None of you could explain the angular momentum paradox and the IR anomalous radiation of Jupiter.
You haven't done your homework on commercial/military flights. None fly above some 9 km; commercial flights only reach 6-8 km in altitude.
Schauberger-DePalma effect: jet engine levitation
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376Real cruising altitude of commercial aircrafts/astronomical refraction:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464Your numbers amount to nothing at all, since you believe the shape of the Sun is spherical.
Here are the real numbers.
SOLAR DISK: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN"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.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
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
Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.
Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker
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
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.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
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.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun,
it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10
-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr
2a
2ρ
2ce
-x2/3M
where a = (3
1/2M/2
1/24πρ
c)
1/3a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 10
30 kg
central density = 1.62 x 10
5 kg/m
3G = gr
2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)
3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10
-9 kg/m
2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s
2RATIO
a
c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
You are calculating distances to the Sun based on the refractive index of the atmosphere: however, the density of aether/ether increases greatly above some 9 km all the way to the first dome, and of course from the first dome to the Sun.
Here is the real deal concering this issue.
Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley
KORONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256NEWTONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064764#msg2064764https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771