# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Unsure101 on April 04, 2016, 02:15:33 PM

Title: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Unsure101 on April 04, 2016, 02:15:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 11, 2016, 02:15:34 PM
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?

Someone from Hogwarts, is assigned to point their wand at it and yell "Luminous Maximus"

Even a White Dwarf, which is in the last stages of death, is as big as Earth.

There is not enough mass in a "star" that small to sustain any fusion to create heat and light. It is mathematically impossible.

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 08:52:20 AM
The powerhouse behind the visible Sun is the Black Sun, which supplies the necessary laevorotatory subquarks.

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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 15, 2016, 11:11:29 AM
Wait, black sun? Explain, and try to limit the answer to layman terms and <5000 words
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 11:26:52 AM

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)
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 15, 2016, 11:43:37 AM
The powerhouse behind the visible Sun is the Black Sun, which supplies the necessary laevorotatory subquarks.

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.
Laevorotatory subquarks are antigravity subquarks and can not be used to create non-antigravity quarks.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2016, 12:17:37 PM

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)
And just how do they do that? What makes you think that is not the moon blocking the sun?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: BlueMoon on April 15, 2016, 01:09:23 PM

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)

Hah, "black sun"?!  What evidence could you possibly have of such an object?  How could those pictures not be showing the moon?

I'll have you know that Antarctica was the place the eclipse was supposed to happen (http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2003-november-23).
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 02:17:18 PM
What evidence could you possibly have of such an object?

That's exactly what I was waiting for.

Now, you are going to have to deal with the Allais effect.

"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”

Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum (dasned green line - above) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Allais-Pendulum.jpg)

"Allais noted that the normal, progressive "Foucault motion" of his laboratory's uniquely-designed "paraconical pendulum," during the eclipse, suddenly reversed ... and literally "ran backwards" ... until mid-eclipse, when the pendulum motion reversed again ... rapidly resuming its normal rate and direction of angular rotation (below) ....

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 15, 2016, 03:33:43 PM
And there we go. :)
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Unsure101 on April 15, 2016, 04:06:56 PM
So is this black sun the same mystical object as the shadow object that is said to illuminate the moon?
I'm confused...
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 15, 2016, 04:43:38 PM
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

Not true.  The moon absolutely was the cause of that eclipse.  As the moon orbits the earth, there is a time in every single orbit where it is as close to the sun as it will get on that orbit.  From an overhead view, it appears to be directly between between the sun and the earth.  So why don't we get an eclipse every mnth?  Because the moon's orbit is inclined, tilted in relation to the earth's orbit.  Some months the moon is above the earth's orbital plane and the shadow misses the earth, passing by above the north pole.  Sometimes the moon is below the earth's orbital plane and the shadow passes by below the south pole.  When a new moon occurs close enough to the ascending node or descending node of the moon's orbit, the shadow sweeps across the earth somewhere.  And sometimes, that "somewhere" is the Antarctic.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 04:44:19 PM
The Shadow Moon is the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080202171235/http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".

The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

Why is it called the Shadow Moon?

The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks.

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 04:45:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 17, 2016, 11:46:50 AM
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 at best ambiguous and unproven.  Some experiments show the effect and some don't. A proof MUST be consistent in each experiment conducted. 50/50 is NOT proof.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 17, 2016, 12:43:07 PM
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
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 17, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
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

Conformation does not consist of reposting your own posts and declaring the failures as being done wrong. The odds ALL the failures are because they were performed incorrectly are mathematically impossible.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 17, 2016, 03:12:33 PM
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.

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: BlueMoon on April 17, 2016, 07:03:31 PM
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.

Okay, pendulums spin kinda funny during solar eclipses.  So what?  We still no that it's the moon causing the solar eclipse.  The moon's path can be traced and shown to intersect with the sun's location.
But I guess there's just another object up there that's in the exact location and has the exact expected angular diameter of the moon, but isn't the moon.  Because that would disprove your "theories," and we can't have that.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 17, 2016, 07:13:00 PM
A team in Germany at the Institut für Gravitationsforschung spent two years (and no doubt a not-insignificant budget) investigating the Allais Effect (http://www.goede-stiftung.org/en/images/IGF/Experiments/Allais/E-Allais-Pendel-homepage-1.pdf).  They found it to happen quite often, but NOT coincident with eclipses.  During the two year automated data run, two solar eclipses (one of them occurring when two identical instruments were operating in different cities) and two lunar eclipses occurred over their location, giving them good data to compare with the non-eclipse norm.  What they found was only a 40% correlation between Allais Effect perturbations and celestial events, which they considered to mean Sun, Moon, Jupiter, and combinations of them (which is an eclipse in the case of moon/sun combo) passing local zenith.  This is about what you would expect from random chance and nowhere near enough to prove a causal link.  If anything, the fact that 60% of these celestial events show no Allais Effect could be taken (by a careless investigator) as evidence that such events have an Anti-Allais effect, rather than the reverse!  Even Allais himself was inable to duplicate his own results reliably, as the IGF study notes: "Experiments of this kind by M. Allais himself in St. Germain en Laye and Bougival in 1958...show no positive results."
Which is not to say the IGF team failed to find the cause: the observed Allais Effect perturbations correlated quite well with vibrations in the building and soil, which are measured in an unrelated effort somewhere else in the institute.  Even a WW2 bomb exploding 10km away imparted a measured Allais Effect, as did earthquakes in Greece and the Japanese Sea.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 18, 2016, 05:43:02 AM
rounder... don't you understand that I ALWAYS do my homework?

