Offline pluto

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« on: September 26, 2016, 06:41:54 PM »
They look round through a telescope anyway?

Offline Roach

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2016, 11:12:06 PM »
they're round. just like the earth.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2016, 02:44:52 AM »
They look round through a telescope anyway?

No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.


they're round. just like the earth.

They may be round, but that isn't evidence that earth is.

geckothegeek

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2016, 05:54:57 AM »
They look round through a telescope anyway?

No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.


they're round. just like the earth.

They may be round, but that isn't evidence that earth is.

There is evidence that all the planets, including the earth, are round.
There is absolutely no evidence that all the planets, including the earth, are flat.

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2016, 09:11:14 AM »
No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.

Each and every one of the heavenly bodies has the shape of a disk.

There are no spherical planets.


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284 (impossibility of a spherically shaped sun)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the nuclear furnace hypothesis)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (solar/lunar ISS/Atlantis/Mercury transits)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (Hubble/Venus solar transits)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2016, 12:09:55 PM »
No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.

Each and every one of the heavenly bodies has the shape of a disk.

There are no spherical planets.
Are you doubting Junker and "the Wiki"?

Quote from: sandokhan
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284 (impossibility of a spherically shaped sun)
Really, in that you claim that the sun would become a disk because rotational forces would overcome it's gravitational forces.
Not if the data on the Globe earth''s sun are correct.
Radius of sun = 695,700 km or R = 6.957 x 108 m, Period of rotation (at equator) = 24.47 days. Hence the surface velocity v = 2,068 m/s.
So the centripetal acceleration at the sun's equator Ac = v2/R = 0.00614 m/s2
But the gravitational acceleration at the sun'equator gsun = 274.0 m/s2.

So the gravitational acceleration is so much greater than the centripetal acceleration than it will not fly apart for this reason.
Of course, the sun is not solid and the interior is subject to other forces, but this is enough for now.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the nuclear furnace hypothesis)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (solar/lunar ISS/Atlantis/Mercury transits)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (Hubble/Venus solar transits)
If you look into those photos, all they prove is that Sandokhan knows nothing about perspective or photography or both.
They are quite consistent with the expected sizes of the ISS, Atlantis and Mercury compared to the sun and moon, once the various distances (for the Globe model) are taken into account.
I've posted this material before, and I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
You are wrong on the simplest of these. I'll let others handle the hard ones.

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 01:28:57 PM »
rabinoz, I told you to keep your low level stuff out of the upper forums.



The pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.

Now, the fact that both the photosphere and the cromosphere stay glued next to the surface of a sphere while at the same time they are subjected to an additional enormous centrifugal force, running in the quadrillions of newtons, is what demonstrates clearly the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun.

The gases in both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure.

The force of gravity was taken into consideration, by having balanced out the pressure of the gases.



PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR


The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.


Completely unexplained by modern science.


Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

The Nelson Effect is an established fact of science.


http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

Published in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson and colleagues from the University of Southern Queensland, prove that Jupiter and Saturn affect the sun's movement and its rotation, and hence its sunspot activity.


We present evidence to show that there
is a direct link between the decreases and increases in
the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of the
Solar System, and the observed decreases and increases
in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. We believe that this
link provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is
a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the
Jovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is these
changes in the Sun’s rotation speed that are responsible for
variations in the speed of the meridional flow.We postulate
that it is the planetary induced changes in speed of the
meridional flow that control both the duration and strength
of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface.


The Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force.


"There has historically been a recognized connection between the frequency of sunspot activity (the total number of spots) and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system's “barycentre” -- or, center of mass.  But the big problem is that there is no conventional explanation for exactly how this influence occurs."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens


The continuing paradox implies that a different principle, other than mass via gravity interaction, is in operation that produces the observed effects.


Not only the huge centrifugal force is completely unaccounted for, and has no other force to counteract it, thus acting permanently on the atmosphere of the Sun, but now we have the Nelson effect to deal with: if the migration of the sunspots is due to the influence of Jupiter and Saturn, then certainly this influence would change the shape of the Sun to that of a disk.


Let us now attempt to calculate the CORRECT value of g, using the pressure equation and the Clayton stellar model (a nonlinear density curve).


