,906
Full paper
Basically Saturn and Jupiter are just shy of the size to ignite a nuclear reaction themselves. Much larger and the gravitational force would be enough. What NASA is doing is sending nuclear probes to crash onto these planets, causing a nuclear reaction that would begin the process and turn Sol into a binary system.
The Minichan Intelligence Service has announced they will begin an investigation, drawing important assets away from the Cloud Interpretation Project that we have been working on, to surpass NOAA in finding the true meaning of the clouds.
Basically Saturn and Jupiter are just shy of the size to ignite a nuclear reaction themselves. Much larger and the gravitational force would be enough. What NASA is doing is sending nuclear probes to crash onto these planets, causing a nuclear reaction that would begin the process and turn Sol into a binary system.
The Minichan Intelligence Service has announced they will begin an investigation, drawing important assets away from the Cloud Interpretation Project that we have been working on, to surpass NOAA in finding the true meaning of the clouds.
Cat !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #448,064
But NASA is dead.
floorboard joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,065
Couple of points:
...50 lbs of plutonium is approximately 10 ten times the critical mass for plutonium (ten times over the limit where plutonium spontaneously fissions). Such an amount of plutonium would need to be divided into 20 or more triggering slugs, which makes proper compression impractical... besides such a huge amount of plutonium would be used in conjunction with an inordinate amount of enriched (fissionable) uranium, making the resultant warhead the biggest and heaviest thing ever put into orbit. It's just not a viable device... a good analogy would be the feasibility of a 50 ton bullet.
...one pound of plutonium would only kill all life on earth only if it were atomised and each individual living organism were administered it's precise designated share of atoms. Again, not really feasible.
...Saturn wouldn't burn.
And finally:
...this conspiracy theory is simply bat-shit crazy.
Guess it's true what they say... you gotta know science to talk science.
...50 lbs of plutonium is approximately 10 ten times the critical mass for plutonium (ten times over the limit where plutonium spontaneously fissions). Such an amount of plutonium would need to be divided into 20 or more triggering slugs, which makes proper compression impractical... besides such a huge amount of plutonium would be used in conjunction with an inordinate amount of enriched (fissionable) uranium, making the resultant warhead the biggest and heaviest thing ever put into orbit. It's just not a viable device... a good analogy would be the feasibility of a 50 ton bullet.
...one pound of plutonium would only kill all life on earth only if it were atomised and each individual living organism were administered it's precise designated share of atoms. Again, not really feasible.
...Saturn wouldn't burn.
And finally:
...this conspiracy theory is simply bat-shit crazy.
Guess it's true what they say... you gotta know science to talk science.
MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,066
@previous (floorboard)
> ...50 lbs of plutonium is approximately 10 ten times the critical mass for plutonium (ten times over the limit where plutonium spontaneously fissions). Such an amount of plutonium would need to be divided into 20 or more triggering slugs, which makes proper compression impractical... besides such a huge amount of plutonium would be used in conjunction with an inordinate amount of enriched (fissionable) uranium, making the resultant warhead the biggest and heaviest thing ever put into orbit. It's just not a viable device... a good analogy would be the feasibility of a 50 ton bullet.
Nuclear probes have already been launched by NASA, and you cannot underestimate the force that comes with a direct crash onto the planet.
> ...one pound of plutonium would only kill all life on earth only if it were atomised and each individual living organism were administered it's precise designated share of atoms. Again, not really feasible.
It's not targetted at earth, but rather Saturn.
> ...Saturn wouldn't burn.
The sun doesn't "burn", it undergoes nuclear reaction. Nuclear reaction and burning are as different as burning and boiling. Saturn is large enough that it could *sustain* nuclear fusion, if it were triggered, this is old news.
> ...50 lbs of plutonium is approximately 10 ten times the critical mass for plutonium (ten times over the limit where plutonium spontaneously fissions). Such an amount of plutonium would need to be divided into 20 or more triggering slugs, which makes proper compression impractical... besides such a huge amount of plutonium would be used in conjunction with an inordinate amount of enriched (fissionable) uranium, making the resultant warhead the biggest and heaviest thing ever put into orbit. It's just not a viable device... a good analogy would be the feasibility of a 50 ton bullet.
Nuclear probes have already been launched by NASA, and you cannot underestimate the force that comes with a direct crash onto the planet.
> ...one pound of plutonium would only kill all life on earth only if it were atomised and each individual living organism were administered it's precise designated share of atoms. Again, not really feasible.
It's not targetted at earth, but rather Saturn.
> ...Saturn wouldn't burn.
The sun doesn't "burn", it undergoes nuclear reaction. Nuclear reaction and burning are as different as burning and boiling. Saturn is large enough that it could *sustain* nuclear fusion, if it were triggered, this is old news.
floorboard replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,067
@previous (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
Nuclear reactions are not dependent on chemistry... they are nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions.