The paper you just quoted is old news.

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.

They only read the short version, the English language report, and based their catastrophic errors on that.

BUT ALLAIS DID DEFINE THE K PARAMETER VERY PROPERLY HERE:

http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Allais_1997/Allais_1997_1.pdf

To explain the REVERSAL OF THE MOTION OF A PENDULUM using building vibrations is ludicrous.

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.

Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.

The authors of the German paper are ignorant even of these basic facts.

And we have the other carefully performed experiments which did confirm the Allais effect, from 1999 to 2011.

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.

The two crucial experiments of June-July 1958 at SaintGermain
and at Bougival (6.5 km away, in an underground
gallery 57 meters deep) (pp. 142-161) gave identical results, in
amplitude and in phase, for the luni-solar periodic component
of 24h 50m (p. 146).

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf (pages 28R)

Page 44R carefully describes the 1958 experiments.

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958
confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning,
leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the
paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are
anomalies of a periodic character which are totally
inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 18, 2016, 10:08:49 AM
Quote
Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

Allays did not, so far as I can find, have a Doctorate Degree in ANY field of study.

He WAS an economist, and it was in this field that he won the Nobel Prize.

Being that you have misstated TWO basic facts about this man, seemingly on purpose, I have reason to doubt anything you post about him
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 18, 2016, 11:00:01 AM
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

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 18, 2016, 03:59:30 PM
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

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 18, 2016, 04:15:32 PM
rounder... don't you understand that I ALWAYS do my homework?

Sure, you do your homework.  I do MY homework.  We arrive at different answers.  "Did the homework" does not imply "Got the right answer"

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.

None of which really matters in the end: the Germans saw the effect Allais saw, but it did not correlate to the moon at any time, eclipse or no eclipse.  And that's really the point here, finding out if it does or does not correspond to an object with gravity and thus justifying the claim that 'gravity needs to be rethought'.  They looked for correlations to the Moon, the Sun, and Jupiter and found none.

They only read the short version, the English language report, and based their catastrophic errors on that.

Perhaps this isn't true.  They only REFERENCED that report, we don't know what else they read.

To explain the REVERSAL OF THE MOTION OF A PENDULUM using building vibrations is ludicrous.

This rather overstates the phenomenon.  The pendulum isn't being reversed, in the way a layperson would read that.  The angular precession is being reversed.
Plus, the observed Allais effect, in their words, "The vibrations of the building, which are recorded in the institute, are coincident at least in times, if not in strength, with more or less significant changes of ∆ϕ or ∆ω per time t in the pendulum’s behaviour."  This is less about explanation, and more about observation.  They observed that changes in the pendulum's behaviour were coincident with building vibration and were not coincident with large gravitational bodies passing overhead.  Observed.

Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

A lot of the theory you talk about in other posts goes directly against the work of a great many Nobel Laureates, yet you accord them no such respect.  Why should a Nobel Laureate in the completely unrelated field of economics get such consideration for his work outside his field?

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf (pages 28R)
Page 44R carefully describes the 1958 experiments.

Isn't this the very paper the Germans read, the one they "based their catastrophic errors on", the one you seem quite scornful of?  Thanks, I'm sure that helps us a lot.  If I draw any conclusions from this, will I too be making catastrophic errors?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 18, 2016, 04:19:30 PM
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

I forgot to address this point too.  Out of his long and impressive economics CV, Sandokhan cherry-picks a couple of items that might appear to give his gravity work some heft.  That proves about as much as Kylie Minogue’s Doctorate of Health Science (http://www.anglia.ac.uk/graduation-and-beyond/honorary-award-holders2/kylie-minogue) from Anglia Ruskin University in Essex.  Nobody’s claiming she knows the first thing about doctoring.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Charming Anarchist on April 18, 2016, 04:21:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 18, 2016, 04:28:25 PM
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.
That's great, and all the evidence to back that rather Crackpot'ish statement up that you supplied is quite on par.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 18, 2016, 04:34:05 PM
rounder, you thought you had something going, but you failed to bring up anything of interest here.

