. . . you have sufficient eloquence to sound like you're intelligent, but you have all the intelligence of a doorknob. It's such a disheartening state of affairs . . . I would expect someone of your intelligence to be typing something more like "stAR TRek suxORZ" or something.
Anyway, talking to you is pointless, so consider this my last reply to you of our current conversation:
Quote:
I'm really quite sorry, but I cannot continue a conversation with someone who denies basic facts of the event, under the mistaken belief that you need only glance at the canon and then make guesses based on your limited evidence, when more evidence is just sitting there.
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.htmlOh, and just what evidence have you presented?
The canon . . . that movie you think you can just zip through, ignoring the details, and make the simplest observation of, and call it fact. "Duh, green beam shoot, planet kaboom".
I am not obligated to educate you, but I'll give you a pointer, all the same. Get it through your head: you cannot take the simplest possible glance at an event and then armchair-theorize your way to a correct conclusion. By choosing to ignore relevant data, you will only reach a correct conclusion through the wildest stroke of luck.
Quote:
The Mysterious Unknown Mechanism you either cannot or will not define?
"Cannot or will not"? I've already told you that I refuse to speculate on the nuts-and-bolts that we're not told about. Why do you continue to wonder why I haven't speculated?
Quote:
Your "creative" reinterpretation of other peoples' words and writings?
Oh please. The pot cannot call the gleaming silver kettle black.
Quote:
Oh my god . . . you have got to be kidding. Fermionic atoms are not things which magically appear when shit gets cold. Fermionic atoms are plain old atoms with a non-integer spin due to an odd number of fermions in their composition. Lithium-6, hardly a magical product of cold temperatures, is a fermionic atom.
Did you even bother to read any of the pages I left the links to?
Yes. Not a single one supports the erroneous conclusion which you have drawn, i.e. that fermionic atoms do not exist under Earth-normal conditions. The fact that they are a topic of study under supercool conditions does not mean that they only exist at that state.
Quote:
Did you even bother to try to comprehend the conditions under which the aforenamed entities combine into fermionic states?
"Combine into fermionic states"? Oh good grief.
Look, kid. I'll be nice and educate you further.
There are proper fermions . . . leptons (including electrons) and quarks. There are fermionic hadrons, including protons and neutrons. All of these have a spin of 1/2, and most people call all of them fermions, which is science-ese for "it has a spin of 1/2". There are also bosonic hadrons . . . these only have two quarks (protons and neutrons have three), and therefore end up being spin-1 particles. Boson is science-ese for "has an integer spin value".
When you have an atom with an odd number of fermions and fermionic hadrons, such as occurs in Lithium-6 (three protons, three neutrons, three electrons), you have a fermionic atom, referred to as such because the entire atom has a spin of 1/2. This means, for better or worse, that the whole damned she-bang may also be referred to as a fermion. Add another neutron to make Lithium-7, and now you have a bosonic atom, or boson.
The point of supercooling fermionic or bosonic atoms is to slow the motion of the atoms . . . that way, one hopes, you end up getting the de Broglie wavelengths (i.e. the particles' 'outer rims') to overlap, so they 'touch', creating what is called "degeneracy". The reason this is hard with fermionic atoms is because, unlike bosonic atoms, fermionic atoms are damnably hard things to get to 'collide', so getting the average motion to slow down is that much more difficult. The hope, however, is that we'll be able to create a fermionic version of a Bose-Einstein Condensate.
The reason I used fermionic atoms as an example for you way back when, in the effort to try to get you to read up on the fact that atoms aren't solid objects, was because I foolishly hoped you might learn these facts on your own. Instead, you've made even more of an ass of yourself by claiming that fermionic atoms don't exist unless it's cold, and (by extension) that all atoms are solid at room temperature.
Dipshit.
