Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Energy density of the sun
« 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?

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #1 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.

 

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #2 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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2016, 11:11:29 AM »
Wait, black sun? Explain, and try to limit the answer to layman terms and <5000 words
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2016, 11:26:52 AM »
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563 (Shadow Moon)

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.






*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5523
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #5 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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2016, 12:17:37 PM »
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563 (Shadow Moon)

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.




And just how do they do that? What makes you think that is not the moon blocking the sun?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2016, 01:09:23 PM »
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563 (Shadow Moon)

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.







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
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #8 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:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(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:



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.



"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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2016, 03:33:43 PM »
And there we go. :)
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #10 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...

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #11 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.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #12 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.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.


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."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"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.



Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #13 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.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #14 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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #15 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:




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
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 12:45:10 PM by sandokhan »

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #16 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:




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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #17 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.


*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #18 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. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #19 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.  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.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice