Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How accurate is this? (Score 1) 63

by aubreyTF (#10992513) Attached to: Nearby Galaxy Surprisingly Young
I can prove you wrong. Humans have created very small stars (fusion of hydrogen and other light elements like helium and lithium) in several ways. See fusion reactors and H-Bombs. If we can do it, the forces of nature can do it.
Your statement about proving me wrong is flawed.

As regards the hydrogen bomb, this is exactly what I was talking about. It uses the pressure and heat from the reaction of a critical mass of uranium or plutonium to fuse lithium duride into helium! This is exactly what I said before, only in my previous example substitute exploding plutonium for a couple stars blowing up near each other, and the lithium deuride fusing into hydrogen for gas being compressed into a new star!
the reactor you mentioned runs along the same basic principles.

By the way, "If we can do it, the forces of nature can do it", is a nonscientific statement. Assuming that something can happen long ago and far away is a very evolutionist way of thinking. :-)

By my way of thinking, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Evolution is a religion, not theory. For example, evolutionists would have to do a lot of "tracing back further than the evidence will support" to come up with the big bang in the first place. Did you know that Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards from all the other planets? If the "big bang" had really happened, (because of a law known as the conservation of angular momentum), all the planets would be spinning the same direction!

P.S. Contrary to popular opinion, there are many demonstrable evidences that indicate that the universe is quite young.

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.