[JohnAdams1145]

It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.

Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.

If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.

[totallackey]

Saying that stellar fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab implies an ignorance of nuclear physics.

No it does not.

Applying well-known laws such as Newton's gravitation to stars and their observed masses allows us to calculate the temperatures and pressures in the cores of the stars.

No, it does not.

First, why don't you create a CGI representation to the supposed movement of the Solar System through the galaxy.

When you can plug in those numbers into a computer (remember, all the numbers are REAL according to you, all the equations are REAL according to you) and produce that model, then maybe you can claim the rest of this claptrap as possible.

We can replicate and even contain such temperatures and pressures to demonstrate the fusion reactions.

No, we cannot.

Sustained fusion is not possible.

What we cannot do is extract enough useful energy from the processes to keep confinement (extremely energy-intensive). An example is the fusor. You can literally build a machine in your home that performs nuclear fusion, but consumes far more energy than you put in (due to conduction of the inner wire cage).

No, you cannot.

Lawson estimated the D-D thermonuclear reaction to require 13 keV of energy per reaction to initiate. This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 150 million K. You may think such temperatures are impossible to contain, but remember that all temperature is just average kinetic energy, and you can accelerate particles with an electric field. So it turns out that shooting the deuterium ions through a potential of 13kV (13000 V), we can achieve fusion temperature. You can take any TV flyback transformer to achieve a voltage of about 60-100 kV (although I only got about 30 kV for my musical plasma speaker). If you build the fusor correctly, you can demonstrate fusion in your own home.

No, you cannot.

Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, I will keep posting more in order to try to convince you I know what I am writing about.,..

FTFY...

No need to thank me.

[AATW]

totallackey, shouting "CAN'T, CAN'T, CANT!" really isn't a counter-argument.

[totallackey]

totallackey, shouting "CAN'T, CAN'T, CANT!" really isn't a counter-argument.

Not only am I not simply shouting "CAN'T," I am presenting alternative views and a solid, mathematical argument as to why the mysticism and claims relative to "fusion," are just that.

There is no real "math," applied to stars, nor are there real "formulas," relative to orbital mechanics or "gravity," in a supposed, "SOLAR SYSTEM."

1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.

[Curious Squirrel]

1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.

You mean like this?


Or like this?
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

There's a lot of them about. This is why it's difficult to take your claims at face value. You claim something that's very easy to find examples of is impossible. You can even make your own with a few different information dumps around. Try stellarium.

[douglips]

Here is how to build your own fusion reactor:
https://makezine.com/projects/make-36-boards/nuclear-fusor/

[supaluminus]

According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat. I was confronted this by my Chemistry teacher and I need a way to explain why this is false!!! Help!!! 

The reason Occams Razor discounts the flat earth model is due to the multitudes of complications and contradictions that arise when you attempt to reconcile the model with reality.

For example:

For a flat earth to be true, we have to throw out the mathematics involved with calculating the earth's curvature, rotation, revolution, tilt, mass, gravity, etc.. This means that we have to account for things like: navigation accuracy, projectile accuracy (whether firing artillery, an ICBM, or a rifle at long range), "drop height" beyond the horizon, the movement of celestial bodies, and that's just to name a few. ALL of these disparate disciplines factor in the mathematics that reflect the size and shape of the earth, among other things, consistent with the globe model.

If you understand this and you're then going to say that the earth is flat, you then have to explain how any of the applied science makes any sense. If your answer isn't very good, or if you have no answer at all, or if you can't demonstrate the predictive prowess of the model itself, it's only fair to say you don't have a particularly robust or reliable model.

To be perfectly fair, SOME of the explanations flat earthers provide make sense - to a point - if they make it past a scrutinizing first glance. However, any one observation that concludes a flat earth is rendered suspect if it can be shown that another observation is not consistent with the model. The same goes for globe earth, or any concept in general; it's simply a matter of being logically consistent.

It is not very different from a scenario where, because you believe NASA is a lying sack of shit, when they tell you 2+2 is 4, you throw out mathematics on principle. It simply introduces too many complications for it to be consistent with reality.

And that is why Occam's Razor discounts the flat earth model. It SEEMS like flat earth would be simpler, but that's only because the people who argue for it most fiercely are approaching the subject from TOO simplistic a point of view.

Therefore, I submit to you that even the most ardent flat earth proponent is simply mistaken. It doesn't mean they're wrong about EVERYTHING they think, just this particular issue.

[totallackey]

1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.

You mean like this?

No.

Or like this?
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

And no.

