Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Ananta Sesa

Is there any Scientific Proof that the Stars are like the Sun?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Back on topic...

From the ever-useful if not ever-accurate Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

 

 

Astronomers can determine the mass, age, chemical composition and many other properties of a star by observing its spectrum, luminosity and motion through space.

 

From the article on Astronomical spectroscopy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy

 

 

Astronomical spectroscopy is the technique of spectroscopy used in astronomy. As spectroscopy is described in its own article, this article focuses on its use in astronomy. The object of study is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to derive many properties of distant stars and galaxies, such as their chemical composition and also their motion, via the Doppler shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe you buy that load of manure, but I sure don't.

 

These guys can't even find the Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest.

How do they know what is happening hundreds of millions of miles alway?

 

Well, these burger-heads (wasn't that how you put it?) have managed to create very small, short-lived suns right here on Earth:

hbomb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Precisely

 

The materialists know how atoms work. They even know how to destroy atoms

 

Unfortunately not everyone among them knows that Krishna is present in all the atoms in the form of His energy..

 

Andaantarastham Paramanu Cha Ayaantarastham

Govindam Aadi Purusham Tamaham Bhajaami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

In the Vedas it is said that the stars are like the Moon, but here in the West the scientists say that the stars are like the Sun... :confused:

 

So I would like to know if somebody here knows if there really is any evidence of the stars being like the Sun?

 

The most strange thing is that if you want to find out webpages about how the Sun in our Solarsystem was Created you won´t find anything at all... :eek:

 

You only find pages about how the scientists think the stars were created, and when you mention this strange oddity to people they just say that:

 

"- But our Sun is anyway a Star so why do you need to read about how our own Star was created, when you anyway get the information by reading about how the other stars were created"

 

As if they would know that there is no difference between the Sun and the stars... :mad2:

 

 

Anybody here who can help me out on this...?

 

Any webpages with more detailed information regarding this topic?

 

I think that it is true that sun and stars are same, but they are divided into some categories, such as white stars, according to the size, and also have different stages according to how much fuel has been burnt by the given star, because after some time, the star dies, and it may create a black hole, there are many wonderful things about stars, such as some of stars tends to start dying immediately after they are formed and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

Maybe you should change your name from "theist" to "scientist".

 

Now, you will even compare a doctor with an astronomer?.

 

Doctors perform a valuable service to human society.

 

Astronomers waste millions of dollars on trivia that have no value in human society.

 

Theist?

No, more like "scientist".

 

Astronomy is a pseudo-science and is mostly speculation, not science.

 

Peeking through telescopes is not science.

It's childs play.

 

Give me answer to a question?

How one person comes to know that sun has which metal or gas in excess, or what are the main metals on sun?

Perhaps you do not know that there were some elements which were first found on the sun or light coming through the sun and then were found on the earth, astronomy is as important as any other science, you must always remember one thing that when ever some thing is discovered it exists in theory first, and then if it proves to explain certain facts then it is accepted, also it may be proved later , such as structure of atoms, as described by the bohr, that atoms have three particles, neutron, proton and electron, and that most part of the atom is empty and its mass is concentrated in the nucleus, nobody did see that thing at that time, but as it describes the facts about the atoms so it was accepted, so everything on which money is spent, has something to do with you and other peoples, nothing is BAKWAS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

Well, these burger-heads (wasn't that how you put it?) have managed to create very small, short-lived suns right here on Earth:

 

I Think you do not know that there were some elements which were first found on the suns spectrum, and then on earth, how do we know that sun has lots of hydrogen that is converting into helium by combination of Hydrogen atoms at great temperature? If you get ans to all this then you would know how can we know something millions of miles away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right now humankind needs to be spending it's money and resources on salvaging mankind from inevitable ruination from global warming, depletion of petroleum reserves, disease, famine and serious issues facing the world.

 

the millions of dollars wasted on useless astromony so scientists can drive Porsches and Mercedes and pay for their women and speedboats would be better spend on making Earth a better place.

 

Scientists don't know exactly about atoms.

 

You can't see an atom through lenses made of atoms.

 

What they know about the atom is theory.

 

they also think there are "quarks" in atoms that they can't even explain or discover.

 

atomic science is based on a theory.

 

just because they can disrupt an atom and create a nuclear reaction that doesn't mean they know everything about the atom. they don't.

 

they operate off of theories.

somtimes the theory is correct, sometimes it is not.

 

all their devices for observing atoms are made of atoms.

you can't see something smaller than an atom with devices made of many atoms together.

 

there is no such thing as a picture of an atom.

 

all they have is man-made models. they have never seen the sub-atomic particles of an atom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want I can explain how a star is formed; how the Sun was formed; and why Sun is a star. I can even search and post relevant URLs here.

