I've been wondering, if the sun is only a few hundred kilometres from the earth and a few kilometres in diameter, what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?
The powerhouse behind the visible Sun is the Black Sun, which supplies the necessary laevorotatory subquarks.Laevorotatory subquarks are antigravity subquarks and can not be used to create non-antigravity quarks.
In turn, the Sun absorbs these subquarks and emits quarks.
The Sun activates the light strings of the subquarks of the telluric waves (ether) to produce visible light.
The Sun also can activate the thermal strings of the subquarks of ether.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563 (Shadow Moon)And just how do they do that? What makes you think that is not the moon blocking the sun?
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3203.0 (origin of Black Sun)
The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563) (Shadow Moon)
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3203.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3203.0) (origin of Black Sun)
The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)
The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse
rounder, the celestial object in those photographs is not the Moon: there is only a distance of some hundreds of km between Bruenjes and the Black Sun.
We also have a very direct proof: the Allais effect.
The Allais effect is not ambiguous at all.
Each time the proper requirements (the lab/experiment setup) have been met, it has been recorded EACH AND EVERY TIME, almost every year since 1999.
The experiments that did not record the effect, were not set up properly.
Here is Dr. Allais explaining the effect, in a classic work:
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf
The diagram showing what happened during the Allais effect pendulum experiment:
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Allais-Pendulum.jpg)
The Allais effect is one of the fundamental facts of science, an experiment that does prove that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.
Dr. Erwin Saxl recorded the Allais effect in a classic experiment:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054
Confirmation of the Allais effect, 1999 - 2011:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747
My previous message included three NEW links.
The first, the report to Nasa, details the extraordinary setup organized by Dr. Allais for his famous experiment.
It is a fact that only a few physicists have even come close to meeting those standards.
Those who did, experienced no difficulties in recording this extraordinary phenomenon (my second and my third links).
The Allais effect is a fact of science: it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.
Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-cv.html
1949 University of Paris, Faculty of Science, Doctor-Engineer
Laureate, Gravity Research Foundation, USA, for his memoir, New Theoretical and Experimental Research Work on Gravity, 1959
1964 Doctor honoris causa, University of Groningen
rounder... don't you understand that I ALWAYS do my homework?
THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER COMMITTED A CRUCIAL, GRIEVIOUS ERROR: THEY FAILED TO READ THE ORIGINAL PAPER WRITTEN IN FRENCH, BY DR. MAURICE ALLAIS, WHICH DETAILS THE VERY CALCULATIONS THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT....The authors of the German paper are showing their utter ignorance of the facts by having failed to read the original work in French which does include the very description of the k paramater they complain about.
They only read the short version, the English language report, and based their catastrophic errors on that.
To explain the REVERSAL OF THE MOTION OF A PENDULUM using building vibrations is ludicrous.
Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf (pages 28R)
Page 44R carefully describes the 1958 experiments.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-cv.html
1949 University of Paris, Faculty of Science, Doctor-Engineer
Laureate, Gravity Research Foundation, USA, for his memoir, New Theoretical and Experimental Research Work on Gravity, 1959
1964 Doctor honoris causa, University of Groningen
Maybe it would help you to look up "Doctor honoris cause,"
what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?The sun is not a physical object.
That's great, and all the evidence to back that rather Crackpot'ish statement up that you supplied is quite on par.what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?The sun is not a physical object.
The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.
No, the wiki clearly states thatwhat causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?The sun is not a physical object.
The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
No, the wiki clearly states thatwhat causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?The sun is not a physical object.
The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.Quote from: wikiThe sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Not a focal point.
How can such a small sphere have such large energy density?
No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
Then why are we always directed to the wiki for the "truth"?No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Again, you choose to ignore your intellectual capabilities, just for the mere pleasure of satisfying your need to feel you got the last word.Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Is every field of science completely unified? Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
Do you think people should always collude together to provide a dogmatic unified front, regardless of their own opinions, observations, or facts to the contrary? I guess that's what evolution is, so maybe you do.
In some cases: Yes.Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
In some cases: Yes.Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.
"this theory represents a minority"In some cases: Yes.Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories
In some cases: Yes.
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHerehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories"this theory represents a minority"
"this theory fails to comply with observations"
That's what most of those references say. Please remember that a theory is an explanation. An observation is fact.
In some cases: Yes.