You cannot ignite a gas giant with a nuclear bomb. There isn't enough oxygen (or similar reactive element) to sustain such a reaction.
You cannot trigger a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction either (which is what I think you meant, but not what you wrote) in a gas giant such as either Jupiter or Saturn by means of a nuclear explosion, no matter what the magnitude of such an explosion.
You cannot use 50 or 70 lbs of plutonium in a nuclear warhead... not only is it cost-prohibitive (plutonium is NOT naturally occuring), but plutonium is only used as a trigger in nuclear warheads... if you are using 50 lbs of plutonium in the trigger, how many trigger pieces (smaller than the critical mass of approximately 4 lbs) would that require? How much enriched uranium would you be using? How much tritium? How big would the warhead be?
Nuclear bombs behave the same way no matter where they are... on Earth, in space or on any another planet. The only situation under which a nuclear warhead would behave in any unpredictable way would be in a situation wherein the laws of physics have changed... that only happens inside a black hole.
It's physics, it's not location dependent... you are confusing science with magic.
One is reality... the other is delusion.
Nuclear reactions are not dependent on chemistry... they are nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions.
You cannot ignite a gas giant with a nuclear bomb. There isn't enough oxygen (or similar reactive element) to sustain such a reaction.
You cannot trigger a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction either (which is what I think you meant, but not what you wrote) in a gas giant such as either Jupiter or Saturn by means of a nuclear explosion, no matter what the magnitude of such an explosion.
You cannot use 50 or 70 lbs of plutonium in a nuclear warhead... not only is it cost-prohibitive (plutonium is NOT naturally occuring), but plutonium is only used as a trigger in nuclear warheads... if you are using 50 lbs of plutonium in the trigger, how many trigger pieces (smaller than the critical mass of approximately 4 lbs) would that require? How much enriched uranium would you be using? How much tritium? How big would the warhead be?
Nuclear bombs behave the same way no matter where they are... on Earth, in space or on any another planet. The only situation under which a nuclear warhead would behave in any unpredictable way would be in a situation wherein the laws of physics have changed... that only happens inside a black hole.
It's physics, it's not location dependent... you are confusing science with magic.
One is reality... the other is delusion.
MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,068
@448,065 (floorboard)
For the record, the 72 pounds of plutonium NASA launched will crash into saturn in 2017, creating the second star.
For the record, the 72 pounds of plutonium NASA launched will crash into saturn in 2017, creating the second star.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,069
@448,065 (floorboard)
This
Saturn emits over twice the energy it absorbs from the sun. Saturn emits a hellish amount of energy in the form of radiation; so much so, that if we were one of its moons, our planet Earth would soon be stripped of an atmosphere by the sheer radiation coming off it.
Saturns's mass ≈ 568,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
Cassini's mass ≈ 2,523 kg
By crashing something the size of a truck into a gas giant, you are not adding any appreciable amount of mass to it. Saturn probably loses more more mass into space via it's atmosphere in a very short time. The amount of energy you could potentially add to the system is orders of magnitude less than than is already being lost via heat and radiation. The whole theory is a bad sci-fi plot. Honestly: The whole story is about as plausible as saying that pissing into the gutter while it's raining will flood the town.
This
Saturn emits over twice the energy it absorbs from the sun. Saturn emits a hellish amount of energy in the form of radiation; so much so, that if we were one of its moons, our planet Earth would soon be stripped of an atmosphere by the sheer radiation coming off it.
Saturns's mass ≈ 568,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
Cassini's mass ≈ 2,523 kg
By crashing something the size of a truck into a gas giant, you are not adding any appreciable amount of mass to it. Saturn probably loses more more mass into space via it's atmosphere in a very short time. The amount of energy you could potentially add to the system is orders of magnitude less than than is already being lost via heat and radiation. The whole theory is a bad sci-fi plot. Honestly: The whole story is about as plausible as saying that pissing into the gutter while it's raining will flood the town.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,070
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,080
@448,066 (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
> Saturn is large enough that it could *sustain* nuclear fusion, if it were triggered, this is old news
No it isn't not even Jupiter could do that
> Saturn is large enough that it could *sustain* nuclear fusion, if it were triggered, this is old news
No it isn't not even Jupiter could do that
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,092
Nope.
squeegee double-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,096
Pretty sure you could crash saturn into jupiter and it still wouldn't make a star.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 50 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,102
This thread is retarded and you should feel retarded
*insert random faggot here* joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,123
> implying a scientific paper of any merit would be on a bodybuilding forum
wat
wat
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,124
> The Minichan Intelligence Service has announced they will begin an investigation, drawing important assets away from my Butt Interpretation Project that we have been working on, to surpass NOAA in finding the true meaning of my butts.
wat
wat
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,125
Fuck off USA, first you nuked my moon, now Saturn... who do you think you are, faggots?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,126
What would the benefits of a second sun be?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,128
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,129
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,130
@448,066 (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
> And finally:
...this conspiracy theory is simply bat-shit crazy.