The Germans made a colossal mistake: they failed to read the original paper which did explain the k parameter, the crucial piece of information on how one interprets the results.

This means of course that the research performed by these "scientists" is woeful, to say the least.

The experiments made by Dr. Allais in 1958 did confirm the effect: contrary to the bizarre description in the paper provided by you.

At the start of the eclipse, the swing direction of the pendulum started to rotate ANTICLOCKWISE, then resumed its CLOCKWISE motion, went into reversal again, and regained its normal motion in the end.

Dr. Allais obtained his degrees in ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS, economics became another field of study of interest where he obtained notable results.

Each and every possible cause for the effect was researched carefully:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

So far, you have brought here nothing of interest.

I challenge you to do better.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 18, 2016, 05:29:02 PM
Tell me this: can ametuer-level test setups observe the effect?  If I build something at home, can I conduct worthwhile experiments?  There is a total eclipse coming in 2017 that sweeps across the United States, and my home is going to experience 96% totality if I remember correctly.  I would like to perform observations, but only if they're not a waste of time.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: sandokhan on April 18, 2016, 05:59:59 PM
Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/saxl1_zps070aa4af.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/saxl2_zps0b759d09.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/saxl3_zpsaf4b573b.jpg)

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

The two scientists then observed:

"... It is further to be noted that the greatest change [in the torsion pendulum oscillation period] occurs between the [local] onset of the eclipse and its midpoint [below - right]. This agrees qualitatively with Allais with a paraconical pendulum, where the change of azimuth increased substantially in the first half of the eclipse of 30 June 1954 [below - left]. Both these effects would seem to have a gravitational basis [sic] which cannot be explained by accepted classical theory [emphasis added] ....""

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Abstract — During the solar eclipse of 1 August 2008 three
programs of physics observations were independently
conducted by teams in Kiev, Ukraine, and Suceava, Romania,
separated by about 440 km. The Ukraine team operated five
independent miniature torsion balances, one Romania team
operated two independent short ball-borne pendulums, and the
other Romania team operated a long Foucault-type pendulum.
All three teams detected unexplained disturbances, and these
disturbances were mutually correlated. The overall pattern of
the observations exhibits certain perplexing features.

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an
inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the
end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular
vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the
Eastern European region containing our three sets of
equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of
kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but
plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation. The
basic reason is that in those models the gravitational
influences of several bodies are combined by addition, at
least to the accuracy detectable by molar equipment.
However all three of our experiments exhibited rather
brusque variations (the abrupt jumps of the Kiev balances,
the humps and particularly the sharp spikes in the Suceava
short pendulum charts, and the deviation of the Suceava
long pendulum) which cannot have resulted from linear
combination of the gravitational/tidal influences of the Sun
and the Moon
, the magnitudes and angles of which vary
only gently over the time scales of the effects seen. We
therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently
unknown physical influence was at work.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

However, the most important point is that the very high correlation between WEB-1, WEB-2, and the paraconical pendulum was only noted in the interval 1–6, that is, from the beginning of the solar eclipse on the Earth up to its termination. Outside this interval, the correlation disappeared. From this fact, it can unequivocally be concluded that the solar eclipse was a determining factor for the readings.

These nonconventional solar eclipse observations have shown that this phenomenon is accompanied by effects that cannot yet be explained within the current physical picture of the world.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?”. Together, these phenomena presented suggest that the classical theory of gravity is in need of significant additions and amendments.

The Allais effect is fundamental.

It is the key to understand antigravity, cosmology and astrophysics.

And it totally and absolutely defies the accepted "law" of universal gravitation.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Unsure101 on April 19, 2016, 01:12:07 PM
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 that
Quote from: wiki
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.

Not a focal point.
How can such a small sphere have such large energy density?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 19, 2016, 02:38:40 PM
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 that
Quote from: wiki
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.

Not a focal point.
How can such a small sphere have such large energy density?

Because he believes the laws of physics don't apply to the sun.

His answer begs more questions. What engird is being focused and from where? What is keeping that energy density and why? What... never mind I don't want to overload him.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Charming Anarchist on April 20, 2016, 02:54:34 AM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.

Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Unsure101 on April 20, 2016, 12:14:17 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then why are we always directed to the wiki for the "truth"?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 20, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 20, 2016, 06:58:39 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 20, 2016, 07:06:52 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

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.
Again, you choose to ignore your intellectual capabilities, just for the mere pleasure of satisfying your need to feel you got the last word.

The vast majority of scientific fields, and the vast majority of the scientists in those given fields, if not all, agree on most of the findings and theories involved. There's well established foundations in nearly all the particular studies.

