(James's) FE Model of the Sun is false and so demonstrated here.

"Very small indeed".

Please justify your claim. What scientific source? How measured?

I am referring to the output of the Sun which you claim reaches Earth (and by extension your misapprehensions about its total output).

The vast majority of the Earth's heat comes from within the Earth itself, not from the Sun at all. Globularist estimates do not take this plain and simple fact into account. A great man once said "the Sun has no heat", but we must take this figuratively in the current context. The Sun has very little heat.

I am referring to the output of the Sun which you claim reaches Earth (and by extension your misapprehensions about its total output).

The vast majority of the Earth's heat comes from within the Earth itself, not from the Sun at all. Globularist estimates do not take this plain and simple fact into account. A great man once said "the Sun has no heat", but we must take this figuratively in the current context. The Sun has very little heat.

I make no assumptions about the Sun's total output. Please read and reason more carefully.

Again what scientific source do you have that supports your claim. How was the energy (note that I'm not saying heat) measured? Who reviewed the effort (in what journal was it published)? Do understand that quoting an unnamed source and then claiming he was wrong is not evidence.

The vast majority of the Earth's heat comes from within the Earth itself, not from the Sun at all. Globularist estimates do not take this plain and simple fact into account. A great man once said "the Sun has no heat", but we must take this figuratively in the current context. The Sun has very little heat.

Of course it does James.  You are truly a model Flat Earther.

It is common knowledge that a vast quantity of the Earth's surface heat comes from within the Earth. Have you ever bathed in a hot spring, or buried your face in the lawn on a hot day?

It is common knowledge that a vast quantity of the Earth's surface heat comes from within the Earth. Have you ever bathed in a hot spring, or buried your face in the lawn on a hot day?

So you're appealing to "common knowledge"? Alright, then. Since it's common knowledge that the Earth is a sphere, then this site is over.
/fes

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

 First, in what units is "very small indeed"? Second, if most of the heat comes from the ground then why deserts are so cold at night and so hot at day?

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

Sorry, but you fail to show that you've blocked all other variables. Please do give science a try. It may just change your life.

Remember the issue is not which provides more heat, the interior of the Earth or the Sun. The issue is how much energy does the Sun produce every day. Please stop derailing this thread. As a mod, you should be ashamed.

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

Narcberry, is that you? 

What do you suppose would happen if you tried this experiment at night (only try this on moonless nights when it's safe, of course)?

Would a moderator please split off James's derailment about whether the Earth or the Sun provides more heat into its own thread? The topic here is plausibility of the Jame's model of the FE Sun. The competition between sources of heat (not energy) between the Earth and the Sun is irrelevant are detacts from the debate here. Thanks.

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

How about areas with permafrost?  Or the fact that basements are cooler than the upper floors of a house.
And more importantly - how does a cold cellar work?

Berny

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

Sure, it is testable. Put a flat piece of metal on the hot day on a sufficiently long pole, lets say 3 meters, that is closer to the sun than the 1 meter from the ground. And now put one thermometer onto the flat piece of metal and hang another one on the same pole about a meter above the ground, in the shade of the pole. And what we get now? The thermometer which is closer to the sun shows quite much more than the thermometer which hangs close the ground. How so?

It is common knowledge that a vast quantity of the Earth's surface heat comes from within the Earth. Have you ever bathed in a hot spring, or buried your face in the lawn on a hot day?

....

Mount St. Helens disproves your point very easily.
http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeSki.php?name=StHelens

If the Earth is the source of most of the surface heat then any place there is an active volcano, which funnels heated rock directly to the surface, would have extremely warm surface temperatures all year round even if the volcano was dormant.
The image of Mount St. Helens prior to it's eruption, however, shows that the mountain is covered in snow, indicating that the rock is cold even though there's lava several miles below it.  Yet in areas with almost NO volcanos, it's very hot anyway yet cooler than in the shade.




I'm sorry James but either you're delusional or, more likely, one of the best trolls here.  In either case, I'm crossing you off my list of "True Believers".

I'm sorry James but either you're delusional or, more likely, one of the best trolls here.  In either case, I'm crossing you off my list of "True Believers".

When my friend GD suggested this topic, I had not hoped that we'd accomplish so much with it. *doing the happy dance

Quote from: General Disarray on September 27, 2010, 11:40:16 AM

You could even work backwards. Take the known age of the earth, and the measured amount of energy we receive from the sun, and then calculate the density of the sun from that.

What evidence do you have that the Sun is the same age as the Earth?

There is a lot of evidence that the Sun is older than Earth, but the argument in the OP does not require a demonstration of that almost universally accepted knowledge.

It is clear that the Sun was there since at least the Cambrian Explosion, about 650 million years ago, and the fossil record is full of evidence of flora and fauna covering the whole time since then. Your supposed non-nuclear sun does not produce enough energy to last a whole century, so it fails miserably in explaining the 650 million years that it has been burning since then. We are not talking about a hypothetical combustible that could hold 100 times as much energy as coal, we are talking about a density that is millions of times bigger.

