Religious slurs acceptable

Napsáno Goblin, 25.05.2015 at 16:48

Yes ...Bible also claims bats are birds. Of course we know bats are mammals.

No way! You gotta be fuckin' kiddin' meh! only the bible knows the truth!

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 07:23

Napsáno International, 25.05.2015 at 22:58

Um... hypocrisy much? The sun is mostly hydrogen and helium, neither of which is radioactive. In fact, in terms of Becquerels of radioactive decay per kilogram of stuff, the Earth is probably more radioactive than the sun is.

The actual stuff that puts out radioactivity (incredible heat, hydrogen/deuterium fusion, etc.) only form a small part of the sun, similar to how radioactive materials form a small part of the Earth.

Hypocrisy? Really? Where? I hope you have an explanation for calling me that...

Pls, do not try to compare the sun radioactivity with the earth's radioactivity!! I just told you they can not be compared! It's a completely different process, just the opposite one to be exact.
"Is probably more radioactive"? Where do you get this from? I'll repeat this again, the Earth is not radioactive, the whole is not desintegrating! It's the Uranium and Thorium in it, that's all, it's not even a 0.0001% of the whole Earth! That would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. The process that these elements suffer is called fission and can take place at mild conditions but it's really really really slow. So slow that the radiation is weak, very weak. Overall, you have a < 0.0001% of the Earth irradiating a very weak radiation with short range.

Meanwhile, the whole Sun is reacting with itself by a process called fusion. The whole sun is a fusion nuclear plant. It's radioactivity is strong enough to reach the Earth. How can the Earth compete with that!?

The "stuff" you name is the whole Sun. All its atoms participate in the fusion proces. Hidrogen is the most important, of course, cause it can weight up to the 50% of the star's weight. That's a fucking big amount of hydrogen, it takes billions of years to burn it. But also other heavier elements participate in the fusion process and other similar ones which ocurr in the star. All of these processes irradiate a bigger, stronger and further dangerous radioactivity than the fision process. And even if the fusion is not a "fast" process, it's faster than the fission. To sum up: ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE SUN DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING AT ALL OR ELSE THE SUN WOULDN'T SHINE! And that part consists of heavy metals which would need even higher temperatures than the ones in the core of the sun to carry on with the fusion process.

Hope I made myself clear. You can't fucking compare the Earth to the Sun's radioactiveness... pls, give up on this. I can give you a point in admiting that the Earth's radioactive elements produce a certain amount of radioactivity, which heats the core of the Earth, but that's it. Don't compare the 7.000 degrees inside the Earth (partially owing to the radioactivity of Uranium and partially due to the Sun's radioaction absorbed by the Earth) with the 15.000.000 °C in the Sun's core (it's superficial temperature is the same as the Earth's core temperature and you need to remember that the sun is 100 times bigger).

I called you a hypocrite because you claimed that the earth isn't radioactive because only a small part of earth is radioactive. I found that hypocritical as the sun has a even lower concentration of radioactive stuff.

...you're a chemist, right?

Clearly you don't know much about radioactivity.

Material is considered radioactive if it is unstable in the nuclear sense and spontaneously decays, emitting energy and producing ionizing radiation.

Hydrogen fusion emits energy and produces ionizing radiation. But the hydrogen nuclei is neither unstable, nor does hydrogen spontaneously decay. Thus, the stuff putting out lots of energy at the sun's innards is not "radioactivity."

Not all forms of nuclear activity is considered radioactivity. The definition of radioactive material or radioactivity (also called radioactive decay) is actually highly specific.

A wider definition of radioactivity, the one more commonly used in regular speech, is "energy traveling in high-speed particles." High-speed as in a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Even by this wider definition, hydrogen fusion is very un-radioactive. About the only output that qualifies as radioactivity under that definition is X-rays and gamma rays.

Napsáno Skanderbeg, 25.05.2015 at 16:51

There are scientists who specialize in only one field so they can dedicate their time to research only one thing. Weapons, medicine, machinery, biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, religion, space et cetera.

We shouldnt denounce them because they dont study and research general science overall forever. Thats only for schools to get students interested and set goals to pursue careers.

The fact that they specialize in a single field does not imply that they become biased. That's generalizing too much without any proof about it. A true scientist is conscious of the advantages but also and very importantly, about its own disadvantages. My point was that in the link you sent me, they recognize they investigate in order to reach one objective, prove that religion is right. That's totally biased. Science doesn't investigate in order to achieve one goal, the goal is the aim of the research all the time and until you don't reach a certain goal you can't confirm or deny it at all. Researching in order to support one's beliefs makes the whole process biased. That's why I admire Pascal, he believed that the spontaneous generation was real and he tried to prove if this was true or not by a simple yet effective method. His experiment lead him to discover that it was all a lie and so he published his results as they were in reality, without any modification or change in anything. He could have easily take the easiest path in that time: lie. But he didn't.