TFES can't even agree what the sun is, what the moon is, whether the plane is finite of not, what the stars are, if UA is a thing, refraction, if earth is bipolar, distances, maps etcetera. Questions that are otherwise regarded as simply answered with the true knowledge we as a species already possess.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 20, 2016, 07:36:12 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 20, 2016, 07:49:56 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: andruszkow on April 20, 2016, 08:21:39 PM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
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.

https://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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 20, 2016, 09:20:40 PM
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: TheTruthIsOnHere
https://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:
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)
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 20, 2016, 09:24:12 PM
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: TheTruthIsOnHere
https://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:
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 20, 2016, 09:36:39 PM
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:
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 20, 2016, 09:55:34 PM
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:
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.

The math I have used here is not that in-depth, and no, I don't understand all of it, which means I can't work it out because of the parts I don't understand. However, that doesn't negate the math anymore than if I were to post this response in Thai or Lao, or French etc. the point of what I was posting would still be valid. Math is a language like any other. It draws a map of what it describes.

You don't understand the math of ballistics, but a sniper does and he/she can put a bullet through you at crazy distances.  The current record is two kills with three shots at 1.54 MILES by a British Marine. So let me ask you, if the two he killed didn't understand the math used to shoot them, would they be less dead for that reason?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: rabinoz on April 21, 2016, 03:04:01 AM
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:
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!
No, I don't know and have not the slightest idea either, but I am humble enough to readily admit that there are lots of thing I do not understand. If I think it matters to me, then I'll try to do a bit of research. It still might be far above my head - so what, as I said there are lots that I don't understand and maybe never will in this life!

Some people seem to think that they are smart enough to understand everything! Well, good for them, but people like that usually trip themselves eventually.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2016, 06:48:48 AM
No, the wiki clearly states that
The 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.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories
Nothing in there says gravity doesn't exist just what causes gravity.  Most of which is some form of particle interaction.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 21, 2016, 12:46:45 PM
Dave... The question was is there ever absolutely one theory for a phenomenon. Andys answer was yes.

You quoted it, can you not read it? I'm starting to be ashamed in myself for debating you so much in my religion and philosophy thread.

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.

Then one day a Round Earth Society would emerge and start the debate all over again.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2016, 01:18:25 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Then one day a Round Earth Society would emerge and start the debate all over again.
No, its because the Earth isn't flat.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 21, 2016, 02:42:05 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Then one day a Round Earth Society would emerge and start the debate all over again.
No, its because the Earth isn't flat.

I'm wrong... but you sit there and twist the definition of a theory to distract from how stupid you just looked.

ME: IS THERE ONE ABSOLUTE THEORY FOR ANYTHING?

ANDRUS: GRAVITY

ME: LINK TO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF GRAVITY

YOU: COMPLETELY USELESS COMMENT THAT SHOWS HOW DUPLICITOUS YOU ARE

I don't feel the need to be correct, if anything your semantics shows that you are the one twisting shit to make yourself right. That whole statement just seems like one big ass projection to me. I could possibly be offended if I didn't see how obviously lacking in self confidence you are that you feel the need to make a personal attack on me.

Also I find it interesting you A. Remember shit I've said B. Don't have me on ignore anymore.

If what I'm saying is so wrong it hurts then you must be a glutton for punishment, for the fact you are remembering off the cuff comments of mine, and obviously interested enough in what I have to say that you "unignored" me.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Unsure101 on April 21, 2016, 02:45:52 PM
So can anyone actually answer my original question?
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2016, 04:08:17 PM
I'm self moderating.  Please move off topic posts.

So can anyone actually answer my original question?

The answer is that its impossible.  The sun must be much larger.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 21, 2016, 07:24:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2016, 07:47:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Round fact on April 22, 2016, 02:43:33 PM
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.

Oh no. That requires math, advanced math. And Chemistry, and nuclear physics. And if he doesn't understand it, its not real.
Title: Re: Energy density of the sun
Post by: Rounder on April 22, 2016, 05:06:55 PM
We also know the temperature and energy density at the surface, without having to go there, through observations of the sun's infrared radiation.  All objects at temperatures above absolute zero emit infrared energy, and they emit across a range of frequencies: very little (essentially zero) energy at some minimum frequency, very little (essentially zero) at some maximum frequency, with a peak intensity somewhere between those two.  The hotter an object is, the lower the frequency of that peak, and the greater it's intensity.  This is known as Planck's Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law).  Temperature and peak wavelength are related to each other by formula: the Stefan-Boltzman Law. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law#Derivation_from_Planck.27s_law)  Total energy is a function of the fourth power of temperature measured in Kelvin.  From this law we can determine the surface temperature of any object by observing the infrared radiation it emits, and at the same time we can determine at what rate it radiates energy.  This is how infrared cameras can “measure” temperature (I put “measure” in quotation marks because there is more to it than that, which we won’t get into here).  We can do the same for very distant objects, like the sun.  For the sun those numbers are: (http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156098/) 5778 degrees Kelvin, and 63 million watts per square meter.