Are stars just a meme?
How are the expending so much fuel proportional to their mass?
It's literally insane.
Nothing can possibly burn for that long. NOTHING.
WHERE IS ALL THAT ENERGY COMING FROM?
And please dont shitpost with your primitive compressed matter or reaction theories.
Common metals are as far as the universe will allow densities to occur, there is very little room for higher densities, and matter is not squishy either. Each molecule of matter is an absolute size what does not change shape.
And there is no type of reaction which is possibly describable by human science which would allow such a condition of a star burning for billions of years.
>>7728850
They get regular fuel deliveries via Amazon Prime.
>>7728850
>burn
>a star burning
Lrn2fusion fgt pls
>>7728863
yeah bro
its ok to call it burning
molecules are flying out of it at a rate of 'you dont fucking know' per second
where are they coming from?
nothing can possibly burn for that long
inb4 shitty neutrino density theory
you cannot possibly be cuked any harder by faggot neutrinos which probably dont even exist
>>7728866
>its ok to call it burning
>no oxygen
>burning
>>7728866
oh look, this troll again
>>7728850
>Each molecule of matter is an absolute size what does not change shape.
I know its a troll thread, and a troll thread about stellar fusion at that, but had to point out that the ignorance level of this statement is well over 9000.
>what are vibrational excitations
>what are phonons
>what are phase diagrams
A physicist could just go on and on and on..
>>7728882
>burning is strictly applied to a reaction of oxygen
>you cannot possibly use the term informally to describe anything
holy fuck get a life bitch
>>7728891
Let's not forget degenerate matter (not the kind supported by their mom letting them stay in the basement, the kind supported by quantum mechanical effects).
>>7728913
Well to be strictly fair I left that out because he qualified with "molecule" and at that point you don't have molecules. But in the broader sense of things, you are absolutely right of course.
>>7728908
>informal
>science
Have you hear of religion?
It might be right for you.
>>7728850
>Can't compress things past common metals.
Nigga just watch a video of this shit on youtube or something.
Fucking troll threads.
>>7728866
>molecules are flying out of it at a rate of 'you dont fucking know' per second
But what if there are youdontfuckingknow^youdontfuckingknow to begin with
>checkmate faggot
Only a small amount of the mass of the star is being fused at any particular time. The fusion inside the sun is like a tiny little dribble.
The sun is basically a black body, where the light (energy) being radiated is caused by its temperature, and the Sun's temperature is caused by:
1) its pressure due to gravity (Gay-Lussac's Law: The Pressure Temperature Law. This law states that the pressure of a given amount of gas held at constant volume is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature. As the pressure goes up, the temperature also goes up, and vice-versa)
2) the fusion in its core due to 1)
The surface of the Sun is not incandescent because of fusion. The light produced by fusion (e.g. the explosion) doesn't really reach the surface. You could think that the inside of the Sun is as dark as the inside of the Earth...except the inside of the Earth is glowing red-hot magma (Dr. Evil voice).
The fusion is just one of the contributors to the Sun's total energy output.
If I'm wrong in any of this, please correct me phys fags.
>>7729119
>You could think that the inside of the Sun is as dark as the inside of the Earth...except the inside of the Earth is glowing red-hot magma
Yeah, that's wrong. Radioactive transfer transports energy over most of the radius of the Sun. If it were "dark" inside it wouldn't be in equilibrium because there would be no way for energy to rise. Just like the core of the Earth it is not dark.
Fusion of course completely dominates the energy output of the Sun.
>>7728850
It's being projected from elsewhere and accumulated at one point. Stars are an exotic form of matter that functions like a complex series of mirrors, and the core is a central point where all the mass and heat is really centered. It's akin to a photomultiplier.
The mirrors just cast the illusion of a large object.
>>7729068
not him but
so, nobody thinks its odd that starts just erupt for billions of years off some magical fuel source?
im also wondering about what type of fucking idiot would propose condensed matter to even exist.
like who is the actual idiot who came up with this idea?
I know this is bait, but shit man,
>matter and energy are the same thing
>turns out it takes a lot of it to make a piece of matter
>one can be converted into the other
Pls to being of more subtle with bait, comrade.
>>7728863
If fusion isn't burning, then why do we call starting a self-sustaining fusion reaction "ignition"?
>>7728850
>Nothing can possibly burn for that long. NOTHING.
>WHERE IS ALL THAT ENERGY COMING FROM?
This. Try burning a tree. The fire lasts a few hours. How is a point in the sky the size of a quarter supposed to burn for so long?
