What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 19, 2018, 06:26:51 PM »
Okay, I'm going to have another go at finding out some facts about what FE theory says about the sun.

What does FE theory say:

Q1. is the source of the Sun's energy?

Q2. about the size and shape of the Sun?

Q3. about the apparent rotation of the Sun (as shown by sun spots)?

That's enough for now. I cannot begin to form a picture in my head about FE theory until I see how it fits with the observed motion and nature of the bodies in the solar system.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2018, 10:57:56 PM »
Unknown.

Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2018, 12:36:31 PM »
Depends entirely on personal theory if there's an answer to any of these. The only one with any sort of 'common' answer would be Q2, and that would be spherical, and approximately 32 miles across.

Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2018, 01:19:42 PM »
Okay, I'm going to have another go at finding out some facts about what FE theory says about the sun.

What does FE theory say:

Q1. is the source of the Sun's energy?

Q2. about the size and shape of the Sun?

Q3. about the apparent rotation of the Sun (as shown by sun spots)?

That's enough for now. I cannot begin to form a picture in my head about FE theory until I see how it fits with the observed motion and nature of the bodies in the solar system.

would also suggest you take some time and actually read "earth not a globe" 

you keep posting questions asking about FE but you wont take any time to read any material.  its like trying to ask a question about a movie you have never seen, in an effort to understand the movie and the ending.  it would be best to watch the movie and then come back and ask questions about items you didnt understand.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2018, 02:17:57 PM »

would also suggest you take some time and actually read "earth not a globe" 


2nd edition online

Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2018, 07:23:37 PM »
Quote
you keep posting questions asking about FE but you wont take any time to read any material.  its like trying to ask a question about a movie you have never seen, in an effort to understand the movie and the ending.  it would be best to watch the movie and then come back and ask questions about items you didn't understand.

I will endeavour to make some time to read the text and/or watch the video. This is not something I will manage overnight but I must seek some answers in the interim.

Given that 'Earth Not a Globe' was written long before Fusion reactions were explained I would gather that it makes no comment on the source of the Sun's power. I raise it here because we now have a very good understanding of the Fusion reactions that power the Sun. These reactions define the Sun's size and its power. The size is relevant as FE theory has the Sun as only a few miles across. Stars ignite because they collapse under the action of huge gravitational forces. When the density and pressure are sufficiently high (hundreds of millions of degrees) the nuclei of the Hydrogen atoms are pushed together (very difficult) and they fuse. The huge amounts of energy released push outwards on the collapsing gases and halt the progress. An equilibrium is established and maintained anywhere from tens of millions of years to over ten billion years. The key part is the radius of the star that causes equilibrium. Nothing less than many hundreds of kilometers is sufficient given the enormous mass of gas involved. The suggestion of 32 miles given in this thread is not possible. Now of course, to follow this explanation involves an acceptance that both gravitational theory and atomic theory are valid. These theories are some of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century. They explain to an astonishing level of accuracy the action of our sun, other suns (stars) and have led to our splitting the atom to harness fission power. Without the complex mathematics and detailed atomic theory in the form of quantum mechanics we would not be able to predict the countless parameters needed to split an atom. Surely we can all here agree that splitting an atom is no easy feat and anyone that can do it must know a thing or two! This of course also assumes that you do agree that the atom has been split (i.e. nuclear power exists / Hiroshima happened etc.)

Now the Sun's vast power also poses another huge problem for FE theory. Mr Rowbotham claims to have calculated the distance to the Sun of some 700 miles. 'Later calculations' put this at 3000 miles. This is from your wiki. In a recent post regarding the apparent curvature of the earth (that I filmed myself using a balloon at 100 000ft) it was explained to me (again via your wiki) that the Earth's Sun falls as a spotlight with the limits of the light falling at the edges causing shadow effects, hence the apparent curvature. The problem is if we analyse the energy output of the Sun we find it is 63 million Watts/sq meter or a total output of 3.86 x 10^26 Watts. We can do this easily by observing the flux from the Sun and calculating back using the Inverse Square law. This is high school level Physics and my classes perform experiments and associated calculations using this law every year. It works, period. Now, the 'spotlight theory' would have most of the Suns energy falling directly on the Earth's surface. This is a big problem!! Every kilogram of sea water would evaporate in a fraction of a second. Indeed the whole Earth would be evaporated not long after. It would not be pretty. It is simply not possible.

Even if we do not assume a 'spotlight Earth' scenario and return to the spherical sun model radiating in all directions, a separation of 1000 miles would vastly reduce the absorbed energy but nowhere near enough to prevent surface temperatures of many thousands of degrees. Again, not possible.

So we have an impasse. Your own Wiki makes a very clear claim that my direct observations (and those of other balloon enthusiasts) are wrong as the suns light falls in a spotlight configuration and yet the easily determined solar flux is such that it would obliterate planet Earth in seconds.

Now there is no clarification that can be made here that will alter the mathematics and the innevitable conclusions they lead to. The only way this outcome can be refuted is if you

a) Disagree that the Suns flux is 3.86x10^26 Watts

b) Atomic and/or Fusion theories are wrong.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2018, 07:44:51 PM »
Quote
Mr Rowbotham claims to have calculated the distance to the Sun of some 700 miles. 'Later calculations' put this at 3000 miles.

That's okay. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2018, 09:04:38 AM »
Quote
That's okay. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Estimating in terms of millions of miles is an improvement on one thousand miles but I would love to see the source and context for these quotes.

However, what you appear to be saying here is 'nobody really knows how far away the Sun is' and you have not engaged with the main point of my last post which is that the Earth-Sun distance absolutely cannot be anywhere near 1000 miles AND the spotlight Earth model cannot be right. Indeed, even if the FE model assumed the distance to be 150 million Km's a spotlight configuration would still obliterate life on Earth. So the spotlight model cannot work in ANY situation at all.

However, the basic idea that the sun is much smaller does superficially allow for it to be much closer and thus appear large while not burning us to a crisp.

I did the math's:

If we ignore the sun's overall flux value and instead look at its output per sq meter which of course CAN be established from simple observational measurements we arrive at a total 'Solar Luminosity (LS of 5.25 x10^17 Watts (using the Irradiance value of 63million Watts/sq. meter output).

The equation for solar flux density (Sd) works out how that energy spreads out from the source and is 'diluted' so to speak. It is dependant on the size of the source (Sun) and the distance to the observer (Earth). This is exactly what we are debating.

Sd = LS/4xPixd2  where d is the distance between Sun and Earth.

Now this is very important. The value for Sd is a well established measured property (1348w/m2). Anyone can measure it. It varies across the Earths surface but not substantially. The solar luminosity as previously stated is also easily verified by direct measurement of the Sun's spectral output and using Wien's Law and the Stephan Boltzman law to determine the solar output power. Again, absolutely rock solid theories that work every time and in any circumstance.

Solving for d gives us d = 3431 miles. Not too dissimilar from the FE theory (~350% error) IF YOU ASSUME THE SUN IS ONLY 32 MILES IN DIAMETER AND RADIATES EQUALLY IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

The problem with this is that, again, it creates more problems than it solves. The Sun's size and distance from us does not agree with orbital mechanics, principally Kepler's 3rd law, which agrees absolutely perfectly with the observed motion of all the planets and moons in the solar system. Keppler's laws are a triumph of mathematics and mechanics and are all the more beautiful because any budding astronomer can go out on a clear night and verify the motion of the planets to a incomparable degree of accuracy.

No, you have a big logical car crash on your hands here. FE theory is, if nothing else, unequivocal about certain aspects. It has to be in order to explain certain easily observed effects e.g. the curvature observed from balloons at near space. But these bold assertions create even bigger logical problems that simply cannot be explained away.

Now I am making assumptions that certain aspects of scientific theory are accepted by the FE community but even discounting the Newton's law of gravitation the orbital motion of the Sun and Earth must obey Keppler's laws and the orbital distance of 1000miles would have it orbiting us in hours instead of hundreds of days.

Now before you site the day/night orbital cycle as the explanation...

 https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

...lets just put that to bed. If you look at the animation on your wiki we see the sun somehow orbiting in partnership with some other gravitational 'object'. I believe this is called the 'Northern hub'. Until such an object has been actually detected and measured all we have is a completely made up device that as yet still does not explain the motion of the Sun. However, even ignoring this the seasonal position of the Sun in the sky is apparently explained by the increasing and decreasing concentric orbital rings that the sun cycles through. Such a motion would require ENORMOUS changes in rotational energy of a cyclic nature. Unless energy is exchanged from outside with this system then this model unfortunately runs up against the absolutely cast iron bedrock of scientific theory....'energy cannot be created or destroyed'. No, we stop right here, we do not 'pass go' and I am afraid one must go back to the drawing board. It is annoying, it is time consuming, but it is the law as far as science and mathematics is concerned. I'm afraid now we get to my point in this thread. That is that if you jump in at any particular point in FE theory you can find logic, but that logic relies on ever increasing circles of logic built on ever more elaborate assumptions. Eventually those assumptions run up against a logic so great and irrefutable that one must start again. In essence, the house of cards falls down. Scientists meet this all the time. The difference is they seek a better model, they do not endlessly persist with the flawed model. That is how we arrived at the current model for our solar system. The round Earth model, Newton's Laws of gravitation, Keppler's Laws all work. By that I mean they agree with experimental evidence, they never disagree.

Now it will be interesting to see if this thread ends up in the angry ranting section. I believe I have engaged in a thoroughly logical and polite discourse herein. that said, I await with interest evidence that Keppler's laws do not hold and conservation of energy is not an issue. At that point I am afraid we would simply have to agree to disagree. I do not doubt my post will not sway your thinking, but I do find it interesting to see which aspects of provable scientific theory can be sacrificed in order that FE theory maintains. this should be interesting. 
« Last Edit: June 21, 2018, 09:17:00 AM by lookatmooninUKthenAUS »