There's a lot of them about. This is why it's difficult to take your claims at face value. You claim something that's very easy to find examples of is impossible. You can even make your own with a few different information dumps around. Try stellarium.

No there is not "a lot of them."

As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!

There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.

And do you want to know why?

Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.

So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.

You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.

[supaluminus]

No there is not "a lot of them."

As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!

There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.

And do you want to know why?

Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.

So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.

You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.

Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."

I can show you why the typical "8 inches per mile squared" maths are wrong, quite plainly. That little diddy quite literally "does not compute" to a globe, but rather a parabola. This doesn't mean that the maths are a hoax, rather in this case it simply means that you're using the wrong maths.

If I had to pick one, this is probably Rowbotham's single greatest contribution to the state of confusion that plagues flat earthers to this day.

Example:

If you're curious - and you ought to be, at least if you're consistent - the maths involved with calculating "drop height" beyond the horizon looks something like this:

VARIABLES:

  d0 = distance from POV to target
  d1 = distance from POV to horizon
  d2 = distance from horizon to target
  h0 = height of POV
  h1 = height obscured by horizon

CONSTANTS:

  R  = radius of the earth

  ... R = 3958.75

ASSUMPTIONS:

  - The earth is 7917.5 miles in diameter.
  - Light travels in straight lines.

FORMULAE...

  (R + h0)^2 = d1^2 + R^2.........d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  (R + h1)^2 = d2^2 + R^2.........h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  d2 = d0 - d1.............................h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

Mind you, that method doesn't factor in the way light refracts through the atmosphere. Even when an object should be totally obscured by the horizon, the light reflecting off of it in the distance will bend "upwards" through the atmosphere, creating a superior mirrage. How far away you can perceive this mirrage depends on each of the variables outlined above - eye level of the observer, distance to target, height of target, and other factors that affect refraction like the composition and temperature of the air in the direction you're facing.

It's not as simple as you might like it to be, or imagine it to be.

If you understand the maths half as well as I understand the maths I showed here, you should have no problem explaining why we can't map out the motions of the celestial bodies, in simple step by step equations.

Spoiler Alert: I'm an English Lit major and I process requests for parts and services for an informatics hardware company. I suck at maths, but I understand THIS tripe. Any one of you, barring some developmental disorder, should be able to grasp this stuff.

[totallackey]

No there is not "a lot of them."

As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!

There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.

And do you want to know why?

Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.

So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.

You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.

Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."

Yes I can demonstrate why the math, "the math does not compute."

Science claims to have all the math relative to gravity, the total mass of the solar system, the time of orbits, etc...etc..., yet cannot correctly plot the movement of the supposed Solar System throughout the galaxy.

You want to know why it cannot? Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.

That is why.

I can show you why the typical "8 inches per mile squared" maths are wrong, quite plainly. That little diddy quite literally "does not compute" to a globe, but rather a parabola. This doesn't mean that the maths are a hoax, rather in this case it simply means that you're using the wrong maths.

If I had to pick one, this is probably Rowbotham's single greatest contribution to the state of confusion that plagues flat earthers to this day.

If you're curious, the maths involved with calculating "drop height" beyond the horizon looks something like this:

VARIABLES:

  d0 = distance from POV to target
  d1 = distance from POV to horizon
  d2 = distance from horizon to target
  h0 = height of POV
  h1 = height obscured by horizon

CONSTANTS:

  R  = radius of the earth

  ... R = 3958.75

ASSUMPTIONS:

  - The earth is 7917.5 miles in diameter.
  - Light travels in straight lines.

FORMULAE...

  (R + h0)^2 = d1^2 + R^2.........d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  (R + h1)^2 = d2^2 + R^2.........h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  d2 = d0 - d1.............................h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

Mind you, that method doesn't factor in the way light refracts through the atmosphere. Even when an object should be totally obscured by the horizon, the light reflecting off of it in the distance will bend "upwards" through the atmosphere, creating a superior mirrage. How far away you can perceive this mirrage depends on each of the variables outlined above - eye level of the observer, distance to target, height of target, and other factors that affect refraction like the composition and temperature of the air in the direction you're looking.

It's not as simple as you might like it to be, or imagine it to be.

If you understand the maths half as well as I understand the maths I showed here, you should have no problem explaining why we can't map out the motions of the celestial bodies, in simple step by step equations.

Spoiler Alert: I'm an English Lit major and I process orders for an infomatics hardware company. I suck at maths, but I understand THIS tripe. Any one of you, barring some developmental disorder, should be able to grasp this stuff.

So, go ahead and graph your treatise out there for all to see, sparky...