But, will you then believe that Sun is a star? I think not. Rather, you will say that you do not believe in all this theory even if you are not able to find a single mistake in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

right now humankind needs to be spending it's money and resources on salvaging mankind from inevitable ruination from global warming, depletion of petroleum reserves, disease, famine and serious issues facing the world.

Agree.

 

 

the millions of dollars wasted on useless astromony so scientists can drive Porsches and Mercedes and pay for their women and speedboats would be better spend on making Earth a better place.

I agree that finding solutions for other problems are more important. But I will not call astronomy as useless because different streams of science are interrelated. Advancement in one leads to the advancement in another.

 

 

Scientists don't know exactly about atoms.

Is there any non-scientist who knows abut atoms more than scientists?

 

 

You can't see an atom through lenses made of atoms. What they know about the atom is theory.

Yes, it is a theory. But nobody can see everything with his eyes. We need to develop theories. I can say that what is written in Bhagavatam is also theory.

 

 

they also think there are "quarks" in atoms that they can't even explain or discover.

They can explain and they have discovered quarks. Of course, they have not seen quarks but they have seen effects which point towards existence of quarks.

 

 

atomic science is based on a theory.

Not only atomic, any science is based on theory.

 

 

just because they can disrupt an atom and create a nuclear reaction that doesn't mean they know everything about the atom. they don't.

They never claim to know everything about atoms. But is there any human being who knows everything about atoms?

 

 

they operate off of theories.

somtimes the theory is correct, sometimes it is not.

Fine. But I can say the same about other beliefs also including the belief in scriptures.

 

there is no such thing as a picture of an atom.all they have is man-made models. they have never seen the sub-atomic particles of an atom.

What belief is not a model? Can you prove that what is written in scriptueres is not man-made models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

right now humankind needs to be spending it's money and resources on salvaging mankind from inevitable ruination from global warming, depletion of petroleum reserves, disease, famine and serious issues facing the world.

 

the millions of dollars wasted on useless astromony so scientists can drive Porsches and Mercedes and pay for their women and speedboats would be better spend on making Earth a better place.

 

Scientists don't know exactly about atoms.

 

You can't see an atom through lenses made of atoms.

 

What they know about the atom is theory.

 

they also think there are "quarks" in atoms that they can't even explain or discover.

 

atomic science is based on a theory.

 

just because they can disrupt an atom and create a nuclear reaction that doesn't mean they know everything about the atom. they don't.

 

they operate off of theories.

somtimes the theory is correct, sometimes it is not.

 

all their devices for observing atoms are made of atoms.

you can't see something smaller than an atom with devices made of many atoms together.

 

there is no such thing as a picture of an atom.

 

all they have is man-made models. they have never seen the sub-atomic particles of an atom.

 

That was a good summary for the thread!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want I can explain how a star is formed; how the Sun was formed; and why Sun is a star. I can even search and post relevant URLs here.

But, will you then believe that Sun is a star? I think not. Rather, you will say that you do not believe in all this theory even if you are not able to find a single mistake in it.

my question is how does any of this help mankind better?

if you look around the world and see the starvation, disease, global warming and war then it is not hard to see that a good portion of modern science is simply childs play and is not really doing anything positive for life here on Earth.

 

the time will come when governments don't have money to waste on scientific speculations. but, by then it will be too late.

 

all this scientific trivia knowledge does nothing to actually improve mankind's chances of survival on Earth.

 

Most of this science is just exploitation of the natural order of the universe.

 

atoms weren't meant to be split.

when atoms are split there is immense disruption.

 

splitting atoms is a dark and evil science that was invented by fools who had too much time on their hands.

 

astronomy is in the same category.

 

I believe that mankind should be trying to make a better world on Earth.

Exploring outer space is an absolutely useless waste of human energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if we look into the lives and theories of these scientists we will find volumes and volumes of speculation, fraud, cheating and lies.

 

these scientists are big time cheaters and liars.

 

I watch all their latest theories and programs on the science documentaries and all their theories and claims are just laughable and ridiculous.

 

these scientists are ignorant fools that make a fat salary dreaming-up all these false theories and false science.

 

really, I don't trust anything these idiots spout-off.

Guruvani .. please share with us how you claim the following:

 

 

the light that reaches Earth from the stars takes millions of years travelling at the speed of light get here.

I hope you are not trusting burger headed scientists for your claim. If so, you should cleanse your colon immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

right now humankind needs to be spending it's money and resources on salvaging mankind from inevitable ruination from global warming, depletion of petroleum reserves, disease, famine and serious issues facing the world.

 

the millions of dollars wasted on useless astromony so scientists can drive Porsches and Mercedes and pay for their women and speedboats would be better spend on making Earth a better place.