MOST EXCELLENT TAKE ON IT
So who killed Kennedy?
> And finally:
...this conspiracy theory is simply bat-shit crazy.
MOST EXCELLENT TAKE ON IT
So who killed Kennedy?
Syntax double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,132
@448,125 (TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k)
The real question of course is why Great Britain stole the Falklands from ritefull owners
The real question of course is why Great Britain stole the Falklands from ritefull owners
MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,177
@448,069 (D)
> not even reading the claim
The job is not to add enough mass to cause Saturn to become a star. Much more efficient than igniting with gravitational force directed at the core is to ignite a reaction on the surface that is not contained, and spreads across the planet triggering it's transformation into a star.
> not even reading the claim
The job is not to add enough mass to cause Saturn to become a star. Much more efficient than igniting with gravitational force directed at the core is to ignite a reaction on the surface that is not contained, and spreads across the planet triggering it's transformation into a star.
MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,178
@448,126 (K)
It was all designed by Scientists and Analysts at the RAND institute who were contracted by liberal elites to find a way to make solar more efficient.
I can't hold your hand through all of this, please try and infer some of this on your own.
It was all designed by Scientists and Analysts at the RAND institute who were contracted by liberal elites to find a way to make solar more efficient.
I can't hold your hand through all of this, please try and infer some of this on your own.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,184
@448,177 (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
Yeah, I stopped reading the "full paper" when it started talking about Aleister Crowley, so I'll just have to rely on physics and common sense to conclude this is ridiculous.
> ignite a reaction on the surface that is not contained, and spreads across the planet
It doesn't work like that.
Yeah, I stopped reading the "full paper" when it started talking about Aleister Crowley, so I'll just have to rely on physics and common sense to conclude this is ridiculous.
> ignite a reaction on the surface that is not contained, and spreads across the planet
It doesn't work like that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,188
@previous (D)
> It doesn't work like that.
Oh, okay. The chain reaction just stops on it's own, because, you know. Get's tired.
> It doesn't work like that.
Oh, okay. The chain reaction just stops on it's own, because, you know. Get's tired.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,189
@previous (A)
> The chain reaction just stops on it's own
Yep. That's how it works on our planet too.
> The chain reaction just stops on it's own
Yep. That's how it works on our planet too.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,191
@previous (D)
> implying atomic bombs don't have containment for the nuclear reaction itself, while it's simply the heat that disperses
> implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
> implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
> implying atomic bombs don't have containment for the nuclear reaction itself, while it's simply the heat that disperses
> implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
> implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,194
@previous (A)
> > implying atomic bombs don't have containment for the nuclear reaction itself, while it's simply the heat that disperses
Pardon?
> > implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
It wasn't, no more than people today thinking the lhc was going to destroy the earth with micro black holes... a real worry for idiots who listen to morons who treat science like a faith based construct. Not a real worry for science. Or reality.
> > implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
Yup. Nuclear fusion is not like a wildfire.
> > implying atomic bombs don't have containment for the nuclear reaction itself, while it's simply the heat that disperses
Pardon?
> > implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
It wasn't, no more than people today thinking the lhc was going to destroy the earth with micro black holes... a real worry for idiots who listen to morons who treat science like a faith based construct. Not a real worry for science. Or reality.
> > implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
Yup. Nuclear fusion is not like a wildfire.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,195
@448,191 (A)
There's nothing to chain-react. Saturn is almost entirely hydrogen. Umm... IF Saturn's atmosphere was made entirely of fissile material, you might a have a point. It's not. Even assuming it was, how would a massive fission reaction trigger a sustained fusion reaction? You need mass to do that. That's how the sun works. That's how stars work. The whole idea makes no sense.
There's nothing to chain-react. Saturn is almost entirely hydrogen. Umm... IF Saturn's atmosphere was made entirely of fissile material, you might a have a point. It's not. Even assuming it was, how would a massive fission reaction trigger a sustained fusion reaction? You need mass to do that. That's how the sun works. That's how stars work. The whole idea makes no sense.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,196
@448,194 (squeegee)
> > > implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
> It wasn't, no more than people today thinking the lhc was going to destroy the earth with micro black holes... a real worry for idiots who listen to morons who treat science like a faith based construct. Not a real worry for science. Or reality.
Please, just stop. This was not a concern of the public, it was a real threat addressed by scientists before the ignition of a test bomb in Los Alamos.
> > > implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
> Yup. Nuclear fusion is not like a wildfire.