Translate that math to a sphere.

Let's see it.

By the way, light is quite easily diverted from traveling in a straight line.

[totallackey]

It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.

Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.

Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.

Again, current popularly accepted theory and not a fact.

If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.

Again, being the most popular does not make one the absolute gospel.

[supaluminus]

So, go ahead and graph your treatise out there for all to see, sparky...

Hi, I'm supe. Who the Hell is Sparky?

Before we get to the math, I just want to point something out:

Yes I can demonstrate why the math, "the math (sic) does not compute."

Science claims to have all the math relative to gravity, the total mass of the solar system, the time of orbits, etc...etc...

First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the math."

You can only be accurate to a point. The level of accuracy we get from a given measurement is dependent upon how accurate our tools are. Becuase we can't create a tool yet with with an infinite level of accuracy, there's ALWAYS going to be some uncertainty. For this reason, science is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of how accurate and certain we can be. This is why, for instance, you'll see FE memes floating around comparing the distance of the sun as measured by different people over time. The assertion is that simply because there is ANY uncertainty, it means we're not even close to certain.

This is a bit like saying that both the pilot and the passengers of a plane are "flying." Really it's the pilot and co-pilot "flying" the plane, the rest of the passengers and crew are TRUSTING the pilots to KNOW how to fly - to be CERTAIN within a reasonable margin of error.

Anyway, just wanted to get that out of the way. It's a common misconception that science claims to have all the answers, and it seems like that's what you were driving at. It's a fallacy. Let's move on.

... yet cannot correctly plot the movement of the supposed Solar System throughout the galaxy.

Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?

You want to know why it cannot?

Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.

... Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.

That is why.

What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."

How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.

What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."

One last thing:

Translate that math to a sphere.

It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.

And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.

Here are a few examples I worked out the other day.

EXAMPLES...

  Example 1

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 1...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
 
  ... d1 = sqrt.(.001136^2 + (2(3958.75)).001136)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + (7917.5).001136)

  ........... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + 8.99428)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(8.994293)

  ................... d1 = 2.999049 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 10 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 7.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((10 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 1...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 7.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 2

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles (correlates with h0, remains the same)
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 2...

  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 22.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 2...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 22.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 3

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  h0 = 0.009469 mile (50 feet)

  Objectives for Example 3...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(.009469^2 + (2(3958.75)).009469)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + (7917.5).009469)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + 74.970808)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(74.970898)

  ................... d1 = 8.658574 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 8.658574

  ....... d2 = 16.341426 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 8.658574)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 3...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 16.341426 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 4

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  h0 = 0.018939 mile (100 feet)

  Objectives for Example 4...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(0.018939^2 + (2(3958.75))0.018939)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + (7917.5)0.018939)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + 149.949533)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(149.949892)

  ................... d1 = 12.245403 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 100 - 12.245403

  ....... d2 = 87.754597 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((100 - 12.245403)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 4...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  d1 = 12.245403 miles
  d2 = 87.754597 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

Have at it.

[xenotolerance]

For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com .

And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey

[supaluminus]

For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com .

And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey

Can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. One is forgivable, within reason.

[douglips]

It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.

Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.

Where the heck did you get that idea?
From wikipedia:

Solar neutrinos constitute by far the largest flux of neutrinos from natural sources observed on Earth, as compared with e.g. atmospheric neutrinos or the diffuse supernova neutrino background.

Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.

Again, current popularly accepted theory and not a fact.

If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.

Again, being the most popular does not make one the absolute gospel.

Just because I like awesome sciency graphs, this image from the same wikipedia article shows the relative popularity of various fusion/decay reactions in the sun:


The story of neutrino observations is fascinating to me, as is the story of Kamiokande.

On November 12, 2001, several thousand photomultiplier tubes in the Super-Kamiokande detector imploded, apparently in a chain reaction as the shock wave from the concussion of each imploding tube cracked its neighbours.

[totallackey]

For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com .

And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey

you post an example.

Okay, kindly demonstrate how the formulas from Newton and Keplar were used in rendering this CGI.

And if they even were...

Otherwise, it is bupkus, as in the yiddish word for NOTHING as are most RE-tard claims.

I bet you the person(s) responsible for this CGI did not even consider Keplar or Newton when rendering this crap.

Does not even demonstrate revolutions of the Sun.

[totallackey]

First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the math."

They do when it comes to measuring the LAW of gravity.

That means science is not going to investigate further, they are done with it.

They do when it comes to the speed of light.

They do when it comes to 2 body/3 body orbital mechanics.

They do when it comes to Kepler Laws (notice again LAWS, not theory).

So, every CGI rendering will have to account for these LAWS and it will be readily apparent if these laws were utilized in the CGI creation.

You can only be accurate to a point. The level of accuracy we get from a given measurement is dependent upon how accurate our tools are. Becuase we can't create a tool yet with with an infinite level of accuracy, there's ALWAYS going to be some uncertainty. For this reason, science is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of how accurate and certain we can be. This is why, for instance, you'll see FE memes floating around comparing the distance of the sun as measured by different people over time. The assertion is that simply because there is ANY uncertainty, it means we're not even close to certain.

This is a bit like saying that both the pilot and the passengers of a plane are "flying." Really it's the pilot and co-pilot "flying" the plane, the rest of the passengers and crew are TRUSTING the pilots to KNOW how to fly - to be CERTAIN within a reasonable margin of error.

Anyway, just wanted to get that out of the way. It's a common misconception that science claims to have all the answers, and it seems like that's what you were driving at. It's a fallacy. Let's move on.

See above rebuttal regarding LAWS.

Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?

Would have been done already.

Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.

Would have been done already.

... Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.

That is why.

What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."

How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.

What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."

One last thing:[/quote]
Give me the model and give me the inputs used.

I will investigate further.

It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.

And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.

Here are a few examples I worked out the other day.

EXAMPLES...

  Example 1

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 1...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
 
  ... d1 = sqrt.(.001136^2 + (2(3958.75)).001136)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + (7917.5).001136)

  ........... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + 8.99428)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(8.994293)

  ................... d1 = 2.999049 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 10 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 7.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((10 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 1...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 10 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 7.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 2

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles (correlates with h0, remains the same)
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)

  Objectives for Example 2...

  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 2.999049

  ....... d2 = 22.000951 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 2...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 22.000951 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 3

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  h0 = 0.009469 mile (50 feet)

  Objectives for Example 3...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(.009469^2 + (2(3958.75)).009469)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + (7917.5).009469)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + 74.970808)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(74.970898)

  ................... d1 = 8.658574 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 25 - 8.658574

  ....... d2 = 16.341426 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 8.658574)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 3...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 25 miles
  d1 = 2.999049 miles
  d2 = 16.341426 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)

  ................................
  ................................

  Example 4

  Given values...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  h0 = 0.018939 mile (100 feet)

  Objectives for Example 4...

  - solve for d1
  - solve for d2
  - solve for h1

  (d1)
  d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)

  ... d1 = sqrt.(0.018939^2 + (2(3958.75))0.018939)

  ....... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + (7917.5)0.018939)

  ..........  d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + 149.949533)

  ............... d1 = sqrt.(149.949892)

  ................... d1 = 12.245403 miles

  (d2)
  d2 = d0 - d1

  ... d2 = 100 - 12.245403

  ....... d2 = 87.754597 miles

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  (h1)
  h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R

  ... h1 = sqrt.((100 - 12.245403)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75

  ....... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ........... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75

  ............... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75

  ................... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75

  ....................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

  Conclusions for Example 4...

  R  = 3958.75 miles
  d0 = 100 miles
  d1 = 12.245403 miles
  d2 = 87.754597 miles
  h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
  h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)

Have at it.

Graph it out and let me look at it.

How would your math translate to this picture?

[juner]

For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com .

And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey

Can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. One is forgivable, within reason.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[totallackey]

It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.

Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.

Where the heck did you get that idea?
From wikipedia:

Solar neutrinos constitute by far the largest flux of neutrinos from natural sources observed on Earth, as compared with e.g. atmospheric neutrinos or the diffuse supernova neutrino background.

Natural sources...did you skip that part?

Being the largest subset does not make you the largest set.

I have no reasonable reply...

FTFY...

No need to thank me!

[douglips]

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/px435/lec_neutrinosources_2016.pdf

This slide deck, on slide 5, has a graph of neutrino flux showing that solar neutrinos are 100 times more prevalent than the next highest source. Remember, that's a log scale graph.

The big chunk of cosmological neutrinos is theoretical, they cannot be detected because of their low energy.

Please provide any evidence you have for your statement "Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science." This statement appears to be false, and I have provided a link to indicate why. Please do me the courtesy of providing evidence instead of baseless assertions.

Or is this some sort of semantic disagreement?

Are you saying that solar neutrinos are not the majority of the measurable flux of neutrinos, or are you saying solar neutrinos are not the majority of actual observed neutrino detector events?

I've been unable to find evidence to support either assertion. Please help.