It is clear that the Sun was there since at least the Cambrian Explosion, about 650 million years ago

Please justify this statement.

The FE sun would have to emit about 1 / 3.5x10¹⁴ of the energy than we measure it to emit in order to have existed at least the same age as the earth!

In either case, I'm crossing you off my list of "True Believers".

Out of curiosity, who's still on it? Can't be many left.

Quote from: James on September 27, 2010, 12:34:26 PM

It is common knowledge that a vast quantity of the Earth's surface heat comes from within the Earth. Have you ever bathed in a hot spring, or buried your face in the lawn on a hot day?

....

Mount St. Helens disproves your point very easily.
http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeSki.php?name=StHelens

If the Earth is the source of most of the surface heat then any place there is an active volcano, which funnels heated rock directly to the surface, would have extremely warm surface temperatures all year round even if the volcano was dormant.
The image of Mount St. Helens prior to it's eruption, however, shows that the mountain is covered in snow, indicating that the rock is cold even though there's lava several miles below it.  Yet in areas with almost NO volcanos, it's very hot anyway yet cooler than in the shade.




I'm sorry James but either you're delusional or, more likely, one of the best trolls here.  In either case, I'm crossing you off my list of "True Believers".

Also, every person on Earth has seen that the long winter nights correspond with the coldest weather of the year, and the hottest days correspond to the shortest nights. And you will heat any surface that withstands direct sunlight, while the same surface will be less hot if kept touching the ground, under a big roof.

And finally, James is not trying to explain a small discrepancy in the amount of heat received from the Sun. For his "hypothesis" to be right, he would have to explain that the Sun can burn for at least 650 million years, not just a few years, as he can currently explain. If the Sun can last that much time more, then the amount of energy produced has to be, at most, (6.8 hours / 650 million years) aprox = 10^-12 of the total of the energy calculated by ClockTower.

To make this clear for those who do not want to understand numbers: If all the energy that heats the Earth came from the Sun, the Sun could only last a trillionth of the time we know it has lasted. If we disperse the Sun's heat so that it lasts what it know it has lasted, then the Sun would only be able to give a trillionth of the energy we receive on the Earth's surface, so getting sunburned would be easier with a flashlight from a kilometer away than from the Sun.

When your numbers are so out of whack (in this case by a factor of one trillion) you cannot correct your hypothesis by tweaking the variables a little bit. You are totally dead in the water.

I just used the Zetetic method to find out where the heat comes from.

I went outside, and held my hand in the sunlight and the shade. It got hot in the sunlight, but not in the shade. I also noticed that I only felt excessive heat on the upper side of my hand, and not the lower side. I touched the ground in both the sunlight and the shade, and the sunny ground was much hotter than the shaded ground.

I therefore conclude that heat comes from the sun!

When your numbers are so out of whack (in this case by a factor of one trillionth) you cannot correct your hypothesis by tweaking the variables a little bit. You are totally dead in the water.

So true... Let's hear it for Science, the slayer of FET!

I just used the Zetetic method to find out where the heat comes from.

I went outside, and held my hand in the sunlight and the shade. It got hot in the sunlight, but not in the shade. I also noticed that I only felt excessive heat on the upper side of my hand, and not the lower side. I touched the ground in both the sunlight and the shade, and the sunny ground was much hotter than the shaded ground.

I therefore conclude that heat comes from the sun!

You sir, are a brilliant scientist! Bravo! Bravo!

Quote from: Lorddave on September 27, 2010, 01:37:05 PM

In either case, I'm crossing you off my list of "True Believers".

Out of curiosity, who's still on it? Can't be many left.

John Davis, 17November,Bullhorn, Levee.

I would like to reiterate that your estimates of the Sun's energy output are wildly inaccurate; as long as this is the case your so-called argument is as good as worthless to me!

Prove they are "wildly inaccurate, here is the equation:


But since you honestly think that most of the heat that warms the earth comes from the ground (truly the most stupid thing I have read on this site), you may not be able to solve that equation.

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

Can I bury one instead?

Quote from: James on September 27, 2010, 12:44:42 PM

I'm not finished. Not only is it common knowledge, but it is empirically testable.

Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that I am correct:

Place two identical thermometers outside on a hot day - one on the ground and another one on a tall pole, or hanging from a tree - just make sure it is as far from the ground as possible.

If you whack-job theory is correct, since the non-ground thermometer is closest to the Sun, it should be the hottest. However, this is never actually the case: the ground is hotter, because the majority of the heat is coming from under the ground.

Can I bury one instead?

Why didn't I thought of that... some 50 cm should be enough. It should be quite hot there according to James. Which makes me wonder, why the snow on the ground won't melt in the winter.

Still no answer from James about if I can bury one of the thermometers instead of putting it on the ground.

James apparently doesn't understand thermal conductivity (among other things).

Well it's now even clearer why James is not on my list of "True believers".

His test would succeed in what he wants but putting the thermometer under the ground would make it fail even though his conclusion suggests it would succeed. 
His lack of an answer shows that he knows that the ground does not produce the heat but absorbs and radiates it as well as reflecting it with the source being The Sun.

His failure is complete.