DERP. Perhaps next, we can try and compare the chances of getting cancer from nuclear fallout, vs. reading your posts. I really shouldn't have to link you to the most basic of information. Whether it's some 12 year old military buff, or your average guy who just finished a lay documentary, this is all very widely known. You are just denying basic knowledge here, and if you really want to attack the idea, you should probably not start by attacking what is commonly accepted.
> > > implying fears of that containment failing, and the entire planet's atmostphere burining up weren't a real worry during the Manhatten project
> It wasn't, no more than people today thinking the lhc was going to destroy the earth with micro black holes... a real worry for idiots who listen to morons who treat science like a faith based construct. Not a real worry for science. Or reality.
Please, just stop. This was not a concern of the public, it was a real threat addressed by scientists before the ignition of a test bomb in Los Alamos.
> > > implying that 71 pounds of plutonium crashing onto a planet with a larger mass, and that's primarily gas, not solid, will just result in a puff of heat
> Yup. Nuclear fusion is not like a wildfire.
DERP. Perhaps next, we can try and compare the chances of getting cancer from nuclear fallout, vs. reading your posts. I really shouldn't have to link you to the most basic of information. Whether it's some 12 year old military buff, or your average guy who just finished a lay documentary, this is all very widely known. You are just denying basic knowledge here, and if you really want to attack the idea, you should probably not start by attacking what is commonly accepted.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,197
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,198
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,200
@448,196 (A)
No it wad not a concern by scientists at los alamos and you could no more turn saturn into a star with a missile than you could turn the sun into a black hole with a pea shooter.
No it wad not a concern by scientists at los alamos and you could no more turn saturn into a star with a missile than you could turn the sun into a black hole with a pea shooter.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,202
@448,198 (D)
This shit is commonplace in history, and all the nay-sayers turn around and pretend they always had their suspicions.
You can mouth about "fisionable material", and how saturn is made of hydrogen, which is an obvious oversight on your part, or you can just look at the facts.
Fision reactions are common ways to initiate fusion reactions. Oh. That star we do have? Happens to have be composed of a lot of Hydrogren as well.
But, no, unlike the H-bombs we tested, this time it will be different, and the 71 tons of plutonium that is ignited won't cause a Hydrogen chain reaction, turning Saturn into a second star, and causing --opportunity-- chaos, and inflating the price of Photovoltaics even more to support the elitist agenda.
Apparents physics only works sometimes, and social dynamics aren't actually based on conflict.
This shit is commonplace in history, and all the nay-sayers turn around and pretend they always had their suspicions.
You can mouth about "fisionable material", and how saturn is made of hydrogen, which is an obvious oversight on your part, or you can just look at the facts.
Fision reactions are common ways to initiate fusion reactions. Oh. That star we do have? Happens to have be composed of a lot of Hydrogren as well.
But, no, unlike the H-bombs we tested, this time it will be different, and the 71 tons of plutonium that is ignited won't cause a Hydrogen chain reaction, turning Saturn into a second star, and causing --opportunity-- chaos, and inflating the price of Photovoltaics even more to support the elitist agenda.
Apparents physics only works sometimes, and social dynamics aren't actually based on conflict.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,203
@448,200 (squeegee)
Is that analogy supposed to make sense? A chain reaction means it doesn't matter how small the ignition is. Do you want to scoff, and tell me a spark can't actually start a forest fire? Because that would be the appropriate analogy.
Is that analogy supposed to make sense? A chain reaction means it doesn't matter how small the ignition is. Do you want to scoff, and tell me a spark can't actually start a forest fire? Because that would be the appropriate analogy.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,204
@previous (A)
Stars are not on fire! They undergo thermonuclear fusion as a result of the collapse of a molecular gas cloud to sufficient density. The trigger is pressure and heat at the core, not a spark at the surface.
Stop this moronic schtic at once
Stars are not on fire! They undergo thermonuclear fusion as a result of the collapse of a molecular gas cloud to sufficient density. The trigger is pressure and heat at the core, not a spark at the surface.
Stop this moronic schtic at once
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,205
DON'T WORRY KIDS! Leaving your fire smouldering is no big deal, it's like, a giant forest. Expecting that little thing to spread would be like expecting "you could turn the sun into a black hole with a pea shooter."Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,206
@448,202 (A)
> how saturn is made of hydrogen, which is an obvious oversight on your part, or you can just look at the facts.
Fact: Saturn : 96% hydrogen
> That star we do have? Happens to have be composed of a lot of Hydrogren as well.
Yes, it also has a lot of mass that helps create the gravitational forces necessary to run its fusion. Saturn lacks this.
> H-bombs we tested
Yeah, that's the point. Our planet did not have a run-away reaction that turned it into a star. It doesn't work like that. Any stray neutrons that smash into the hydrogen in Saturn's atmosphere won't do shit. It's hydrogen.