Napsáno Skanderbeg, 25.05.2015 at 16:51

I don't know what does age have to be with anything spoken here. Idc about your age, I think I'm proving myself right in every aspect, I don't see you refuting my argument in any effective way at all. You'd be amazed of some kid's intelligence as well.

I do not trust authorities in science, I trust their work, which is reliable since it has been proven and well explained. I am critic enough to sense when something seems fishy. You can't compare a "peace" nobel prize with a science novel prize... it's just not the same. Peace awards are furthermore subjective...

About Robert: "Gentry has devised his own creationist cosmology and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against Los Alamos National Laboratory and Cornell University after personnel deleted ten of his papers about his cosmology from the public preprint server arXiv.[5] On 23 March 2004, Gentry's lawsuit against arXiv was dismissed by a Tennessee court on the grounds that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as neither defendant in the case was considered to have a significant presence in the state of Tennessee." --> Just LOL. Wanted to publish religious beliefs in a scientific file. Yeah, why not right? XDD

"You cant claim God doesnt exist until you do research." --> I've never claimed God doesn't exist. But neither you can claim that he exists. That's all there is. You either believe or not. There's no way to prove that God exists or not since the bible can't be proved right but there is also no prove that can directly state that a god doesn't exist.

"2+2 is not 4 anymore, it depends if you buy or sell. 2+2=3.99 if you buy, 2+2=4.99 if you sell." --> Pls, do not use this kind of wanna-be-cool sentences if you don't explain them because they're impossible to understand.

Napsáno International, 26.05.2015 at 07:48

...you're a chemist, right?

What, Raul chemist? Did Hispanic countries even had something like this?

Napsáno clovis1122, 26.05.2015 at 07:57

What, Raul chemist? Did Hispanic countries even had something like this?

lol meet Walter Blanco and his hombre José Miguel Rosas in latin american adaptation of Breaking Bad xD

Napsáno International, 26.05.2015 at 07:48

I called you a hypocrite because you claimed that the earth isn't radioactive because only a small part of earth is radioactive. I found that hypocritical as the sun has a even lower concentration of radioactive stuff.
...you're a chemist, right? Clearly you don't know much about radioactivity.
Material is considered radioactive if it is unstable in the nuclear sense and spontaneously decays, emitting energy and producing ionizing radiation.
Hydrogen fusion emits energy and produces ionizing radiation. But the hydrogen nuclei is neither unstable, nor does hydrogen spontaneously decay. Thus, the stuff putting out lots of energy at the sun's innards is not "radioactivity."
Not all forms of nuclear activity is considered radioactivity. The definition of radioactive material or radioactivity (also called radioactive decay) is actually highly specific.
A wider definition of radioactivity, the one more commonly used in regular speech, is "energy traveling in high-speed particles." High-speed as in a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Even by this wider definition, hydrogen fusion is very un-radioactive. About the only output that qualifies as radioactivity under that definition is X-rays and gamma rays.

I'm starting to get impatient... repeat after me: the Earth is not radioactive, only the Uranuim and Thorium in it. Is it clear or not? Okey, next point:

The sun has no radioactive "stuff" or atoms, yet it does irradiate radiation because of the fussion proces!!! Radiation is not only produced by radioactive elements!


If you don't believe me, believe this!!! For god sake... what the fuck do you consider gamma rays to be????? Or neutrinos???? IT IS FUCKING RADIATION!!!!!!!! THE SUN PRESENTS RADIOACTIVITY!!! NOW FUCKING STOP ARGUING SOMETHING YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT!! It's exasperating!! Don't fucking dare tell me idk about chemestry stuff, never, pls, or I shall send you a letter-bomb.

You really drive me up a wall.... what the heck is the problem with you!? Why do you try to argue about things you clearly don't master??

EDIT: sorry for the bad words, I'm out of patience between you and Tito.

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 07:23

of course you can compare the earth's radioactivity to the sun, its like comparing hulk hogan to a newborn, i mean, sperm cell, wait, lets say atom... but still, can be done.

also you forgot c14 wich is radioactive too and there are more radioactive atoms on the earth, they are just rare

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 08:06

If you don't believe me, believe this!!! For god sake... what the fuck do you consider gamma rays to be????? Or neutrinos???? IT IS FUCKING RADIATION!!!!!!!! THE SUN PRESENTS RADIOACTIVITY!!! NOW FUCKING STOP ARGUING SOMETHING YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT!! It's exasperating!! Don't fucking dare tell me idk about chemestry stuff, never, pls, or I shall send you a letter-bomb.

You really drive me up a wall.... what the heck is the problem with you!? Why do you try to argue about things you clearly don't master??

EDIT: sorry for the bad words, I'm out of patience between you and Tito.

Think me crazy? I'm not going to argue chemistry with a chemist. That's just idiotic.

Alright, repeat after me, then!
Not the entirety of the sun undergoes fusion. Most of the sun does not output ionizing radiation.

My point still stands. Hydrogen-1 and Helium-4 are both stable, so by the technical definition they can't be radioactive. I seem to recall that the vast majority of the sun is one of those two isotopes and only a very small proportion is Hydrogen-2, Helium-3, or Hydrogen-3 in the process of fusion.

Napsáno International, 26.05.2015 at 08:11

Think me crazy? I'm not going to argue chemistry with a chemist. That's just idiotic.

Well, you're already trying to and I confess you make me run out of patience.

Napsáno International, 26.05.2015 at 08:11

Alright, repeat after me, then!
Not the entirety of the sun undergoes fusion. Most of the sun does not output ionizing radiation.

Pls, read again and you'll see what I've already said about your statement, it's in capital letters too:

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 07:23

The "stuff" you name is the whole Sun. All its atoms participate in the fusion proces. Hidrogen is the most important, of course, cause it can weight up to the 50% of the star's weight. That's a fucking big amount of hydrogen, it takes billions of years to burn it. But also other heavier elements participate in the fusion process and other similar ones which ocurr in the star. All of these processes irradiate a bigger, stronger and further dangerous radioactivity than the fision process. And even if the fusion is not a "fast" process, it's faster than the fission. To sum up: ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE SUN DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING AT ALL OR ELSE THE SUN WOULDN'T SHINE! And that part consists of heavy metals which would need even higher temperatures than the ones in the core of the sun to carry on with the fusion process.

Napsáno International, 26.05.2015 at 08:11

My point still stands. Hydrogen-1 and Helium-4 are both stable, so by the technical definition they can't be radioactive. I seem to recall that the vast majority of the sun is one of those two isotopes and only a very small proportion is Hydrogen-2, Helium-3, or Hydrogen-3 in the process of fusion.

I've already explained that, don't fucking make me repeat stuff all over again, your point is worth nothing:

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 08:06

The sun has no radioactive "stuff" or atoms, yet it does irradiate radiation because of the fussion proces!!! Radiation is not only produced by radioactive elements!

To sum up, no radioactive elements but an entire radioactive process happening inside the sun at all time, therefor the sun itself could be considered a freakingly huge radioactive atom. HAPPY!?!?!

Napsáno Tirpitz406, 26.05.2015 at 08:10

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 07:23

of course you can compare the earth's radioactivity to the sun, its like comparing hulk hogan to a newborn, i mean, sperm cell, wait, lets say atom... but still, can be done.

also you forgot c14 wich is radioactive too and there are more radioactive atoms on the earth, they are just rare

Okey, if we're gonna go into such little details, you guys should consider yourself as radioactive living beings since C14 is in every single living being. If that's your point of view, then just go ahead and be happy with it. I'm running out of patience.

PD: C14 even more rare than Uranium or Thorium and it barely produces any relevant radioactivity or else we'd be toast. It's also important to remember that it's desintegration is really slow and thus still can't be compared to a star.

The reality is much worse than your comparison example. It's exactly like comparing a fucking star with a little tiny planet or even a further smaller person or rock. If you have both radioactivities close together, the only one you'll record will be the huge one. At least the new born can cry loud to make himself noticed. In this case, the Earth doesn't.

All radioactive atoms are rare, the only relevant are Uranium and Thorium just cuase they irradiate a bit more energy than the others and can be considered a bit more abundant... still nothing relevant enough. If you have to choose between 0.1 and 0.1000000000000000000000000000000000000001, what number will you use?

Napsáno clovis1122, 26.05.2015 at 07:57

What, Raul chemist? Did Hispanic countries even had something like this?

Didn't you know that wolfram was discovered by a couple of spanish brothers??

Napsáno RaulPB, 26.05.2015 at 10:16

Napsáno clovis1122, 26.05.2015 at 07:57

What, Raul chemist? Did Hispanic countries even had something like this?

Didn't you know that wolfram was discovered by a couple of spanish brothers??

Only knew about Candela (cd). But good to know that we did something for the humanity xD (well not we, just Spain... but shhhhh )

Napsáno clovis1122, 26.05.2015 at 10:45

Only knew about Candela (cd). But good to know that we did something for the humanity xD (well not we, just Spain... but shhhhh )

I'm afraid it's barely used at all compared to the watt.....