We have no understanding whatsoever about what lies outside the universe and what space-time is expanding into. You can call it "nothing", but this is purely a philosophical exercise and we have never seen or measured this "nothing". Maybe it's a different kind of space that our space is displacing? Maybe our universe is like an expanding air bubble in water. Neither the expanding air nor the surrounding water are "nothing", but you are calling both of them that.

First off I'm not a flat earther for acknowledging that Flat Earth theory makes sense, are you a ball retard?

Secondly - if they knew what fusion was - ever nuclear plant on earth would be using it - so you're suggesting that you know for a fact that fusion is not burning is just a dumb assumption that acknowledges that you're confused by the fact that they call the Sun Fusion without actually knowing what fusion is. It is theorized the sun consumes by burning hydrogen at 15 million kelvin and that is the root of your knowledge.
Comparing the Sun to a light bulb is complete donkey logic because the sun doesn't have a filament - and a light bulb does not consume hydrogen, unless you're suggesting it does.

What's the "water" in?
What's the thing holding the "water" in?
What that in?

We could live in a matryoshka doll setup, but even at the final "doll" what's outside that?

there has to be a void somewhere that's large enough to put all this stuff

This post was edited by Asexual on Jul 22 2016 04:20pm

I'm certainly a "ball earther", sure. And you are a flat earther.

They do know what fusion is, and they are trying to build practical reactors that use it to produce energy. Just because we know something exists doesn't mean we can instantly build technology to replicate it, that's just stupid. People have known that birds fly for millennia, but we didn't build an airplane till the 1900s. Besides, people HAVE built fusion bombs that replicate what's happening in the sun, and they do work. These are colloquially called "Hydrogen bombs", maybe you can even guess why. The problem is controlling that reaction in a reactor to produce a (relatively speaking) small but steady supply of energy.



Who knows? But the fact remains that we have no examples, that we are aware of, of either "nothing" or something that has always existed. We can only theorize about either.

True, in the end all we have are theories and beliefs anyway

Good chat

This post was edited by Asexual on Jul 22 2016 04:56pm

I don't like that word Flat Earther, i prefer the geocentrism theories vs heliocentric theories. But i suppose you call black people the N word so I can't say I'm surprised at your neanderthalic use of English.

Ok about Fusion:

Pure fusion weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A pure fusion weapon is a hypothetical hydrogen bomb design that does not need a fission "primary" explosive to ignite the fusion of deuterium and tritium, two heavy isotopes of hydrogen (see thermonuclear weapon for more information about fission-fusion weapons). Such a weapon would require no fissile material and would therefore be much easier to build in secret than existing weapons. The necessity of separating high-quality fissile material requires a substantial industrial investment, and blocking the sale and transfer of the needed machinery has been the primary mechanism to control nuclear proliferation to date.


All current thermonuclear weapons use a fission bomb as a first stage to create the high temperatures and pressures necessary to start a fusion reaction between deuterium and tritium in a second stage. For many years, nuclear weapon designers have researched whether it is possible to create high enough temperatures and pressures inside a confined space to ignite a fusion reaction, without using fission. Pure fusion weapons offer the possibility of generating very small nuclear yields and the advantage of reduced collateral damage stemming from fallout because these weapons would not create the highly radioactive byproducts associated with fission-type weapons. These weapons would be lethal not only because of their explosive force, which could be large compared to bombs based on chemical explosives, but also because of the neutrons they generate.

While various neutron source devices have been developed, some of them based on fusion reactions, none of them is able to produce an energy yield, neither in controlled form for energy production nor uncontrolled for a weapon.

So there idea of fusion is the burning of elements at such a high temperature - that they "fuse" together. Are you 100% sure that's what fusion is? Have they ever been to the sun or any star and actually done tests or is it all 100% theory and not 100% fact as you think of it?

Burning is combustion, which requires oxygen. Fusion has nothing to do with that.

Fusion require immense heat like when a sperm fuses with an egg.



This is why women blow up after you have sex with them.......

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 22 2016 05:28pm

You realize something? I asked you for your definition of "burning", which you did not provide.
Then I gave you one the majority of people would call "burning", i.e. the reaction with oxygen (like a fire).
And your answer is just trying to discredit me without actually contributing anything to task I gave you.

So here we go again, I give you one more try...

Burning does not require oxygen like is most often the case here on our oxygen rich earth. Case in point - Nasa just testing how things burn in space where there is no oxygen.

you can do a search on the internet and learn this