the earth and the sun

Problem to FE'ers:

The sun is a sphere in both RE and FE models. Because the sun is a sphere, it must give off light in all directions at all times; forever, until it dies. The sun is infact white, not yellow (as it appears from earth). As your feeble FE brains should already know, the sun gives off white light, which is made up of Roy G. Biv colors.

                                        The RE Sun:                                          The FE Sun:

Surface Area (4piR^2):         6.09 x 10^12 Km^2                                8.328 x 10^3 Km^2
                                  Which means that the RE Sun is 731,268,011 times bigger than the FE Sun
Surface Temperature (Ratio): 5785K                                                  7.91 x 10^-6K
Luminosity (4piR^2oT^4 where o = Stefan-Boltzmann constant 5.67×10−8 W·m-2·K-4): 3.827 x 10^26W                 3.74 x 10^-9W

The luminosity 3.74 x 10^-9W would in no way be able to light the earth's surface (5.04 x 10^9 km).
Even if the Sun were to light 30% of the earth's surface at once, 3.74 x 10^-9W would have to light 5.04 x 10^9 km.

Shown Work:

Surface Area: RE: 6.09 x 10^12 km^2 (as stated by wikipedia) FE: (4)(pi)(25.744km^2)

Surface Temperature: RE: 5785K (as stated by wikipedia) FE: (6.09 x 10^12)/5795K = (8.328 x 10^3)/x

Luminosity: RE: 3.827 x 10^26W (as stated by wikipedia) FE: (4)(pi)(25.744^2km)(5.67 x 10^-8)(7.91 x 10^-6K)

Earth's surface area (according to FE Diameter: 24,900 miles): (Radius = 12450 mi = 20032.05 km) (4)(pi)(20032.05^2km)

The brightness of the FE sun can be calculated: b = L/A where L is luminosity and A is the area of the illuminated surface: b = (3.74 x 10^-9W)/(5.04 x 10^9 km)      brightness = 7.4 x 10^-19 watts per kilometer

You are presuming that the surface temperature of the sun in RE is the same in FE.

How did RE scientists estimate the "surface temperature" to be 5785K? By assuming it is 93 million miles away and approximating for the intensity or heat of the sun as viewed from earth, right?

If the sun becomes much much closer to the earth then by necessity the sun needs to put out less energy per square inch to heat the earth, in relation to its diameter.

There are a few year old threads on this subject in General Discussion somewhere with various equations. I've been trying to dig it up without success.

Yes. Surface temperature would be the same since the sun is power by the same force of stellar fusion. Unless you have some new source of energy capable of emitting all the forms of radiation in specific variance to fusion without that temperature?

While we are making up new forms of energy, we might as well cover the universal accelerator. It is a giant mime! He pushed the Earth with his white gloves! RAWR!

For some reason he reads your "meaningless mathematics".

Yes. Surface temperature would be the same since the sun is power by the same force of stellar fusion.

Oh that's right, I forgot that every star in the RE universe has exactly the same surface temperature. 

Unless you have some new source of energy capable of emitting all the forms of radiation in specific variance to fusion without that temperature?

Can you show me any reason why fusion cannot work in the FE Sun?

Fusion seems to work as a magic wand for the multitude of stars in the RE fantasy. From those tiny midget Neutron Stars to the exceedingly large Red Giants.

If the FE'ers could provide more accurate information on their sun, the estimated 5785k to 7.91 x 10^-6K ratio would not be needed.

Distance can be used to calculate luminosity through the equation:

Luminosity of the FE sun/L(solar visible luminosity) = (distance(fe sun)/distance(re run))^2 x 10^[(m(re sun)-m(fe sun)) * 0.4]
where m = magnitude and distance is measured in light years.

Please post the FE sun's magnitude and visible luminosity in order to prove your sun works.

First off it was an oversimplification that they are the same temperature. Your sun is one cold ball, disk, whatever. (never got a straight answer that made sense)
Specific forms and amounts of radiation are given off by different reactions and/or different conditions. I am mainly referring to the spectrum of Electromagnetic radiation: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, Ultraviolet light, X-rays, Gamma radiation, etc. I'm sure you have heard of these.



Different sources and conditions of energy emit different variance patterns. Those patterns emitted by the sun indicate the surface temperatures of those stars (as well as other objects)

Look up Wien's Law and/or Spectroscopy if you really feel like pursuing it. 

Pease post the FE sun's magnitude and visible luminosity in order to prove your sun works.

The Sun's magnitude is -26.7

Different sources and conditions of energy emit different variance patterns. Those patterns emitted by the sun indicate the surface temperatures of those stars (as well as other objects)

A picture of the radiation spectrum doesn't tell me the surface temperature of the sun.

Do any of those fields presume a 93 million mile distant sun when deriving the surface temperature estimates?

Quote

Different sources and conditions of energy emit different variance patterns. Those patterns emitted by the sun indicate the surface temperatures of those stars (as well as other objects)

A picture of the radiation spectrum doesn't tell me the surface temperature of the sun.