Dr. Clayton was the first astrophysicist to introduce a specific form for ρ(r) which was then subsituted in the hydrostatic equilibrium equation.


Here is the full equation:


P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Even with the more involved equation, using the Clayton model, g will be much less than the centrifugal acceleration.

If we add the Nelson effect to this, we can see the full nature of the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun paradox.






DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS INVOLVED HERE?

There can be no comparison whatsoever between the centrifugal force and gravity anymore.

Gravity has already balanced out the thermal pressure.


The centrifugal force acts as an ADDITIONAL FORCE, running in the quadrillions of newtons.

Basically, the sun becomes an enormous gas centrifuge with no outer casing.


Since the gases in the both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure, you cannot bring gravity into the discussion anymore.

Those gases then will be subject to the full centrifugal force computed above.

That is why no scientist at the present time can explain the defiance of newtonian mechanics by the gases in the solar photosphere.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The pressure in the chromosphere is 10^-13 bar (0.0000000000001 bar).

You used the WRONG equation!

The correct equation is the HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION.

Since gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure, you have to use THE NEW FIGURE OF 0.0000000000001 BAR in the chromosphere to get the corrrect g value.



YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE CNO CYCLE PARADOX:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377


YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 01:50:02 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2016, 03:28:44 PM »
rabinoz, I told you to keep your low level stuff out of the upper forums.



The pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.

Now, the fact that both the photosphere and the cromosphere stay glued next to the surface of a sphere while at the same time they are subjected to an additional enormous centrifugal force, running in the quadrillions of newtons, is what demonstrates clearly the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun.

The gases in both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure.

The force of gravity was taken into consideration, by having balanced out the pressure of the gases.



PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR


The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.


Completely unexplained by modern science.


Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

The Nelson Effect is an established fact of science.


http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

Published in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson and colleagues from the University of Southern Queensland, prove that Jupiter and Saturn affect the sun's movement and its rotation, and hence its sunspot activity.


We present evidence to show that there
is a direct link between the decreases and increases in
the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of the
Solar System, and the observed decreases and increases
in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. We believe that this
link provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is
a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the
Jovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is these
changes in the Sun’s rotation speed that are responsible for
variations in the speed of the meridional flow.We postulate
that it is the planetary induced changes in speed of the
meridional flow that control both the duration and strength
of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface.


The Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force.


"There has historically been a recognized connection between the frequency of sunspot activity (the total number of spots) and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system's “barycentre” -- or, center of mass.  But the big problem is that there is no conventional explanation for exactly how this influence occurs."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens


The continuing paradox implies that a different principle, other than mass via gravity interaction, is in operation that produces the observed effects.


Not only the huge centrifugal force is completely unaccounted for, and has no other force to counteract it, thus acting permanently on the atmosphere of the Sun, but now we have the Nelson effect to deal with: if the migration of the sunspots is due to the influence of Jupiter and Saturn, then certainly this influence would change the shape of the Sun to that of a disk.


Let us now attempt to calculate the CORRECT value of g, using the pressure equation and the Clayton stellar model (a nonlinear density curve).


Dr. Clayton was the first astrophysicist to introduce a specific form for ρ(r) which was then subsituted in the hydrostatic equilibrium equation.


Here is the full equation:


P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Even with the more involved equation, using the Clayton model, g will be much less than the centrifugal acceleration.

If we add the Nelson effect to this, we can see the full nature of the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun paradox.






DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS INVOLVED HERE?

There can be no comparison whatsoever between the centrifugal force and gravity anymore.

Gravity has already balanced out the thermal pressure.


The centrifugal force acts as an ADDITIONAL FORCE, running in the quadrillions of newtons.

Basically, the sun becomes an enormous gas centrifuge with no outer casing.


Since the gases in the both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure, you cannot bring gravity into the discussion anymore.

Those gases then will be subject to the full centrifugal force computed above.

That is why no scientist at the present time can explain the defiance of newtonian mechanics by the gases in the solar photosphere.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The pressure in the chromosphere is 10^-13 bar (0.0000000000001 bar).

You used the WRONG equation!

The correct equation is the HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION.

Since gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure, you have to use THE NEW FIGURE OF 0.0000000000001 BAR in the chromosphere to get the corrrect g value.



YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE CNO CYCLE PARADOX:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377


YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
I've had this discussion with you before, sandokhan, you were wrong back then as well. Copy/pasting all of your "paradox" broken records (could you please suffix your statements differently, please?) over and over again does not magically make your material factual.

Inb4 "your Wikipedia level knowledge", "please study", "learn math", "I win all debates" elitist ad hominem.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2016, 09:14:25 PM »
rabinoz, I told you to keep your low level stuff out of the upper forums.
;D ;D ;D YOU told me!  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: sandokhan
Let us now attempt to calculate the CORRECT value of g, using the pressure equation and the Clayton stellar model (a nonlinear density curve).
Last I heard about it acceleration due to gravitation = (universal gravitational constant) x (mass) / (radius)2.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Clayton was the first astrophysicist to introduce a specific form for ρ(r) which was then subsituted in the hydrostatic equilibrium equation.

g = 0,0000507 m/s2
And has absolutely nothing to do with pressure - completely separate issue.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
Just because YOU think that there is a "faint young sun paradox" doesn't make it true.

If the sun is not a sphere how come we observe sun-spots, that let the rotational speed be measured.
Go peddle your rubbish elsewhere.
You can't convince the Flat-Earthers and you can't convince the others, maybe try making some Yu Bute YouTube videos to peddle your stuff. At least it might amuse the masses.

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2016, 06:45:02 AM »
Here is solar astrophysics 101 for you.



Gravity has already been balanced out by the gaseous pressure.

Now, we have the ADDITIONAL centrifugal force to deal with, which is not explained by modern astrophysicists.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


Gravity has already been balanced out by the pressure of the gases.

But now you have a huge problem.

In the chromosphere the pressure is 10-13 bar.


These are the facts accepted by each and every astrophysicist.


To calculate the correct value of g AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, in the chromosphere itself, YOU NEED TO USE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PRESSURE, which is 10-13 bar.

That is where the Clayton equation comes in, and we can immediately do the calculation.

g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Even with the more involved equation, using the Clayton model, g will be much less than the centrifugal acceleration.

If we add the Nelson effect to this, we can see the full nature of the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun paradox.


Currently, the faint young sun paradox is the most devastating problem which cannot be solved by modern astrophysics.

In a recent review, published in one of the mainstream scientific treatises:

For more than four decades, scientists have been trying
to find an answer to one of the most fundamental questions
in paleoclimatology, the “faint young Sun problem.” For the
early Earth, models of stellar evolution predict a solar
energy input to the climate system that is about 25% lower
than today. This would result in a completely frozen world
over the first 2 billion years in the history of our planet if all
other parameters controlling Earth’s climate had been the
same. Yet there is ample evidence for the presence of liquid
surface water and even life in the Archean (3.8 to 2.5 billion
years before present), so some effect (or effects) must have
been compensating for the faint young Sun. A wide range
of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during
the last four decades, with most studies focusing on
higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like
carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions
present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young
Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.


The sunspots provide, again, a formidable proof that there is no such thing as a solar nuclear furnace.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377

The Nelson Effect is an established fact of science.


http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

Published in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson and colleagues from the University of Southern Queensland, prove that Jupiter and Saturn affect the sun's movement and its rotation, and hence its sunspot activity.


We present evidence to show that there
is a direct link between the decreases and increases in
the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of the
Solar System, and the observed decreases and increases
in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. We believe that this
link provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is
a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the
Jovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is these
changes in the Sun’s rotation speed that are responsible for
variations in the speed of the meridional flow.We postulate
that it is the planetary induced changes in speed of the
meridional flow that control both the duration and strength
of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface.


The Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force.


"There has historically been a recognized connection between the frequency of sunspot activity (the total number of spots) and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system's “barycentre” -- or, center of mass.  But the big problem is that there is no conventional explanation for exactly how this influence occurs."

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2016, 11:18:43 AM »
...

In the chromosphere the pressure is 10-13 bar.

These are the facts accepted by each and every astrophysicist.

To calculate the correct value of g AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, in the chromosphere itself, YOU NEED TO USE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PRESSURE, which is 10-13 bar.

...

I don't know where you got your value for pressure from, but I suspect that it is just the static pressure. If you want an equilibrium equation with pressure and gravity, you need to use the gas stagnation pressure, gradient of the static pressure, and the radiation pressure.

