link to Home Page

Re: Planet X: Cannot be a Brown Dwarf

In Article <h6el7.21587$> Greg Neill wrote:
> In Article <> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>  My my, and all other objects, heavy in mass,
>>  do NOT give off such energy?  Even in part?
>>  For your theory to be correct, gravity heavy
>>  objects should give off such heat and light
>>  in RELATIVE proportion to their mass, no?
>>  Do they?  NO!  End of dialog on such a silly
>>  explanation.
>>      ZetaTalk™
> In order to convert gravitational potential energy
> into radiation of some form (heat, light), you need
> a dynamic process involving friction.  A contracting,
> rotating gaseous body fulfills this requirement.

The Zetas wish to respond.

    Fine, then Jupiter fulfills your mythical Brown
    Dwarf by being a gaseous planet.  If a Brown
    Dwarf can be 10 time Jupiter's size, then
    Jupiter must give off SOME of the friction
    and heat and light you are hypothesizing!
    Does it?  NO!  As we said, end of silly
    dialog on this mythical explanation.

> A static body without relatively moving components
> does not have a mechanism to convert potential
> energy to kinetic energy to light energy.  Thus,
> for example, the Moon does not glow of its own
> accord simply because of it being massive.

    !?! So by this silly theory, the Earth, with
    it's molten core, should QUALIFY!  Does the
    Earth issue forth light, visible from a
    distance as a Brown Dwarf?  NO!  And how is
    it then that the bomb, which does NOT have
    friction, but is a very solid mass, produces
    all that radiation?  Are we making things up
    here, Greg?

>>  Humans make assumptions about the composition
>>  of suns, assuming light elements such as helium,
>>  and about the burning process, assuming fusion
>>  with radioactive byproducts. They are incorrect
>>  on both counts. A mass as large as a sun does
>>  not light, due to compression, unless key
>>  elements in the heavy element spectrum are
>>  present to a sufficient degree.
>>      ZetaTalk™
> Fusion experiments in the lab show that you are
> wrong. Suitable temperature and pressure conditions
> are shown to induce fusion in hydrogen, without
> any need for heavier elements.

    You produced a sun in your labs?  We think not.

>>  Humans assume the burning process to be
>>  radioactive because their only experience
>>  with intense roduction of heat and light
>>  also produces intense radioactivity. Should
>>  this be the case, would not life on Earth
>>  be suffering from radiation poisoning?
>>      ZetaTalk™
> The safest place to put a reactor is far away.
> The Sun is some 93 million miles distant, and
> its fusion core is burried under nearly 700,000km
> of gaseous shielding. The Earth's own magnetic
> field shields us from the remaining high energy
> bits that get loose (the solar wind).

    So now a magnetic field protects from radiation!
    Heavens, then why all this fuss about nuclear
    power!  Just throw up a magnetic field!  Wear
    magnets on your wrists!  Wave about a lot!  How
    is it that during the Cold War, when there was
    so much concern about going underground with
    stores until it was safe to come out, that there
    was no mention of putting up the magnetic
    shield! Such an oversight!