Extra gas giants

LB, From your posts I have assumed you are in agreement with the fusion model of stellar evolution. I see this model as a major drag on learning anything about observations. Stars are not going to "burn out" after they consume ~1% of their mass as is required by the fusion model. The whole model is quits a silly story and I am amazed the faith everyone has in it.

<u>Fission</u> model Jim.

Fission. Read carefully before you post. Accurate communication is hard enough even when you do. If you don't, it becomes a <u>lot</u> harder.

***

HINT: It has nothing to do with how stars are powered, nor how they evolve once they are born. And it has nothing to do with the fission of atomic nuclei.

***

You mentioned faith again. (HINT: God didn't do it. It's not Her fault.)

Question for you - do you know the difference between belief and faith? Can you state that difference in writing?

I do not think you can. Please prove me wrong.

(You can take your time and study both words if you need to. I 'cheat' like that all the time, and it has saved me some major embarrassment on a number of occassions. I recommend it, and I do not mind being 'proven wrong'. I have a pretty thick skin.)

LB

LB, You just posted that the main difference between a planet and a star is hydrogen fusion-right? That model is the bone of contention here not how words are (mis)used. The hydrogen fusion concept leaves a lot of mass unaccounted for because only 1% of a stars mass will be consumed over the presumed life of a normal star. The real process used by stars has not yet been discovered and never will be as long as the fusion model is worshiped by everyone.

We do not worship it here. But as models go it is not without some usefulness.

Even if fusion makes NO contribution to the energy budget of a star, it still occurs. We can detect the 'smoke'. I was just using this as a convenient way to distinguish a small star from a large planet. Jupiter radiates more energy than it absorbs. But it doesn't smoke like a star so we call it a large planet.

Some day we may have a 'better' way to tell the difference.

***

But that's not what this discussion is about.

LB

(If you have a better idea you ought to start a topic to talk about it. Pointing out that you do not like someone else's idea, and then leaving, is not very useful. Pointing out that you do not like EVERYONE ELSE'S ideas is ... odd. And if you then leave without offering some sort of alternative, it is really odd. Even blaming God would be better.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>[shando] "Does DRP suggest any explanation?"</b>

This is more likely to be a failed second star, IMO. So sayeth DRP.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This sounds like a reasonable probability to me too.

<b>[Jim] "The real universe has not yet been figured out [and] never will be using these models as the only truth and way to understand observations."</b>

That is the entire point of Meta Research. org. But it seems to go over your head. You do realize that this is NOT a mainstream site? Some of our members may behave as you lament, but we do not.

***

From time to time you climb down from your Ivory Tower, strut around the beach and kick down the sand castles of the other kids. You make disparaging remarks about how fragile these sand castles are, and then leave without offering any suggestions about how to make things better.

Now, the rules of the game (as we have set them up on our little beach) allow you to do this. (You can kick my sand castle, but you can't kick sand in my face.) And, the rules do not REQUIRE you to build your own sand castle.

(You aren't breaking the rules so we aren't going to ask you to leave.)

But the rest of us <u>expect</u> you to build your own castle at least occasionally, and we notice that you never do. After a while that leads us to understand that you have nothing constructive to offer the group.

Well, almost nothing. Since we have to rebuild our castles after each of your 'visits', they can be slightly different each time. Because we think about them again, each time.

So despite your efforts to waste our time, we actually manage to grow a bit after you make a pass.

Thanks,
LB

PS - I hope you take this as the constructive criticism it is intended to be. I suspect you can contribute. You just haven't done a very good job, so far.