Quote:
Oh, and by the way:
This approach, pioneered by my group at JILA, is not the only way of obtaining ultracold Fermi gases. Randy Hulet and his group at Rice University (see Truscott et al. in further reading), as well as Christophe Salomon and co-workers at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris (see Schreck et al. in further reading), have used a technique known as "sympathetic cooling", in which a gas containing a mixture of isotopes - rather than a mixture of spin-states - is cooled. Both groups have used this approach to cool mixtures of lithium-6 and lithium-7 atoms. The lithium-7 atoms, which are bosons, are evaporatively cooled in the usual way. Meanwhile, the simultaneously trapped lithium-6 atoms, which are fermions, cool simply by being in thermal contact with the boson gas - just as hot coffee would cool if placed in contact with ice.
And this goes along perfectly with what I have told you and tried to get you to understand. The Lithium-7 bosons (bosonic atoms)
will collide with the Lithium-6 fermions (fermionic atoms), whereas Lithium-6 fermions (fermionic atoms) are hard as hell to get to collide with each other.
Dipshit.
Quote:
Hulet and co-workers at Rice, as well researchers at the ENS, have carried out similar experiments to show the differences in size between a Fermi gas (lithium-6) and a Bose gas (lithium-7).
Exactly. Because Lithium-7 is easier to cool and get down to low-momentum states, there will be a difference in the volume of a similar-temp Li-7 and Li-6 gas.
Quote:
This quantum phenomenon, called Fermi pressure, is seen in astrophysics and is responsible for stabilizing white-dwarf and neutron stars against their gravitational potential.
This is what people refer to when they speak of neutron stars being exactly-so compact because they have reached their neutron degeneracy pressure point.
Quote:
Those two extracts from the article A Fermi Gas Of Atoms at the Physics Web website say you're wrong.
No, your continuing utter failure to understand what they have said, even after corrections have been provided, prove that you're a stupid fucking idiot.
Quote:
During the course of this thread, you yourself raised the spectre of mass/energy conversion, then try to claim that this is not what you are saying when pinned down on the question.
I have made no such claim. My dispute with your foolishness revolves around the use of the term "spontaneous".
Now down to nitpicking semantics, are we?
I am not "now down" to it . . . it should have been clear to you from the moment I objected to your phrase "spontaneous mass/energy conversion", and pointed out to you why it was not necessary just because something isn't releasing energy through fission, fusion, or antimatter processes. Is there no limit to your stupidity?
Quote:
If a supernova, a violent explosion event of a stellar body, can indeed toss off a ring or rings of material in the shock-front, then this leaves a possible explanation for the planar rings at Alderaan which does not require a MUM and conforms to fundamental physical principles.
However, there is no reason to believe this, given the fact that the guy's theory is silly. This is most easily observed in the SN1987A example, where the fact is that the ring was there for several thousand years before the supernova occurred.
The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event and has no bearing on the theory offered up by the authour in question.
The previous ring was not a residual from a prior supernova of the star . . . your crack-head theorist is mistaken. I'm not even sure, off the top of my head, if a star could
ever be expected to have two supernovas.
The star was a blue supergiant before it blew, but used to be a red supergiant. This confused astronomers, because they thought at the time that only red supergiants could explode in supernova events. However, now we know that a red supergiant can throw off material, causing it to contract and the temperature to rise, in the few tens of thousands of years before it blows.
During that period of time, the star that used to be there expelled the material now illuminated by SN1987A at velocities 100-2000 times slower than the material from the star's supernova which is now beginning to overtake the circumstellar ring material.
Quote:
Well, I can't help what you think, nor do I intend to try. You are, to be perfectly honest, a total idiot, and this is demonstrated by your stupid arguments mixed with your utterly unexplainable presumption of superiority.
Empty bluster, and with that, we destroy any pretentions you tried offering up for your Moral Superiority in regards to insults and flaming. The fact that you can't offer any further rebuttal other than to directly attack the messenger in and of itself speaks volumes of the weakness of your own position.