Do any of those fields presume a 93 million mile distant sun when deriving the surface temperature estimates?

Of course it doesn't. I grabbed that because it was pretty. 
It's a cheap way of communicating the subject of radiation with different wavelengths.

Nope. The only 'position' relation that could influence the radiation patterns would be the polarization state. That's the spectrum shift like a Doppler Effect for radiation because an object is moving away or towards you. However, in a Flat Earth or Round Earth model this becomes irrelevant because the sun is not constantly moving away from the Earth and any slight variance from the 'path' of the sun is too little to explain any difference.

Different objects emit different heat. Heat and thermal energy have colors reserved on the spectrum. The equation of Wien's law does accurately describe the short wavelength (high frequency) spectrum of thermal emission from objects, but it fails to accurately fit the experimental data for long wavelengths (low frequency) emission.

Which is why we use Planck's Law. (ever heard of it Tom or any FE'er?)

Plank's law accurately describes the complete spectrum of thermal radiation. The equation for Planck's law is

I(v,T) = [(2hv^3)/c^2] * 1/([e^(hv/kt)]-1)

where: I = spectral radiance
v = frequency
T = temperature of star
c = speed of light
k = Boltzmann's constant
h = Planck's constant
e = natural log e

Different objects emit different heat. Heat and thermal energy have colors reserved on the spectrum. The equation of Wien's law does accurately describe the short wavelength (high frequency) spectrum of thermal emission from objects, but it fails to accurately fit the experimental data for long wavelengths (low frequency) emission.

Which is why we use Planck's Law. (ever heard of it Tom or any FE'er?)

Plank's law accurately describes the complete spectrum of thermal radiation. The equation for Planck's law is

I(v,T) = [(2hv^3)/c^2] * 1/([e^(hv/kt)]-1)

where: I = spectral radiance
v = frequency
T = temperature of star
c = speed of light
k = Boltzmann's constant
h = Planck's constant
e = natural log e

Quite beautiful. In any case, I just realized I had a relevant question for a potential topic. Maybe I can bring up a second flaw in the existence of such a sun. Can any FE'er tell me if the sun is proportionally smaller in size and mass compared to the RE sun?

Which is why we use Planck's Law. (ever heard of it Tom or any FE'er?)

I'm very familiar with Planck. But his equations in action still presume that the Sun is 8 light minutes away and the AU is correct. By reverse engineering how the AU was triangulated, assuming the earth as a flat surface, the Flat Earth Society has given the correct figure of a 3000 mile distant sun.

Therefore, since the AU has changed, stars become redshifted much closer to home.

Perhaps if we reverse engineer the exact numbers which were used for finding the surface temperature of the Sun we can give the correct figure for that, too. It's a fact finding mission.

Can any FE'er tell me if the sun is proportionally smaller in size and mass compared to the RE sun?

Even the mass of the RE sun is simply a best guess estimate based on its size, assuming it is an "average star." I believe Dr. Rowbotham gave a competing estimate for the mass of the sun and moon somewhere in his literature.

I'm very familiar with Planck. But his equations in action still presume that the Sun is 8 light minutes away and the AU is correct. By reverse engineering how the AU was triangulated, assuming the earth as a flat surface, the Flat Earth Society has given the correct figure of a 3000 mile distant sun.

Therefore, since the AU has changed, stars become redshifted much closer to home.

Strange I thought red/blue shifts gave a velocity, not a distance. 

Even the mass of the RE sun is simply a best guess estimate based on its size, assuming it is an "average star." I believe Dr. Rowbotham gave a competing estimate for the mass of the sun and moon somewhere in his literature.

Don't you mean their mass is exactly the same as the moon and earth's?  Otherwise your UA would accelerate them differently.

I'm very familiar with Planck. But his equations in action still presume that the Sun is 8 light minutes away and the AU is correct. By reverse engineering how the AU was triangulated, assuming the earth as a flat surface, the Flat Earth Society has given the correct figure of a 3000 mile distant sun.

Therefore, since the AU has changed, stars become redshifted much closer to home.

Perhaps if we reverse engineer the exact numbers which were used for finding the surface temperature of the Sun we can give the correct figure for that, too. It's a fact finding mission.

No numbers are used to derive the temperature of the sun. The temperature itself is infrared radiation. With a filter or photodetector, certain wavelengths are detected. The certain wavelengths shown to emit from certain sources, like the sun, emerge from common forms of energy. Different forms of fusion give off different forms of radiation. Different forms of energy give off different forms of radiation too. Current spectroscopes, such as monochromators, generally use a diffraction grating, a movable slit, and a photodetector of some kind, all automated by a computer storing the data.

Therefore, since the AU has changed, stars become redshifted much closer to home.

Wait. A redshift can occur when a light source moves away from an observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the frequency of sound waves. Spectroscopic astrophysics can use Doppler redshifts to determine the movement of distant astronomical objects.

The way I'm reading this makes it sound like the human-invented-term referring to a certain amount of distance creates a change in the wavelengths of detected radiation.

