Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #40 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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #41 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)

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #42 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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #43 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 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.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #44 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 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?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #45 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 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.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #46 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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 12:54:13 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #48 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.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #49 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.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2016, 02:45:52 PM »
So can anyone actually answer my original question?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #51 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.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 04:13:00 PM by Lord Dave »

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #52 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.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5763
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #53 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.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #54 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.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #55 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.  Temperature and peak wavelength are related to each other by formula: the Stefan-Boltzman 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: 5778 degrees Kelvin, and 63 million watts per square meter.
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