[Thork]

A question for round earthers. I'm going to use round earth theory, please explain the answer.

So ... simple question. Why round? The earth isn't round. It bulges at the equator due to centripetal forces (apparently). And yet its speed is only 1000mph at the equator. The sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph. Its also not solid - its barely liquid. Why doesn't it bulge under these massive centripetal forces? I can't wrap my head around how gravity might keep it so round and allow no bulging at all. It isn't intuitive. Can you balance the equation to show either how little it bulges or explain why it doesn't? There appeared to be no bulge at all in this morning's eclipse for example.

Lets see how good you are at explaining your own theories before shooting holes in ours.

By the way, I have e-mailed NASA directly and have been told I will receive an answer from one of their astrophysicists in the next 2 weeks. So, I'm not going to accept any old crap from you. I will have the 'official' shill answer in due course.

Any of you think you know enough to explain this?

[Jane]

he sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph. Its also not solid - its barely liquid. Why doesn't it bulge under these massive centripetal forces? I can't wrap my head around how gravity might keep it so round and allow no bulging at all. It isn't intuitive. Can you balance the equation to show either how little it bulges or explain why it doesn't? There appeared to be no bulge at all in this morning's eclipse for example.

Well, for starters, it's not perfectly round, if you'll accept a shill source.
It is much more round than everything else in the Solar System mind you, simply because it's huge: it has a lot of mass. (Mass is density times volume, if you're accepting REer science for the purposes of this question, you can't deny its volume is tremendous). High mass means high gravity: for further evidence, accepting the RE view again, it has enough gravity to cause several also huge objects to orbit around it.
Its gravity is enough to deal with any bulging: while, as you say, it should bulge more easily, those bulges would be cancelled out and drawn back in just as easily. It works both ways.

So, I'm not going to accept any old crap from you. I will have the 'official' shill answer in due course.

I won't pretend to be as expert as an astrophysicist who's studied the topic for years, I doubt anyone could, but this seems about right.

[Thork]

No, you can't relate it all to gravity. I have a speed 42 times as fast, I have a gravity only 28 times as much.

Think about this, the gravity of the Sun at the surface is 28 times the gravity of the Earth. In other words, if your scale says 100 kg on Earth, it would measure 2,800 kg if you tried to walk on the surface of the Sun.

The 'bulge' described is tiny. Your shill source picks it out perfectly.

Now it should warp far more easily. The sun is only a little more dense than water.

The density of the Sun is 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. Just to give you a comparison, the density of water is 1 g/cm3. In other words, if you could find a pool large enough, the Sun would sink down and not float.

We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.

[Jane]

No, you can't relate it all to gravity. I have a speed 42 times as fast, I have a gravity only 28 times as much....
We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.

Again, you're missing the fact it works both ways. A distortion begins to form, bulges the Sun outwards: and gets dragged in by gravity immediately. It's different to the Earth, whose bulge came about when it was forming as separate specks of matter. Further, the incredible radius of the Sun will drastically reduce the centripetal force (by how said force is calculated).

[Thork]

No. The earth doesn't bulge because of when it was formed. It bulges NOW!. The bulge has been decreasing as earth has slowed (According to round earth scientists.). In fact even lunisolar precession is supposed to distort it.

You can keep guessing if you like.

Further, the incredible radius of the Sun will drastically reduce the centripetal force (by how said force is calculated).

Why did you come out with that? Have you done the maths? Why did you offer an opinion you just dreamt up as fact? The radius is not such that there would be no bulge.

[Jane]

Why did you come out with that? Have you done the maths? Why did you offer an opinion you just dreamt up as fact? The radius is not such that there would be no bulge.

A large radius reduces the centripetal force greatly: and you're again ignoring the fact the Sun's 'squashiness' makes correction far easier.

Right now I'm about to sign off and sleep, so any maths I do would be unreliable at best. It seems plain that dividing by a larger number (a larger radius) would give a smaller force.

For that matter, though, you've said:

The sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph

You're also an order of magnitude too high there. 27 days gives 27*24 hours, divide 2.7 million by that you get 4166mph.

[Thork]

Correction? Does the sun stop to have a correction?

No maths. How convenient.

Shall we put this to bed?



No one can explain why the sun doesn't squash. It doesn't match the maths and physics. At the end you get some lame offering on that video, but the guy says it himself. Our model does not work.

Soooo, I can't check the bulge of earth because I'm stood on it. I apply the same reasoning to the sun because I can see that and no one has an answer cos the model breaks. Round Earth theory is pretty terrible.

[markjo]

Now it should warp far more easily. The sun is only a little more dense than water.

The density of the Sun is 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. Just to give you a comparison, the density of water is 1 g/cm3. In other words, if you could find a pool large enough, the Sun would sink down and not float.

We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.

Actually, the density of the sun is a gradient.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5613

[Pongo]

Also, wouldn't the sun's bulge form a positive feedback loop of sorts? The more it bugled, the further its bulge would be from the other bits of sun and therefore the less pull it would have holding it causing it to bulge further and have less bits of sun holding it and so on?

[markjo]

Also, wouldn't the sun's bulge form a positive feedback loop of sorts? The more it bugled, the further its bulge would be from the other bits of sun and therefore the less pull it would have holding it causing it to bulge further and have less bits of sun holding it and so on?

Since the sun takes about 3-4 weeks to rotate on its axis, I doubt that the centrifugal force would be enough to feed back on itself as you describe.  Besides, the sun already sheds mass due to coronal mass ejections, solar wind, etc.

[Jane]

Correction? Does the sun stop to have a correction?

Ok, awake now, time to repeat myself. One, the velocity you came up with is an order of magnitude too big. Two, gravity acts whether or not the Sun moves: it's pulling in just as much.
Thank you for the new resource, but that video adds to what I was planning to say. There are several forces at work, rather than just gravity or just the centripetal force. Let's compare.

Outwards forces: centripetal (which is calculated by mv²/r, so clearly the huge radius the Sun possesses will make the force less than you seem to suppose), and the (negligible) gravity of other celestial objects.
Inwards forces: gravity. There's also a frictional force to lessen motion.

Then we get onto fluid dynamics. The Sun is not a solid, like the Earth: the two cannot be compared at all. Fluid dynamics is a very specific branch of mechanics. One result of this is the fact that, as a fluid, different parts of the Sun rotate at different rates: we observe this with, for example, the poles rotating far slower than the equator. One possible explanation for your roundness is that this occurs inside the Sun as well, which is entirely reasonable: and differing rates of acceleration will completely alter the model you've proposed. In addition, you have to deal with the effects the extreme heat conditions will have, and the incredible magnetic field of the Sun.
What you've given is an oversimplification. That's not going to give a completely accurate picture, nor will it ever.

Further, you're making an argument from ignorance: the fact we don't know the details of something, does not mean everything we know is wrong.
There are multiple possible explanations, none of which require assumptions: it's just not exactly the easiest thing to send a probe for a dip inside the Sun to figure out which is the case. From what a little bit of research unearthed, the two main contenders are the varying rotational rate of fluid, and the effects a magnetic field has on plasma (gas ionized by extreme heat). The latter seems to be the most popular: and you can't reject it just because you'd rather make a post on a forum complaining about science.

Your argument is that it's impossible, not that it's unexplained: clearly, that's simply untrue.

[Thork]

So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it.

I thought this would be a nice thread, because it shows no matter how flawed round earth theory is, the rabid Round Earthers here will defend whatever they see as fact and shout down any suggestion that RET doesn't have the answers. Thanks for not disappointing me. It just convinces me further that most of you have no idea what you are talking about and will never have the humility to admit it.

[Pongo]

So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it.

I thought this would be a nice thread, because it shows no matter how flawed round earth theory is, the rabid Round Earthers here will defend whatever they see as fact and shout down any suggestion that RET doesn't have the answers. Thanks for not disappointing me. It just convinces me further that most of you have no idea what you are talking about and will never have the humility to admit it.

I'm fond of bringing up the "sniper accounting for coriolis effect, but planes not having to" dichotomy. It's mindboggling that they can hold two plainly contradicting ideas and argue for each. Last time they told me that coriolis doesn't effect a plane because the plane has engines; as if having engines magically made something immune to coriolis.

At its simplest, it all boils down to round-earthers "having all the answers." It doesn't matter if the answers are true, it only matters that they have them. And that, for most people, is enough.

[Thork]

Agreed. I think this thread is done.

[Snupes]

So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it.

Was there even a point to this thread if you were just going to find a video and then pull an argument from authority to nix any possible debate or counterarguments? The discussion was essentially over as soon as you posted that video, then.

[Thork]

Indeed it was. I don't need to let every debate go 45 pages.

I have made the point that the sun contradicts the equatorial bulge theory that I am supposed to accept on face value, casting doubt on whether our own planet has such a phenomenon ... or is indeed a whirling ball at all. When I applied Zetetic principles to the theory, (I actually wondered as I watched the moon perfectly fit over the sun a few days ago) and thought, what is the odds they both bulge the same amount being as their densities, revolution speeds and temperatures are so vastly different? Unlike the posters of this site, I can use google.

This is not flat earth debate.

I asked the question, then supplied the answer. I merely wished to show round earth theory faltering ... and whilst doing so, show how the posters on this site would defend vociferously, any old cobblers NASA dreams up as an explanation to get their globular nonsense past the public.

Why would you ask if there was a point to the thread? This is the flat earth society. I pointed out another flaw in round earth theory. Am I only allowed to do that on tentative matters where the great unwashed can muddy the water and toss around ad hominems for hundreds of posts? No. This thread has a point.

[Jane]

I have made the point that the sun contradicts the equatorial bulge theory that I am supposed to accept on face value, casting doubt on whether our own planet has such a phenomenon ... or is indeed a whirling ball at all.

When you can show superheated plasma should behave identically to the Earth, which has far smaller size and gravitational pull, your point may be relevant.

[Thork]

Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.

[Jane]

Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.

Plus spectroscopy, but that's not the point.
If you're trying to show a hole in modern physics, you need to actually accept what it says, otherwise what you're saying has precisely no relevance.

You argued that the fact the Sun does not have an equatorial bulge like the Earth means we should question what such physics say about the Earth. See the quote in my previous post. The simple fact is, you can make no such comparisons because they are completely different states of affairs.

To quote my previous post:

From what a little bit of research unearthed, the two main contenders are the varying rotational rate of fluid, and the effects a magnetic field has on plasma (gas ionized by extreme heat). The latter seems to be the most popular: and you can't reject it just because you'd rather make a post on a forum complaining about science.

Suffice to say, there are possible explanations, and the lack of bulging does not automatically discredit RET. You have to take everything into account, not just the few bits that are convenient for you.

If you're going to argue, as it sounds, that the fact this is a complex topic somehow renders it untrustworthy, there's no way to carry on a discussion. People have expertise in different things, it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.

[Thork]

it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.

The hypocrisy is astounding.