> Apparents physics only works sometimes
It actually works all the time, just not how you think it does.
> how saturn is made of hydrogen, which is an obvious oversight on your part, or you can just look at the facts.
Fact: Saturn : 96% hydrogen
> That star we do have? Happens to have be composed of a lot of Hydrogren as well.
Yes, it also has a lot of mass that helps create the gravitational forces necessary to run its fusion. Saturn lacks this.
> H-bombs we tested
Yeah, that's the point. Our planet did not have a run-away reaction that turned it into a star. It doesn't work like that. Any stray neutrons that smash into the hydrogen in Saturn's atmosphere won't do shit. It's hydrogen.
> Apparents physics only works sometimes
It actually works all the time, just not how you think it does.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,207
@448,204 (squeegee)
> Stars are not on fire!
No fucking shit, I explained the difference near the start of the thread you skipped so you could post asinine comments. Here is where I say just that: @448066 (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
> Stop this moronic schtic at once
You are trying to make an analogy between a chain reaction, and a peashooter defying the laws of physics to increase the mass of a star. I am trying to have a discussion about a program NASA has already set into motion.
> Stars are not on fire!
No fucking shit, I explained the difference near the start of the thread you skipped so you could post asinine comments. Here is where I say just that: @448066 (MIS Public Relations !f04QQhau0M)
> Stop this moronic schtic at once
You are trying to make an analogy between a chain reaction, and a peashooter defying the laws of physics to increase the mass of a star. I am trying to have a discussion about a program NASA has already set into motion.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,208
@448,206 (D)
It's amazing how you address most of my issues, but leave out key pillars that are necessary to understanding why the earth did not see the run away effect, while Saturn would.
It's amazing how you address most of my issues, but leave out key pillars that are necessary to understanding why the earth did not see the run away effect, while Saturn would.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,209
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,210
@previous (squeegee)
Brilliant, a trifecta.
After making a false analogy between chain reactions and magical increase of mass, after trying to explain that stars do not burn when I had said just that verbatim (proving you are just reading the headline and rushing to post some retort), you try and say NASA didn't actually launch 71 tons of plutonium at Saturn.
Brilliant, a trifecta.
After making a false analogy between chain reactions and magical increase of mass, after trying to explain that stars do not burn when I had said just that verbatim (proving you are just reading the headline and rushing to post some retort), you try and say NASA didn't actually launch 71 tons of plutonium at Saturn.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,211
@448,208 (A)
It's amazing how you address none of the issues while failing to provide any rational argument.
It's amazing how you address none of the issues while failing to provide any rational argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,212
@previous (D)
I've already addressed them. If the earth were made of Hydrogren, near the mass needed to sustain a nuclear reaction and the yield of the H-bombs tested were right, it would be an issue.
I've already addressed them. If the earth were made of Hydrogren, near the mass needed to sustain a nuclear reaction and the yield of the H-bombs tested were right, it would be an issue.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,213
> false analogy
No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
> rushing to post some retort
Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
> nasa didn't actually launch 71 tons of plutoniim at saturn.
Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
> rushing to post some retort
Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
> nasa didn't actually launch 71 tons of plutoniim at saturn.
Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,214
@previous (squeegee)
> No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
That is the most retarded excuse for a false analogy ever. You could literally make an analogy between any two things and when you're called out on how dissimilar they are just say they "are both stupid". Congratulations, that line of yours has caused 1,000 dead logicians to turn in their graves at relativistic speeds.
> Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
Until it turns out your criticisms are unfounded, and your "enlightening" comments have already been stated before.
> Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
And you've done such a fine job of showing that, sans showing any actual flaw in the argument.
Now that you're two shitty arguments have been cast out as unsubstantiated, are you just going to stick with name calling?
> No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
That is the most retarded excuse for a false analogy ever. You could literally make an analogy between any two things and when you're called out on how dissimilar they are just say they "are both stupid". Congratulations, that line of yours has caused 1,000 dead logicians to turn in their graves at relativistic speeds.
> Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
Until it turns out your criticisms are unfounded, and your "enlightening" comments have already been stated before.
> Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
And you've done such a fine job of showing that, sans showing any actual flaw in the argument.
Now that you're two shitty arguments have been cast out as unsubstantiated, are you just going to stick with name calling?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,215
@448,212 (A)
> I've already addressed them.
You haven't.
A fission reaction that could be caused by 70+ pounds of plutonium only chain reacts so long as it has other heavy atoms to collide with. Hydrogen is not heavy. It is the lightest element in existence with an atomic number of one. There is no sustained chain-reaction.
Even assuming Saturn's atmosphere were made entirely of gaseous, unstable elements, you wouldn't cause the sustained fusion reaction that you would need to make a star. Even assuming that Saturn's atmosphere were entirely gaseous plutonium, you might cause a chain reaction that might trigger pressures high enough to cause fusion for a moment, but, since that fission reaction just happens once, the whole pressures-necessary-to-produce fusion can't be sustained. Saturn doesn't have enough mass (even when made out of gaseous plutonium) to sustain fusion reactions like a star.