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHerehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories"this theory represents a minority"
"this theory fails to comply with observations"
That's what most of those references say. Please remember that a theory is an explanation. An observation is fact.
Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/9/a/19a24fc007710d7b21e0ff2ae61826ec.png)
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/9/a/19a24fc007710d7b21e0ff2ae61826ec.png)
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
I'm looking and I'm noticing that you never bothered to explain it. You posted it as though you knew what it meant, but ya don't.
Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/9/a/19a24fc007710d7b21e0ff2ae61826ec.png)
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
I'm looking and I'm noticing that you never bothered to explain it. You posted it as though you knew what it meant, but ya don't.
I have no clue what it means, its from the Pressuron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressuron)theory for gravity. I posted it to demonstrate just how detached from common sense this stuff has become. If this is the style of math you commonly refer to, then please be my guest and explain it to me.
Since you seem completely ignorant on this as on most things, just how do you know "just how detached from common sense this stuff has become". It might be completely relevant to a very promising theory on the cause of gravitation!Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/9/a/19a24fc007710d7b21e0ff2ae61826ec.png)
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
I'm looking and I'm noticing that you never bothered to explain it. You posted it as though you knew what it meant, but ya don't.
I have no clue what it means, its from the Pressuron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressuron)theory for gravity. I posted it to demonstrate just how detached from common sense this stuff has become. If this is the style of math you commonly refer to, then please be my guest and explain it to me.
Nothing in there says gravity doesn't exist just what causes gravity. Most of which is some form of particle interaction.In some cases: Yes.Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.No, the wiki clearly states thatThe Wiki is not the gospel.
I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories
Dave... The question was is there ever absolutely one theory for a phenomenon. Andys answer was yes.I read it. Gravity is a fact that explains a phenomenon. There is no unified theory on what causes gravity but it is universally established that it does exist. Your "idea" of bouyancy not withatanding.
I'm starting to be ashamed in myself for debating you so much in my religion and philosophy thread.Its because you're an idiot and feel the need to feel correct despite being overwhelmingly wrong on nearly everything. But you can't accept that as it would destroy your self confidence and world view so you fight back. Its rather normal.
I'd have to imagine there isn't one unified theory on all things flat earth for the simple fact that there isn't a lot of people with the means necessary to do the experiments required. As time passes it will obviously become less and less likely that any scientist will emerge from the present paradigm or framework to make the observations and and experimentation to do so. The very basis of 99% of people's understanding of the universe is a heliocentric ball, it's basically an insurmountable task at this point, where even if the Earth was proven flat it would take hundreds of years to change that.No, its because the Earth isn't flat.
Then one day a Round Earth Society would emerge and start the debate all over again.
Dave... The question was is there ever absolutely one theory for a phenomenon. Andys answer was yes.I read it. Gravity is a fact that explains a phenomenon. There is no unified theory on what causes gravity but it is universally established that it does exist. Your "idea" of bouyancy not withatanding.QuoteI'm starting to be ashamed in myself for debating you so much in my religion and philosophy thread.Its because you're an idiot and feel the need to feel correct despite being overwhelmingly wrong on nearly everything. But you can't accept that as it would destroy your self confidence and world view so you fight back. Its rather normal.QuoteI'd have to imagine there isn't one unified theory on all things flat earth for the simple fact that there isn't a lot of people with the means necessary to do the experiments required. As time passes it will obviously become less and less likely that any scientist will emerge from the present paradigm or framework to make the observations and and experimentation to do so. The very basis of 99% of people's understanding of the universe is a heliocentric ball, it's basically an insurmountable task at this point, where even if the Earth was proven flat it would take hundreds of years to change that.No, its because the Earth isn't flat.
Then one day a Round Earth Society would emerge and start the debate all over again.
So can anyone actually answer my original question?
So can anyone actually answer my original question?
spectroscopy. That's how we know what it's made of.So can anyone actually answer my original question?
Nobody knows exactly how old the sun is, how much energy it has, how much more until it runs out. They can postulate (guess) those things. Hell, in my opinion, its more a less a guess what the sun even is.
The fact is it's just not something you can test from Earth, being 93 million miles away and all.
spectroscopy. That's how we know what it's made of.So can anyone actually answer my original question?
Nobody knows exactly how old the sun is, how much energy it has, how much more until it runs out. They can postulate (guess) those things. Hell, in my opinion, its more a less a guess what the sun even is.
The fact is it's just not something you can test from Earth, being 93 million miles away and all.