And yes, centrifugal acceleration would be included in that equilibrium equation. However, it is usually ignored because of how tiny it is.

Edit: Actually, if you are assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, all you need is the static pressure GRADIENT. And centrifugal acceleration, of course.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 06:58:45 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2016, 12:32:04 PM »

Gravity has already been balanced out by the gaseous pressure.
Now, we have the ADDITIONAL centrifugal force to deal with, which is not explained by modern astrophysicists.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
Gravity has already been balanced out by the pressure of the gases.
But now you have a huge problem.
In the chromosphere the pressure is 10-13 bar.
These are the facts accepted by each and every astrophysicist.
To calculate the correct value of g AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, in the chromosphere itself, YOU NEED TO USE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PRESSURE, which is 10-13 bar.
That is where the Clayton equation comes in, and we can immediately do the calculation.
g = 0,0000507 m/s2

No, we do not have a problem. You have a problem. Gravity does not get balanced out by the gaseous pressure

You simply cannot calculate the gravitational field on the surface of the sun from the pressure chromosphere of 10-13 bar.

The gravitational field is calculated from the mass and radius of the sun. I can calculate it and numerous astronomical websites get the same answer.

Just look at the case of the earth at 100 km altitude the atmospheric is roughly 1.06x10-4 Bar and g = 9.53m/s2.

The only connection between the two is that the pressure depends on the weight of atmosphere above that point.

On the sun Gravitational Acceleration, gsun = G x Msun/R2sun = 274 m/s2.

And this is what numerous references get, here;s just a few:
         Hyperphysics, Sun Surface gravity 274 m/s2.
         Smart Conversion, Gravity of Planets and the Sun Surface Gravity of the Sun 274 m/s2.
         Bright Hub, Understanding the Surface Gravity of Planets Sun: g = 274 m/s2.

You might say that I'm using "Globe figures" or something! Of course I am.

You really are a hypocrite. You take these bits of data, measured by astronomers who obviously believe the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, then use them to prove we can't have a distant sun!
That's weird.

I know you'll ignore all of this, but if the rest of your material is as wrong as this, don't bother repeating page after page with the same old copy-and-paste..





Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2016, 05:11:46 PM »
Do not pretend you do not understand the issues involved here.


Gravity is totally balanced out by the gaseous pressure (there you can use your g figure that you quoted).


At that point in time, however, there will be two additional forces to deal with: the centrifugal force and the Nelson effect.


Contrary to your assertion, the centrifugal force IS NOT taken into account, not to mention the Nelson effect, this is the catastrophic approach to solar astrophysics evidenced in the references you provided.


You simply cannot calculate the gravitational field on the surface of the sun from the pressure chromosphere of 10^-13 bar.

The Clayton equation provides the perfect setting to really find out the TRUE value of g, given the correct value of the pressure in the chromosphere of 10-13 bar.


Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


There is another way to prove the correctness of my assertions.

CNO CYCLE DEFIES THE SOLAR NUCLEAR FURNACE HYPOTHESIS

An extraordinary look at the CNO cycle:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf (a must read)

This paper provides the latest proofs which show the following:

Measurements on gamma-rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops.

"But the nuclear furnace theory assumes that these nuclear events are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”."

A clear debunking of the currently accepted solar model.

"To confirm these surface events Iron Sun proponents point to the telltale signatures of the “CNO cycle” first set forth in the work of Hans Bethe. In 1939 Bethe proposed that the stable mass-12 isotope of Carbon catalyzes a series of atomic reactions in the core of the Sun, resulting in the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This nucleosynthesis, according to Bethe, occurs through a “Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle,” as helium is constructed from the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—protons—at temperatures ranging from 14 million K to 20 million K.

For some time now, solar scientists have observed the products expected from the CNO cycle, but now they see a relationship of these products’ abundances to sunspot activity. This finding is crucial because the nuclear events that standard theory envisions are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”. From this vantage point, a connection between the hidden nuclear furnace and sunspot activity is inconceivable."

Proponents of the Iron Sun, therefore, have posed an issue that could be fatal to the standard model.


Just look at the case of the earth at 100 km altitude the atmospheric is roughly 1.06x10-4 Bar and g = 9.53m/s2.