You seem to have a woeful understanding of the physics involved in all this, but you have a seemingly unlimited ability to claim that you have already explained concepts that you don't seem to understand. To cut this short: I will just reply with "no you" posts until you satisfactorily address the above two points.
> I've already addressed them.
You haven't.
A fission reaction that could be caused by 70+ pounds of plutonium only chain reacts so long as it has other heavy atoms to collide with. Hydrogen is not heavy. It is the lightest element in existence with an atomic number of one. There is no sustained chain-reaction.
Even assuming Saturn's atmosphere were made entirely of gaseous, unstable elements, you wouldn't cause the sustained fusion reaction that you would need to make a star. Even assuming that Saturn's atmosphere were entirely gaseous plutonium, you might cause a chain reaction that might trigger pressures high enough to cause fusion for a moment, but, since that fission reaction just happens once, the whole pressures-necessary-to-produce fusion can't be sustained. Saturn doesn't have enough mass (even when made out of gaseous plutonium) to sustain fusion reactions like a star.
You seem to have a woeful understanding of the physics involved in all this, but you have a seemingly unlimited ability to claim that you have already explained concepts that you don't seem to understand. To cut this short: I will just reply with "no you" posts until you satisfactorily address the above two points.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,216
@448,213 (squeegee)
http://www.nasa.gov/probes/cassini/end-of-life.htm
Near the end:
> Is it true that when Cassini reaches Saturn it will turn the planet into a star?
> These rumors began spreading online, and there is nothing to worry about. Whew! When Cassini enters Saturns atmosphere it will burn up on entry, and humanities footprint will be small. The probability of a runaway nuclear reaction is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000- or in another way of putting it, that's less likely than guessing a grain of sand on a beach!
Even NASA admits here it's a probability, they just use dumbed down "probilities" to cover up the fact that it is much more likely.
http://www.nasa.gov/probes/cassini/end-of-life.htm
Near the end:
> Is it true that when Cassini reaches Saturn it will turn the planet into a star?
> These rumors began spreading online, and there is nothing to worry about. Whew! When Cassini enters Saturns atmosphere it will burn up on entry, and humanities footprint will be small. The probability of a runaway nuclear reaction is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000- or in another way of putting it, that's less likely than guessing a grain of sand on a beach!
Even NASA admits here it's a probability, they just use dumbed down "probilities" to cover up the fact that it is much more likely.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,217
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,218
@previous (A)As far as I can tell you are a moron. Please work to hold your own in arguments that you know, at least, something about in the future.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,219
@448,214 (A)
> > No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
> That is the most retarded excuse for a false analogy ever. You could literally make an analogy between any two things and when you're called out on how dissimilar they are just say they "are both stupid". Congratulations, that line of yours has caused 1,000 dead logicians to turn in their graves at relativistic speeds.
They are similar in that they are both stupid and wrong.
> > Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
> Until it turns out your criticisms are unfounded, and your "enlightening" comments have already been stated before.
Post ludicrous bull shit on the internet and be surprised when everyone calls you out on the same bull shit, why don't you
> > Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
> And you've done such a fine job of showing that, sans showing any actual flaw in the argument.
The flaw in your argument has been pointed out over and over and over again. Saturn lacks the mass, and an a-bomb won't trigger thermonuclear fusion at the core.
If you need more details than that, I suggest you get an education.
> Now that you're two shitty arguments have been cast out as unsubstantiated, are you just going to stick with name calling?
Now that the premise of your argument has been shown to be invalid, are you going to continue to try to win with a semantical technicality?
> > No, I compared one stupid wrong thing to another stupid wrong thing.
> That is the most retarded excuse for a false analogy ever. You could literally make an analogy between any two things and when you're called out on how dissimilar they are just say they "are both stupid". Congratulations, that line of yours has caused 1,000 dead logicians to turn in their graves at relativistic speeds.
They are similar in that they are both stupid and wrong.
> > Yup, false, stupid lies are easy to recognize and dismiss out of pocket.
> Until it turns out your criticisms are unfounded, and your "enlightening" comments have already been stated before.
Post ludicrous bull shit on the internet and be surprised when everyone calls you out on the same bull shit, why don't you
> > Yup. They did not. I can say with 100% confidence that nasa is not trying to turn saturn into a star, and also that you are an idiot.
> And you've done such a fine job of showing that, sans showing any actual flaw in the argument.
The flaw in your argument has been pointed out over and over and over again. Saturn lacks the mass, and an a-bomb won't trigger thermonuclear fusion at the core.
If you need more details than that, I suggest you get an education.
> Now that you're two shitty arguments have been cast out as unsubstantiated, are you just going to stick with name calling?
Now that the premise of your argument has been shown to be invalid, are you going to continue to try to win with a semantical technicality?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,220
@448,218 (D)
I'm not even sure how many times you need me to explain how this works, and is different. This post will be the 5th, and last explanation you get, but I have a feeling you are just rambling and throwing in words you heard on some government funded lay documentary about space.
If this doesn't satisfy you, I'm not sure what will.
I'm not even sure how many times you need me to explain how this works, and is different. This post will be the 5th, and last explanation you get, but I have a feeling you are just rambling and throwing in words you heard on some government funded lay documentary about space.
If this doesn't satisfy you, I'm not sure what will.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,221
@previous (A)Please address the two points that I indicated in a logical, scientific way that will convince me that I was wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,222
@448,219 (squeegee)
> They are similar in that they are both stupid and wrong.
Try and cover it up with humor, but it's still a false analogy. How is it that people can not get that there is a reason they have to use fallacies, while the other party doesn't? Keep trying to save face, but who are you convincing?
> Post ludicrous bull shit on the internet and be surprised when everyone calls you out on the same bull shit, why don't you
"Everyone" is you, and an anonymous poster who writes in a similar fashion as you?
> The flaw in your argument has been pointed out over and over and over again. Saturn lacks the mass, and an a-bomb won't trigger thermonuclear fusion at the core.
Yet, after explaining the difference several times, you continue to repeat this like a broken record.
> Now that the premise of your argument has been shown to be invalid, are you going to continue to try to win with a semantical technicality?
Did you just admit I'm "technically" winning? Yea, small overriding concepts are important, and are not "semantics". I'm technically winning, yes, but I'm also actually winning.
> They are similar in that they are both stupid and wrong.
Try and cover it up with humor, but it's still a false analogy. How is it that people can not get that there is a reason they have to use fallacies, while the other party doesn't? Keep trying to save face, but who are you convincing?
> Post ludicrous bull shit on the internet and be surprised when everyone calls you out on the same bull shit, why don't you
"Everyone" is you, and an anonymous poster who writes in a similar fashion as you?
> The flaw in your argument has been pointed out over and over and over again. Saturn lacks the mass, and an a-bomb won't trigger thermonuclear fusion at the core.
Yet, after explaining the difference several times, you continue to repeat this like a broken record.
> Now that the premise of your argument has been shown to be invalid, are you going to continue to try to win with a semantical technicality?
Did you just admit I'm "technically" winning? Yea, small overriding concepts are important, and are not "semantics". I'm technically winning, yes, but I'm also actually winning.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,223
@448,221 (D)
Please explain to me why even NASA admits there is a very small chance, if it lacks the mass.
Please explain to me why even NASA admits there is a very small chance, if it lacks the mass.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,224
@previous (A)Please address the two points that I indicated in a logical, scientific way that will convince me that I was wrong.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,225
@448,222 (A)
The differences that you speak of are invalid from the stand point of physics and science. They are incorrect, and so are you for asserting them as fact.
That is all, and now your stupidity trolling has grown tiresome. Go suck a cock now.
The differences that you speak of are invalid from the stand point of physics and science. They are incorrect, and so are you for asserting them as fact.
That is all, and now your stupidity trolling has grown tiresome. Go suck a cock now.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,226
@448,224 (D)
Please explain to me why even NASA admits there is a very small chance, if it lacks the mass.
Please explain to me why even NASA admits there is a very small chance, if it lacks the mass.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,227
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,228
@448,225 (squeegee)
The differences I speak of are important, because you compared two distinct ideas, that were not the same, and then backpeddled and tried to cover it up with a half-baked attack calling them "identically stupid and wrong".
The differences I speak of are important, because you compared two distinct ideas, that were not the same, and then backpeddled and tried to cover it up with a half-baked attack calling them "identically stupid and wrong".
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,229
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,230
@448,223 (A)
Never heard of sarcasm? Nasa is good at responding to ignorant misunderstanding of physics with a clever tongue in cheek style.
Never heard of sarcasm? Nasa is good at responding to ignorant misunderstanding of physics with a clever tongue in cheek style.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,231
@448,226 (A)Why don't you explain it to me? You can start byaddressing the two points that I indicated in a logical, scientific way that will convince me that I was wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,232
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,233
@448,231 (D)
Thank you, you're post made us #1 for this week, and it's late and I have to get to bed.
Thank you, you're post made us #1 for this week, and it's late and I have to get to bed.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,234
@previous (A)Please come back and argue about things which might make for a more realistic topic!
Spoiler: Creationism has been done here before, but it might prove fun if you're really on the ball
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,235
@448,228 (A)
They are the same in that they are both wrong interpretations of physics, you blithering idiot. Your scenario is as likely as fantasy to come true. That better?
They are the same in that they are both wrong interpretations of physics, you blithering idiot. Your scenario is as likely as fantasy to come true. That better?
squeegee double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,236
@448,232 (A)
Yup. Nasa is full of trolls when it comes to the purposefully ignorant or the willfully stupid
Yup. Nasa is full of trolls when it comes to the purposefully ignorant or the willfully stupid
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,238
What if NASA takes like, a million strike anywhere matches and a thousand liters of lighter fluid and turns the solar system into RE: ten myle barbecue pit??
Why didn't Edward Snowden warn us? What if the Snowden "leaks" and the government "shutdown" were false flag operations that just "coincidentally" happened to happen at the same time NASA is engineering this operation???? Why won't the lamestream media report on the real issues?
Why didn't Edward Snowden warn us? What if the Snowden "leaks" and the government "shutdown" were false flag operations that just "coincidentally" happened to happen at the same time NASA is engineering this operation???? Why won't the lamestream media report on the real issues?
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,239
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,240
@448,238 (Metæ)
The Snowden leaks revealed that a worldwide swing-dance competition could likely generate enough energy to cause our planet to turn into a star. Keep that under your hat though, otherwise the terrorists might get ideas.
The Snowden leaks revealed that a worldwide swing-dance competition could likely generate enough energy to cause our planet to turn into a star. Keep that under your hat though, otherwise the terrorists might get ideas.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,241
@448,239 (squeegee)
Yeah, that's why I started coming here too. And yes, I think he has fun being a jackass, so it's kind of a win-win.
Yeah, that's why I started coming here too. And yes, I think he has fun being a jackass, so it's kind of a win-win.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,242
@previous (D)
Irl I would've slit his throat for implying saturn is close enough to jupiters size to say they are both "just shy" of nuclear fusion and for jupiter to not be a star.
Either saturn is "just shy" and jupiter is a star, or jupiter is "just shy" and saturn is no where near ignition.
They are much differently sized.
Irl I would've slit his throat for implying saturn is close enough to jupiters size to say they are both "just shy" of nuclear fusion and for jupiter to not be a star.
Either saturn is "just shy" and jupiter is a star, or jupiter is "just shy" and saturn is no where near ignition.
They are much differently sized.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,249
@previous (squeegee)
Yeah, I feel your pain. Saturn is 0.299 Jupiter masses. Our star is 1,047.56 Jupiter masses. I don't know how "just shy" equals "around ten to thirty thousand times the mass of" in anyone's understanding.
"Oh well, it's just a few thousand times smaller. That's "just shy" of the necessary size..."
"Oh that SD card we sold you? Yeah, it holds around 60 megabytes. I know we sold it as a 64GB drive, but it's "just shy" of that. You can hold maybe ten high-definition photos on that thing!"
Yeah, I feel your pain. Saturn is 0.299 Jupiter masses. Our star is 1,047.56 Jupiter masses. I don't know how "just shy" equals "around ten to thirty thousand times the mass of" in anyone's understanding.
"Oh well, it's just a few thousand times smaller. That's "just shy" of the necessary size..."
"Oh that SD card we sold you? Yeah, it holds around 60 megabytes. I know we sold it as a 64GB drive, but it's "just shy" of that. You can hold maybe ten high-definition photos on that thing!"
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,290
@448,242 (squeegee)
My opening post was literally me pretending to be a representative of the Minichan Intelligence Service, and I mentioned taking funds away from a project to interpret clouds. I didn't have any plans to defend an idea someone brought up on a body building forum, but all of your are so quick to anger, I felt compelled.
My opening post was literally me pretending to be a representative of the Minichan Intelligence Service, and I mentioned taking funds away from a project to interpret clouds. I didn't have any plans to defend an idea someone brought up on a body building forum, but all of your are so quick to anger, I felt compelled.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,305
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,308
@previous (squeegee)
Nice try, but you can't turn this around.
I hope you cool it off with the drinking, it will take more out of you than you gain from the good times.
Nice try, but you can't turn this around.
I hope you cool it off with the drinking, it will take more out of you than you gain from the good times.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,318
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,322
@previous (squeegee)
Read the first post, I wasn't even trying to troll (way to obvious), until you insisted on arguing.
Do you ever call up The Onion and tell them how wrong they are?
Read the first post, I wasn't even trying to troll (way to obvious), until you insisted on arguing.
Do you ever call up The Onion and tell them how wrong they are?
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,332
@previous (A)
The ficking onion is wrong constantly, don't even try to claim them as a source, they're worse than the fucking national enquirer.
So yeah, when they make false claims and lies I call them on their bullshit in the comments section.
The ficking onion is wrong constantly, don't even try to claim them as a source, they're worse than the fucking national enquirer.
So yeah, when they make false claims and lies I call them on their bullshit in the comments section.