No, seriously, you're an idiot. This isn't bluster, or an unjustified character attack. This is simply the fact of the matter. You think you can ignore evidence and reach a proper conclusion, and that in fact this is supported by rules of logic . . . that's ridiculous. You think you can make up crack-pot theories about fermionic atoms and that they are true . . . that's ridiculous (and, in fact, links back to your original problem with evidence). You think you can reference the first crack-head theory you come across as a disproof of all astronomy and astrophysics . . . that's ridiculous (and, in fact, links back to your original problem). All your ridiculous ideas spring from the same well.
There comes a point where even the fairest person has to simply stop, consider the issue for a moment, and then finally declare that the other person is a moron. There's no point in you and I debating or discussing anything if we disagree on the fundamental concepts of how to achieve knowledge, and how to learn about the fruits of real knowledge and study.
It would be possible for you
not to be a moron. First, you must acknowledge that all evidence must be accounted for properly before theories can begin. Second, you must not assume that everyone else is wrong simply because someone said so. You must look at the person's argument . . . not your addition to it, not your ideas of what it says, but the argument itself . . . and determine if the person's argument best fits all the facts available . . . not some of the facts, not the ones you like, but all the relevant facts of the case.
Quote:
Furthermore, hanging your hat on a mechanism which exists either only under laboratory conditions or at exceptional conditional states of supercompression or within the inner layers of a neutron star as a means to dismiss the lack of interaction between the superlaser beam and Alderaan's atmosphere (in which none of these conditions are present) was a definite mistake on your part.
Oh my god . . . this is the saddest thing you've said yet. The fermionic atom example was given to you because you were making the stupid claim that atoms are solid objects.
Strawman. I made no such claim, as the record of this thread clearly indicates.
Degan:
I hate to have to tell you this, but atmospheric gasses do have solidity even at microscopic levels. That's sort of why there is such a thing as "atmospheric pressure".DarkStar:
I hope you are only claiming that there is solidity in reference to such things as ice crystals, dust particles, and so on, as opposed to actually claiming that the actual gases are solid.Degan:
I presume you are aware of how objects entering atmosphere encounter something called "friction"? Just what do you imagine is responsible for that? DarkStar:
Solidity is not a characteristic of individual atoms, contrary to your belief. You have misunderstood the concept of "collision" of atoms in a gas. I'm not going to go over the quantum physics with you . . . go educate yourself. I will point out as an example for you, though, that fermionic atoms of the same spin state, when cooled, do not collide unless it is head-on. Solid matter does not act this way, much to the chagrin of auto insurers. and:
Atoms are not solid objects. You have misunderstood the term "collision" used in reference to the atoms of a gas. Quantum physics will have your answer. Look up data on how fermionic atoms of the same spin-state will, when cooled, not collide unless they are moving head-on to one another. Auto insurers would rejoice if that occurred with solid objects.Degan:
I did look up the data —unfortunately for you. When you wrote this, you were aware, I trust, that fermionic atoms are entities which only exist in Bose-Einstein degenerate matter condensates which are formed only under conditions of exceptional compression and at absolute zero.
Neither condition is in force in open space or within a planetary atmosphere. While you may have a flimsy escape clause . . . you never expressly stated that atoms are solid objects . . . you did claim that gases have solidity at microscopic levels (which, evidently, is unrelated to ice crystals, dust particles, and so on), and did choose to argue against the example proving that atoms are not solid objects.
So just what the hell were you arguing, if not that atoms are solid? That a bunch of atoms together in a gas are solid? That's just as stupid.
Quote:
No, you offered up the fermionic atom example in a vain attempt to impress the rest of us with your alledged Vast Knowledge of Physics.
I wasn't trying to impress you. You gave every indication that you were arguing for the notion that atoms are solid objects, and I was trying to give you something to base your research on to correct this foolish view. You then argued against the counterexample with more stupid foolish views.
Quote:
What, did you guess from the data you found that fermionic atoms only exist in supercooled states?
There is no need to "guess" about what a text actually says.
That's
awful.
FAQ
Search
Register
Login
.