 

Scientists don't know exactly about atoms.

 

You can't see an atom through lenses made of atoms.

 

What they know about the atom is theory.

 

they also think there are "quarks" in atoms that they can't even explain or discover.

 

atomic science is based on a theory.

 

just because they can disrupt an atom and create a nuclear reaction that doesn't mean they know everything about the atom. they don't.

 

they operate off of theories.

somtimes the theory is correct, sometimes it is not.

 

all their devices for observing atoms are made of atoms.

you can't see something smaller than an atom with devices made of many atoms together.

 

there is no such thing as a picture of an atom.

 

all they have is man-made models. they have never seen the sub-atomic particles of an atom.

 

What about the so called Swami's? Is religion more important then solving the problems of mankind as you explained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

Guruvani .. please share with us how you claim the following:

 

 

I hope you are not trusting burger headed scientists for your claim. If so, you should cleanse your colon immediately.

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guruvani .. please share with us how you claim the following:

 

 

I hope you are not trusting burger headed scientists for your claim. If so, you should cleanse your colon immediately.

oooops!

I was wrong.

You got me.

 

The farthest star is actually 25 billion light years away. :P

 

 

2. The most distant object known has a redshift of just over 5. That

means that the light from this object started its journey toward us

when the Universe was only 30% of its current age. The exact age of

the Universe is not known, but is probably roughly 12 billion years.

Thus, the light from this object left it when the Universe was a few

billion years old. Its distance is roughly 25 billion light years.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part7/section-16.html

 

so, if light travels at 186,000 miles per second and the farthest star is 25 billion light years away............... I guess that is more than.....

 

do the math and get back to me when you get the answer.

my calculator is broken.

 

science thinks that the material universe goes on infinitly and there is no God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

right now humankind needs to be spending it's money and resources on salvaging mankind from inevitable ruination from global warming, depletion of petroleum reserves, disease, famine and serious issues facing the world.

 

the millions of dollars wasted on useless astromony so scientists can drive Porsches and Mercedes and pay for their women and speedboats would be better spend on making Earth a better place.

 

Scientists don't know exactly about atoms.

 

You can't see an atom through lenses made of atoms.

 

What they know about the atom is theory.

 

they also think there are "quarks" in atoms that they can't even explain or discover.

 

atomic science is based on a theory.

 

just because they can disrupt an atom and create a nuclear reaction that doesn't mean they know everything about the atom. they don't.

 

they operate off of theories.

somtimes the theory is correct, sometimes it is not.

 

all their devices for observing atoms are made of atoms.

you can't see something smaller than an atom with devices made of many atoms together.

 

there is no such thing as a picture of an atom.

 

all they have is man-made models. they have never seen the sub-atomic particles of an atom.

 

Use of the Internet, finances the mercedes driving, speedboat racing womanizing atomic, molecular physicists and engineers who created it.

 

ptfim.gif

fimimage.gif

 

Morgan%20Si%20membrane%20mask%20509-44.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, according to Astronomers, some of the light from the most distant stars is coming from 9 billion years in the past.

 

So, we are seeing light from events of 9 billion years ago and deciding the nature of the universe today?

 

anyway, that is what "science" is saying.

 

do I believe that the farthest star is 25 billion light years from Earth?

no.

I don't believe that the mind or science of man can know anything about what is more than a few thousand miles from Earth.

 

What we see through telescopes is ancient history from millions of years ago.

so they say..............

 

sounds like a lot of nonsense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize, don't you, that the PC on which you're reading this is more powerful than all the computers in the Space Shuttle put together, don't you?

 

http://www.enme.umd.edu/news/news_story.php?id=1458

 

The shuttle fleet's IBM computers have been upgraded once -- in 1988-89.

 

"They have these ancient computers that are really pathetic," said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., and a space program analyst. "They are many years out of date."

 

Indeed, to run high-speed science experiments, McDowell said, astronauts have to carry and plug in laptops. "It's a strange mix of very robust but very old computers that will absolutely work, and a bunch of notebooks that are running the latest version of Windows," he said.

 

The five main computers that run each shuttle have a memory of about 1 megabyte apiece, McDowell said. Today's most basic home desktop computers come loaded with 20,000 times as much and have Pentium processors. Two years ago, Intel turned over its original Pentium processor to the government so that it could be tested and prepared for space travel, said Chuck Mulloy, a company spokesman. But that processor came out in 1994, meaning that even as it is being readied for space travel, it is already nearly a decade old.

It's the military that gets all the new, shiny toys! (see photo below).

 

MPW-8921

 

 

a billion dollar toy

170421main_118atpad3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Astronomers waste millions of dollars on trivia that have no value in human society.