>>7730125
and what is energy?
there is no such thing as something which isn't physical
and everything which is wrong with science, everything that cannot be explained is pretty much related to this mystical force of energy in which nobody has a fucking clue what it actually is
pro tip: it doesn't exist
yes, its amazing how so much of science can be speculative bullshit,
but that's exactly what it is
speculative bullshit
and its wrong too
literally, science is a fucking retard
>>7730139
wat
ok, try burning the most dense metal you can find.
typically basic nuclear reactions involving heavy metals are typically achieved by building a critical or super critical mass
but, these reactions dont fucking erupt a constant stream of 10 mile wide death explosions for a constant billions of years
the source is depleted almost instantly in comparison to a star
there is just no logical fucking sense of how stars work
its amazing how stupid you are
>>7730170
>the source is depleted almost instantly in comparison to a star
Well, fusion is about 10x as efficient as fission, and the amount of fuel reacted in say 10 seconds is a much lower proportion of available fuel in a star compared to your typical nuclear reaction. Anything can run long enough if you have enough fuel.
>>7730180
and fusion is fucking retarded, that doesn't explain shit
i didnt use fusion as an example because there is no need
you seem to be forgetting how powerful of eruption a star makes, and for how long it lasts
you're are absolutely fucking retarded
>>7728850
is "is x a meme" a meme?
Also,
>guaranteed replies.jpg
>>7730188
>you seem to be forgetting how powerful of eruption a star makes, and for how long it lasts
Because it only takes a miniscule amont of a star's mass to generate that kind of energy, its able to sustain it for billions of years before running out.
>>7730242
again you are just inserting bullshit mechanics
sure, some tiny super material, which cannot possibly be anything roughly twice as dense as uranium, because no such material can possibly exist, is sure as fuck fueling a reaction which is fueling a glowing hot super reaction which lasts for billions of years
makes perfect fucking sense
>>7728850
>Each molecule of matter is an absolute size what does not change shape
>What is plasma?
Fucking mongoloid.
>>7730286
In atomic terms, it's very low density, since only low atomic number elements can fuse, it's mostly hydrogen. Which as you probably know is a very low density element. But fusing hydrogen gives a lot more energy than burning it, by at least several orders of magnitude. And there's no such thing as hydrogen-300, all isotopes of hydrogen have few nuclear particles so they're definitely not going to be heavy as atoms. But the compression due to the sun's own gravity makes the overall density higher than usual. On average the sun isn't that much denser than water, but the core has a density about 150 times water's. So that is definitely pretty dense, but it's due to gravity compressing the atoms together, not due to some super-element with a high atomic mass.
>>7730188
Fusion is powerful as all fuck. Mass converts into a crazy amount of energy.
>>7730447
Yes, because fusion is ridiculously efficient compared to combustion or even nuclear. It really takes a truly minuscule amount of the sun's total mass/volume to produce the heat and light we see in a year.
>>7730452
but thats wrong, you fucking idiot
the numbers still dont add up
the intensity and length of the reaction still make no sense
you have such a narrow ability to comprehend the scale of which a star is reacting at that you will place anything which makes marginal, half assed pathetic sense
billions of years of high intensity glowing shit, m8
fuck off
>>7730511
have you tried perhaps.
Calculating any of this?
Because if scientists have been able to calculate how much energy the sun produces, compared to how much energy a certain fusion process emits, and compare this to the mass of the sun, and the predicted amount of time its been burning, then don't you think that somebody would have noticed that the numbers don't add up?
Except your bad at math. And so you will never see for yourself that it actually makes perfect sense if you do the math, unless you're ready to argue that math is meaningless and useless.
Also, no, energy doesn't exist in the way you talk about. But it is a calculable, conserved quantity, and is extremely useful in that respect.
>>7730561
>then don't you think that somebody would have noticed that the numbers don't add up?
there are plenty of things which dont add up within theoretical physics. its more common than you think
but you wouldnt by any chance happen to have a better source on this? or any source?
are you absolutely certain you are not just pulling random shit out of your ass?
>>7730511
So what's your theory? That it gets fuel from hyperspace? Or do you deny that the sun exists? I mean, if it's there and it's producing energy, then obviously there has to be some means of that happening.
>>7730594
open a textbook. I'm not wasting my precious sleeping time to do it for you.
>>7730594
>I'm literally to lazy to go out and study popularly accepted theories.
>Instead I'll just shitpost and say "Nah they probably fucked up."
Stars arent burning...Burning is a chemical reaction that separates and recombines the weak bonds of molecules. Stars compress atoms together, releasing energy from the STRONG nuclear force.