You have forgotten about the gases in the atmosphere paradox, and the barometer pressure paradox which totally defy your statement.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 05:14:28 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2016, 08:31:29 PM »
FYI, there are a few things you should know about the Clayton equation you are using:

1. It is designed to make a simple GUESS for the pressure near the CENTER of the star.
2. It is not expected to be accurate near the surface of the star.
3. It is definitely not designed to calculate the strength of gravity based on measured pressure.

Your calculation of g isn't going to be anything remotely close to accurate using that method.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2016, 10:47:35 PM »
Do not pretend you do not understand the issues involved here.
Gravity is totally balanced out by the gaseous pressure (there you can use your g figure that you quoted).
There is absolutely no reason why it should or be expected to!
Quote from: sandokhan
At that point in time, however, there will be two additional forces to deal with: the centrifugal force and the Nelson effect.

Contrary to your assertion, the centrifugal force IS NOT taken into account, not to mention the Nelson effect, this is the catastrophic approach to solar astrophysics evidenced in the references you provided.


You simply cannot calculate the gravitational field on the surface of the sun from the pressure chromosphere of 10^-13 bar.

The Clayton equation provides the perfect setting to really find out the TRUE value of g, given the correct value of the pressure in the chromosphere of 10-13 bar.
If you don't accept that gravitation is caused solely by mass (and energy) then go prove that before all your other rubbish.

I haven't forgotten all your "paradoxes", I know about them.

But you claim all the things we observe can't happen, but they do happen.

Instead of wasting your time on this stuff, nobody reads most of in anymore, spend your time presenting a viable "Flat Earth Model" that explains all of the things we observe.

In reality, to spend all this time trying to debunk the Heliocentric Globe because you don't have a "Flat Earth Model" that even the Flat Earthers will accept. Convince them first! We're lost causes, you ought to know that by now!

Just a minor point! How can the sun and planets by flat disks if:
          The sun shows sunspots that show a repeating, though slowly changing, pattern that proves it rotate at different rates from the equator to the poles.
          The planets Mercury and Venus show phases similar to the moon, though with the "new phase" when the planet is in inferior conjunction and  the "full phase" when in superior conjunction.
          The surfaces of the planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn can readily be seen in sufficient detail to observe their rotation.

The easily observed shadows in the craters of the moon certainly make if highly probably that it is a sphere, or would you suggest a  ::) hemisphere  ::)!

So you present YOUR Flat Earth Model and well see how that is accepted. In the meantime, the Globe spins quite happily along, thank you.

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2016, 11:19:24 AM »
They look round through a telescope anyway?

In their defense, I do believe the extraterrestrial planets take the curious shape of a disk, or a little sticker, as it were, when viewed through a telescope. It is only through advanced scientific methods that we can deduce their true shape of a sphere.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »
Hello? Pluto? Are you there or did you get lost in all that? If you're looking for FE perspective sandokhan and junker are the FEers who have responded. Junker says no one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat. Sandokhan promptly proves him wrong by claiming each and every one of the heavenly bodies has the shape of a disk.There are no spherical planets. Sandokhan's position is less popular among FEers. Don't be fooled by his huge walls of text. He is full of baloney. For the most part, if you try to convince them the earth is likely round like the other planets they will mock you by making an analogy about furniture in a room. Four pieces of furniture are chairs therefore the fifth must also be a chair. That's ridiculous they say, it could just as easy be a table.

I think that whole analogy is flawed because there is a reason the other bodies are round and that same reason applies to the earth as well. But then, most FEers don't believe in gravity either - or at least not Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2016, 09:07:42 PM »
How do we even know the moon is a sphere? We only ever see the face. What if the other planets behave the same way?

Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2016, 07:27:50 AM »
How do we even know the moon is a sphere? We only ever see the face. What if the other planets behave the same way?
They don't.

The Moon is fairly close. That's why so many different countries sent (and have in place) so many different probes there as well showing us the shape of the Moon.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mars, Venus, Mercury etc flat too?
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2016, 01:58:44 PM »
How do we even know the moon is a sphere? We only ever see the face. What if the other planets behave the same way?
The observed phenomenon of nutation is strongly suggestive of non-flatness of the moon.

Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice