They look round through a telescope anyway?
they're round. just like the earth.
They look round through a telescope anyway?
No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.they're round. just like the earth.
They may be round, but that isn't evidence that earth is.
No one is claiming that other celestial bodies are flat.Are you doubting Junker and "the Wiki"?
Each and every one of the heavenly bodies has the shape of a disk.
There are no spherical planets.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284 (impossibility of a spherically shaped sun)Really, in that you claim that the sun would become a disk because rotational forces would overcome it's gravitational forces.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the nuclear furnace hypothesis)If you look into those photos, all they prove is that Sandokhan knows nothing about perspective or photography or both.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (solar/lunar ISS/Atlantis/Mercury transits)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (Hubble/Venus solar transits)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)You are wrong on the simplest of these. I'll let others handle the hard ones.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
rabinoz, I told you to keep your low level stuff out of the upper forums.I've had this discussion with you before, sandokhan, you were wrong back then as well. Copy/pasting all of your "paradox" broken records (could you please suffix your statements differently, please?) over and over again does not magically make your material factual.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/photo_zpswmk9zba3.jpg)
The pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.
Now, the fact that both the photosphere and the cromosphere stay glued next to the surface of a sphere while at the same time they are subjected to an additional enormous centrifugal force, running in the quadrillions of newtons, is what demonstrates clearly the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun.
The gases in both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure.
The force of gravity was taken into consideration, by having balanced out the pressure of the gases.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/splits/7669c8e1a7a736eafdc2083be06b612d42f7197b/split-0-page-3.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIAYW2E6VOLDTI35A&Expires=1498201262&Signature=Mh9T5SEbmbQ8GdjZdK%2BPWYCsg8Q%3D)
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.
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.
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.
The Nelson Effect is an established fact of science.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
Published in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson and colleagues from the University of Southern Queensland, prove that Jupiter and Saturn affect the sun's movement and its rotation, and hence its sunspot activity.
We present evidence to show that there
is a direct link between the decreases and increases in
the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the CM of the
Solar System, and the observed decreases and increases
in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. We believe that this
link provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is
a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the
Jovian planets and the Sun. We propose that it is these
changes in the Sun’s rotation speed that are responsible for
variations in the speed of the meridional flow.We postulate
that it is the planetary induced changes in speed of the
meridional flow that control both the duration and strength
of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface.
The Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force.
"There has historically been a recognized connection between the frequency of sunspot activity (the total number of spots) and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system's “barycentre” -- or, center of mass. But the big problem is that there is no conventional explanation for exactly how this influence occurs."
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
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
The continuing paradox implies that a different principle, other than mass via gravity interaction, is in operation that produces the observed effects.
Not only the huge centrifugal force is completely unaccounted for, and has no other force to counteract it, thus acting permanently on the atmosphere of the Sun, but now we have the Nelson effect to deal with: if the migration of the sunspots is due to the influence of Jupiter and Saturn, then certainly this influence would change the shape of the Sun to that of a disk.
Let us now attempt to calculate the CORRECT value of g, using the pressure equation and the Clayton stellar model (a nonlinear density curve).
Dr. Clayton was the first astrophysicist to introduce a specific form for ρ(r) which was then subsituted in the hydrostatic equilibrium equation.
Here is the full equation:
P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M
where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3
a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
RATIO
ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Even with the more involved equation, using the Clayton model, g will be much less than the centrifugal acceleration.
If we add the Nelson effect to this, we can see the full nature of the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun paradox.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/chro1_zpsn2s0knwf.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/chro2_zpsl5ztgur9.jpg)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS INVOLVED HERE?
There can be no comparison whatsoever between the centrifugal force and gravity anymore.
Gravity has already balanced out the thermal pressure.
The centrifugal force acts as an ADDITIONAL FORCE, running in the quadrillions of newtons.
Basically, the sun becomes an enormous gas centrifuge with no outer casing.
Since the gases in the both the photosphere and the cromosphere are under a very low pressure, you cannot bring gravity into the discussion anymore.
Those gases then will be subject to the full centrifugal force computed above.
That is why no scientist at the present time can explain the defiance of newtonian mechanics by the gases in the solar photosphere.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
The pressure in the chromosphere is 10^-13 bar (0.0000000000001 bar).
You used the WRONG equation!
The correct equation is the HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION.
Since gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure, you have to use THE NEW FIGURE OF 0.0000000000001 BAR in the chromosphere to get the corrrect g value.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE CNO CYCLE PARADOX:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377
YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox: not nearly enough time for Mars to have attained a spherical shape)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
rabinoz, I told you to keep your low level stuff out of the upper forums.;D ;D ;D YOU told me! ;D ;D ;D
Let us now attempt to calculate the CORRECT value of g, using the pressure equation and the Clayton stellar model (a nonlinear density curve).Last I heard about it acceleration due to gravitation = (universal gravitational constant) x (mass) / (radius)2.
Dr. Clayton was the first astrophysicist to introduce a specific form for ρ(r) which was then subsituted in the hydrostatic equilibrium equation.And has absolutely nothing to do with pressure - completely separate issue.
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)Just because YOU think that there is a "faint young sun paradox" doesn't make it true.
...
In the chromosphere the pressure is 10-13 bar.
These are the facts accepted by each and every astrophysicist.
To calculate the correct value of g AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, in the chromosphere itself, YOU NEED TO USE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PRESSURE, which is 10-13 bar.
...
Gravity has already been balanced out by the gaseous pressure.
Now, we have the ADDITIONAL centrifugal force to deal with, which is not explained by modern astrophysicists.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
Gravity has already been balanced out by the pressure of the gases.
But now you have a huge problem.
In the chromosphere the pressure is 10-13 bar.
These are the facts accepted by each and every astrophysicist.
To calculate the correct value of g AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, in the chromosphere itself, YOU NEED TO USE THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PRESSURE, which is 10-13 bar.
That is where the Clayton equation comes in, and we can immediately do the calculation.
g = 0,0000507 m/s2
Do not pretend you do not understand the issues involved here.There is absolutely no reason why it should or be expected to!
Gravity is totally balanced out by the gaseous pressure (there you can use your g figure that you quoted).
At that point in time, however, there will be two additional forces to deal with: the centrifugal force and the Nelson effect.If you don't accept that gravitation is caused solely by mass (and energy) then go prove that before all your other rubbish.
Contrary to your assertion, the centrifugal force IS NOT taken into account, not to mention the Nelson effect, this is the catastrophic approach to solar astrophysics evidenced in the references you provided.
You simply cannot calculate the gravitational field on the surface of the sun from the pressure chromosphere of 10^-13 bar.
The Clayton equation provides the perfect setting to really find out the TRUE value of g, given the correct value of the pressure in the chromosphere of 10-13 bar.
They look round through a telescope anyway?
How do we even know the moon is a sphere? We only ever see the face. What if the other planets behave the same way?They don't.
How do we even know the moon is a sphere? We only ever see the face. What if the other planets behave the same way?The observed phenomenon of nutation is strongly suggestive of non-flatness of the moon.
personally I do think they look like flat disks through a telescope, and until I see them any closer, thats what im gonna stick withJust how do you explain the big changes in the apparent size of Venus and the fact that it displays phases just like the moon. You do need a telescope to see this, but even Galileo saw it with his small telescope. Here is a set of more modern photos.
Phases of Venus
Even in ancient times, astronomers knew that Venus changed in brightness in the sky. Sometimes it’s like a dim star, and other times it becomes the brightest object in the sky (after the Moon); bright enough to cast shadows. But it wasn’t until Galileo first turned his rudimentary telescope on Venus in 1610 that astronomers first realized that Venus goes through phases, just like the Moon.
Think about the orbit of Venus for a moment. As you know, Venus orbits closer in to the Sun than Earth. One half of the planet is always in sunlight, and the other half of the planet is in shadow. It’s our view of Venus that changes. Sometimes we see Venus on one side of the Sun, and other times we see it on the other side. We can never see when Venus is completely illuminated because that’s when it’s on the opposite side of the Sun. We also can’t see when it’s completely in shadow because then it’s in between the Earth and the Sun, and the Sun obscures Venus from our view.
From Astronomy, Guide to Space, Phases of Venus (http://www.universetoday.com/22573/phases-of-venus/)