Prabhu/Dude!!! I went to New York City last week and you want to harp on astronomy as an example of waste?!?!?! How about a city that flies and trucks in fruit from Chile and California, so it's denizens don't have to get their $400 loafers muddy!! How about a city that has tens of thousands of yellow cars driving around empty so lazy executives don't have to bother looking for parking spaces (when walking would often be faster than taking a cab)?!?!

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=684

 

 

You can see the NASA budget over the last 40 or so years here. In 2005 NASA had a budget of $16.2 billion, this includes not only the human spaceflight division, but also other engineering projects, and science funded by NASA. The total federal spending budget in 2005 was on the order of $2 trillion ($2000 billion), making the NASA share 0.8% of the budget. By comparison roughly 19% of the budget was spent on the Military, 21% on Social Security and 8% went to paying interest on the national debt.

and

 

 

<table border="1"> <tbody><tr><td>

</td><td>GDP in 2004</td><td>Percent spent on space</td></tr> <tr><td>USA </td><td>11.8 trillion </td><td> 0.14%</td></tr> <tr><td>Europe</td><td> 11.7 trillion </td><td> 0.03% (not inc. individual agencies)</td></tr> <tr><td>Japan </td><td> 3.7 trillion </td><td> 0.05%</td></tr> <tr><td>China </td><td> 7.3 trillion </td><td> 0.02%</td></tr> <tr><td>Russia </td><td> 1.4 trillion </td><td> 0.06%</td></tr> <tr><td>India </td><td> 3.3 trillion </td><td> 0.03%</td></tr></tbody></table>

It's also interesting to work out how much is spent per person:

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><td>

</td><td>Popn</td><td>Space spending per person in 2005</td></tr> <tr><td>USA </td><td> 0.3 billion </td><td> $54</td></tr> <tr><td>Europe </td><td> 0.6 billion </td><td> $5.80 (not inc. indiv agencies)</td></tr> <tr><td>Japan </td><td> 0.1 billion </td><td> $18</td></tr> <tr><td>China </td><td> 1.3 billion </td><td> 92c</td></tr> <tr><td>Russia </td><td> 0.1 billion </td><td> $9</td></tr> <tr><td>India </td><td> 1.1 billion </td><td> 82c</td></tr></tbody></table>

Now, let's look at defense budgets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

 

 

Total Funding $439.3 Billion
and

 

 

The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money that is not used for pre-existing obligations.<sup id="_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion.

As percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 3.7% on military. This is higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%.<sup id="_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup> This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.<sup id="_ref-tp_0" class="reference">[7]

</sup>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, friend, scientists are looking at light from 9 billion years ago to ascertain the nature of the universe 9 billion years ago!!!

 

To ascertain the nature of the universe today, the scientists can look at any of those 26 stars on the list I posted and see light from 12 years ago or less.

 

Really, how thick can you be???

 

 

so, according to Astronomers, some of the light from the most distant stars is coming from 9 billion years in the past.

 

So, we are seeing light from events of 9 billion years ago and deciding the nature of the universe today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, what we were looking at below is the budget for "space exploration", which is a lot more than just astronomy.

 

How much is spent by the US on astronomy?

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/06pch15.htm

 

The National Science Foundation’s (NSF <!--[if !supportFootnotes]--> [3] <!--[endif]--> ) division of Astronomical Sciences (AST <!--[if !supportFootnotes]--> [4] <!--[endif]--> ) budget is proposed to increase by about 1.8 percent from a level of $195.1 million to $198.6 million. AST provides funding directly to astronomical researchers, mainly at universities. Arguably one of the most important discoveries of our age was made with support from NSF. Dr. Geoff Marcy and colleagues <!--[if !supportFootnotes]--> [5] <!--[endif]--> used NSF support (as well as from NASA and other institutions) to perfect a new observational technique and use it to detect numerous planets around other stars

 

So, round it off to $200 million.

 

Now, let's look at how much the US is spending on the War of Terror in Iraq daily:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm

 

A billboard in Times Sqaure counts the cost of the Iraq war starting at $134.5B and increases at a rate of $177M per day, $7.4M per hour and $122,820 per minute.

 

So, in case you missed that, in two days, the US spends more on war than it does on astronomy in a year.

 

Yeah, astronomy is a *big* waste, isn't it?

 

 

Prabhu/Dude!!! I went to New York City last week and you want to harp on astronomy as an example of waste?!?!?! How about a city that flies and trucks in fruit from Chile and California, so it's denizens don't have to get their $400 loafers muddy!! How about a city that has tens of thousands of yellow cars driving around empty so lazy executives don't have to bother looking for parking spaces (when walking would often be faster than taking a cab)?!?!

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=684

 

 

and

 

 

Now, let's look at defense budgets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

 

and

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...