Thread: Is every star connected by pillars of light?

Thank u very much

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Is every star with another star connected by pillars or column of light? Such as nuclear fusions, or other physical elements?

I have not yet encountered a reason to give an affirmative answer to those questions.


PS: Welcome to the Science Forum.

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Is every star with another star connected by pillars or column of light?

No. I am curious what prompts this question?

This sounds like some crank new-age rubbish, viz: this and this.
While light from any given star will, at some point, probably hit another star "connection" is pushing the description, as is "pillars of light".

I take reference from science and scientists. And not from myths
Thanks

I don't see any pillars/columns of light connected to our Sun, do you?

I've never seen/read/heard of such evidence for any star, have you?

What evidence shows this to be true with, for example, our Sun?

Wouldn't other celestial bodies pass through such pillars/columns?

Originally Posted by Ewrim

I take reference from science and scientists. And not from myths
Thanks

Then please provide the scientific reference.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I don't see any pillars/columns of light connected to our Sun, do you?

I've never seen/read/heard of such evidence for any star, have you?

What evidence shows this to be true with, for example, our Sun?

Wouldn't other celestial bodies pass through such pillars/columns?

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.
Do not remove this topic and we will see
Thank u

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.

So what you're saying - despite your comment about taking "reference from science and scientists" - is that there is no science supporting this view.
What makes you think that science will "discover" this?
(Especially given that it's simply not true...)

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.

On what basis do you make this claim? What evidence is there for these connections?

Originally Posted by Ewrim

I take reference from science and scientists.

What science? Which scientists?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.

So what you're saying - despite your comment about taking "reference from science and scientists" - is that there is no science supporting this view.
What makes you think that science will "discover" this?
(Especially given that it's simply not true...)

This was the case with Einstein and Newton, and Galileo. Some people thought it was impossible, but not. And I repeat this again, science will discover and know that every star with another star connected by physical elements of light. And please do not use science to you philosophical thinking. Science is science and not atheism, theism, or whatever

Can you get any vaguer?

Originally Posted by Ewrim

This was the case with Einstein and Newton, and Galileo.

Not in the least. They had both theory and evidence to support their ideas. That is why they were accepted.

Please present the evidence supporting your claims.

And I repeat this again, science will discover and know that every star with another star connected by physical elements of light.

And, using exactly the same amount of evidence as you, I say they will not.

Without evidence there is no reason to accept your ludicrous claims.

And please do not use science to you philosophical thinking. Science is science and not atheism, theism, or whatever

Please use some science to support your claims. Otherwise we can just ignore you.

Originally Posted by Ewrim

This was the case with Einstein and Newton, and Galileo

Please don't invent your own history: Einstein, Newton and the rest based their discoveries on known, actual, science. Not made-up crap.

And I repeat this again, science will discover and know that every star with another star connected by physical elements of light.

Repeat it all you like: it won't make it true.

And please do not use science to you philosophical thinking. Science is science and not atheism, theism, or whatever

And what YOU are not doing is talking about science.
(I have no idea where "atheism/ theism" comes into it, nor "philosophy").

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

This sounds like some crank new-age rubbish, viz: this and this.

You owe me some brain cells.

Originally Posted by Ewrin

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.
Do not remove this topic and we will see

This resembles an argumentum ex culo.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

You owe me some brain cells.

It's Christmas - I lost a few of my own, thanks to copious wine and brandy...

Oh dear...
Step 1) ask a seemingly-innocent (but highly uninformed) question while claiming to be scientifically-minded.
Step 2) get answers that disagree with the pre-formed (but invoiced) opinion.
Step 3) make unfounded assertion.
Step 4) make false claims about how science is/ was done, repeat assertion while failing to provide any support whatsoever.
Step 5) delete original post.

Does that spell crank?
Sure does.

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Very soon science will discovered that there are connections between the stars with lights.

A prediction that vague can only come from one source.
You are lucky it was a small prediction...

Originally Posted by Ewrim

Do not remove this topic and we will see

Ironic that the person who says this is the one who starts to self-censor his own drivel.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Oh dear...
Step 1) ask a seemingly-innocent (but highly uninformed) question while claiming to be scientifically-minded.
Step 2) get answers that disagree with the pre-formed (but invoiced) opinion.
Step 3) make unfounded assertion.
Step 4) make false claims about how science is/ was done, repeat assertion while failing to provide any support whatsoever.
Step 5) delete original post.

Does that spell crank?
Sure does.

Biggest clue -

"They laughed at Einstein, too!"

Clue 1: Ask a vague question about something which doesn't exist.
Clue 2: Ask that your topic not be deleted at the detriment of everyone else.
Clue 3: Offer no scientific support for any of your statements ...
Clue 4: ... then claim that is how all great scientists throughout history worked.

Hallmarks of a common crank. And a novice one, at that.

Could the OP have been going on about these; X-ray binary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could the OP have been going on about these; X-ray binary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lord knows.

I was being charitable and thinking that the OP was just an idiosyncratic way of describing streams of photons that would be visible (if anyone was there to observe them) from the surfaces of (planets of) neighbouring stars.

Then I started to think about how that would look if every star we can identify had an inhabited planet orbiting it. Kittens playing with knitting would be the best analogy I could think of.

Any star in direct line-of-sight to any other star can be said to be connected by a pillar of light, but it's a very "dreamy" sentiment and shouldn't be taken as anything more than a poetic metaphor.