>>7730594
are you retarded
Here u are op.
Astronomy 101 homework...
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/acowie/class05/home7_sol.html
Of all the things to question, stars? OK
>>7730667
yeah man, its ok
we already established that it's alright to use burning as an informal description to whatever reaction may or may not be occurring within a star
dont be a faggot
Out of my ass here, been a long time since my cosmology studies.
Say there are factors unexplained in the energy transference, wouldn't a celestial body have certain unquantifiable physical events occurring unanimously with it's own fusion reactions:
a. limited eonic observance making us ignorant of the dimension responsible for the energy transference among stars, think parallels of mathematics through size of observable realm. i.e. bonds of molecules. With space ever expanding, existence of tension dimensional friction.
b. Thermodynamic transference with surrounding vacuum of space. Given the extreme forces at play, rifting in electromagnetic field may potentially expose parts of a sun to the "elements" (kek). These temporary exposures would reduce temperatures quickly and form, for even fractions of a second, a condensed plate. Reducing expulsion causes buildup given astronomical values and creates prominences, solar maximums, etc...Rosetta stone theory.
c.The center of a sun is a cesspool of quantum entanglement and by some fuckall paradox of the universe, it's core itself is the byproduct of a black hole somewhere else taking a shit. It's sole point center IS what we will never see beyond an event horizon. Where does the sun get all that energy? The straightforward answer of course - by cannibalizing an entire galaxy somewhere else in time. Take that mindfuck, pussy.
> Find the energy output from the fusion reactions occurring at the sun
> We know how much energy is emitted by the sun
> Calculate how much mass must be used per second to do that
> Yes it is a big number, but suns mas is a big*big*big number
> "HURR SO BIG NUMBER, CANT COMPREHEND, CANT HAPPEN, HURR LOOK I AM RETARTED"
kill yourself my man
>>7728850
You lack respect. The sun is the reason you are alive, it created you and inevitably it will consume you again. Show more respect and praise its fiery glory.
>>7730975
>use bullshit numbers to define mass
'condensed matter' is the official way science will literally just make up an excuse for numbers which dont make sense
the output from the assumed reaction makes no fucking sense in comparison to the mass.
its amazing how you cannot possibly comprehend this. i am really laughing at you
much of this so called science is speculative bullshit
whoever coined the idea of ultra condensed matter should be expelled from the academia privileged club
the year is almost 2016
and science has yet to establish the limit of how matter can possibly condensed. again it can not possibly be much further than heavy metals we already have. even at an exaggerated fantasy compression of lets say 20x uranium with all molecules bunched in a solid mass which cannot even absorb light, it would still not describe how a star is able to burn for so long
>>7730447
>thinks plasma is a maymay
Retardation confirmed
>>7731764
>plasma is magical
>it explains why a star is erupting for literally hundreds of billions of years
>he cannot possibly grasp how long billions of years are
>plasma XD
>>7730997
i just ordered a print of this to hang in my apartment. thanks for making an appreciable difference in my life, guy
Do the maths you bellend.
Sun is 2 nonillion kilograms and burns off 426000000000 per second.
>>7731929
Nigga you implied the highest density achievable is that of heavy metals, and that a star cannot be more dense than the heaviest elements because
>hurr molecules are fixed size durr
Plasma is dense stuff, not quite as dense as you though.
If most of normal matter is empty space between the nuclei and the electron shells, then it explains where all the unfathomable energy is coming from when you start packing lots of nuclei into that usually empty space.
So yes, it does explain why, because it explains the extraordinary mass, and therefore energy density
lrn2plasma you fucking faggot
>>7731596
Ok then, I will just throw out my physics degree and drop out of a PhD because my life was a lie and I am in a massive conspiracy by the Iluminati. GL senpai on redifining nuclear physics, because all the known reactions are BS.
According to Wikipedia, the net output of the pp 1 branch of the proton-proton fusion reaction is about 26 MeV, for converting 4 protons into a helium-4 nucleus. (Sanity check: This is in fact equal to the mass difference between a helium nucleus and four protons, so the conservation of mass-energy checks out at least.)
Dividing the Sun's luminosity by this to get kg/s, and multiplying by the age of the Sun we get a total mass of hydrogen needed. As it happens, this approximate figure of the total mass of hydrogen fuel needed for the entire life of the Sun to date is just 6% of the Sun's current hydrogen.
Billions of years are a long time. The Sun's luminosity is phenomenally large. But the Sun's sheer bulk is even bigger.