The way I'm reading this makes it sound like the human-invented-term referring to a certain amount of distance creates a change in the wavelengths of detected radiation.

Yes, but assuming the earth as flat has far reaching effect you couldn't even begin to imagine. If the AU is wrong, everything about Astronomy is wrong. Samuel Birley Rowbotham was an astronomer himself. A member of the Royal Astronomical Society, he knew exactly how his calculations worked.

Science needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to account for phenomena. The entire Copernican model is smashed. It's quite clear that no one has traveled a few light years away with a correspondent back home to measure the distance it takes for the red shifting of light. Astronomers have simply observed different shifts of lights from different pre-defined stars of different distances and gave a meaning to it. Since the parallax of stars is tightly tied to the parsec and the distance of an AU, the distance between the Sun and Earth effectively holds the cards when it comes to the cosmos.

If the earth is flat then the listed distances for those stars becomes way off. If the stars are off then the gauge of redshifting is off.

lol. I see Sokarul beat me to it. 

In any case, my next problem is the fusion in the sun itself. A sun 731,268,011 times smaller than one estimated to last 10.5 billion years would burn for approximately 0.015 billion years. Odd considering how much evidence suggests the sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. The round Earth sun has an estimated 5 billion years left.

Furthermore, the lack of gravity in the Flat Earth Model whether it doesn't exist, is caused by acceleration instead of mass, or the mass simply isn't enough to hold it together, a sun such as this would exploded. Supernova!! 

Quote

The way I'm reading this makes it sound like the human-invented-term referring to a certain amount of distance creates a change in the wavelengths of detected radiation.

Yes, but assuming the earth as flat has far reaching effect you couldn't even begin to imagine. If the AU is wrong, everything about Astronomy is wrong. Samuel Birley Rowbotham was an astronomer himself. A member of the Royal Astronomical Society, he knew exactly how his calculations worked.

Science needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to account for phenomena. The entire Copernican model is smashed. It's quite clear that no one has traveled a few light years away with a correspondent back home to measure the distance it takes for the red shifting of light. Astronomers have simply observed different shifts of lights from different pre-defined stars of different distances and gave a meaning to it. Since the parallax of stars is tightly tied to the parsec and the distance of an AU, the distance between the Sun and Earth holds the cards when it comes to the cosmos.

If the earth is flat then the listed distances for those stars becomes way off. If the stars are off then the gauge of redshifting is off.

Except for the fact, redshifting is gauged on the  movements of revolving celestial bodies. As a body moves within its orbit, it will reach a point where it will be traveling directly away from Earth. The red shift can be gauged and valued according to the rest of the objects orbit. No math thats derived for astronomical terms needs to be used. Basic trig at most is applied. Of course, we do apply them to make further discoveries elsewhere in science.

In any case, my next problem is the fusion in the sun itself. A sun 731,268,011 times smaller than one estimated to last 10.5 billion years would burn for approximately 0.015 billion years. Odd considering how much evidence suggests the sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. The round Earth sun has an estimated 5 billion years left.

I don't see what your logic is in dividing that figure of 731,268,011 to the estimate for its age.

The age of the RE sun relies on something called "Stellar Evolution," which looks at the different sizes of stars in the sky, imagining a life cycle upon where the star gradually warms, turns into a Red Giant, and either explodes or collapses into a White Dwarf. "Stellar Evolution" would then apply the size of the stars to the size of the sun and give an estimate for how far in its cycle our sun is.

If anything, the age of the Sun would stay the same in FE.

Quote

The way I'm reading this makes it sound like the human-invented-term referring to a certain amount of distance creates a change in the wavelengths of detected radiation.

Yes, but assuming the earth as flat has far reaching effect you couldn't even begin to imagine. If the AU is wrong, everything about Astronomy is wrong. Samuel Birley Rowbotham was an astronomer himself. A member of the Royal Astronomical Society, he knew exactly how his calculations worked.

Science needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to account for phenomena. The entire Copernican model is smashed. It's quite clear that no one has traveled a few light years away with a correspondent back home to measure the distance it takes for the red shifting of light. Astronomers have simply observed different shifts of lights from different pre-defined stars of different distances and gave a meaning to it. Since the parallax of stars is tightly tied to the parsec and the distance of an AU, the distance between the Sun and Earth effectively holds the cards when it comes to the cosmos.

If the earth is flat then the listed distances for those stars becomes way off. If the stars are off then the gauge of redshifting is off.

The AU is not wrong.  In other threads you said it would be impossible to shine a laser onto the sun if it was 93 million miles away.  So if the sun was only 3,000 miles away then there would be a much greater possibility of shining a laser onto the sun.  Face it, the sun is 93 million miles away.

Except for the fact, redshifting is gauged on the  movements of revolving celestial bodies. As a body moves within its orbit, it will reach a point where it will be traveling directly away from Earth. The red shift can be gauged and valued according to the rest of the objects orbit. No math thats derived for astronomical terms needs to be used. Basic trig at most is applied. Of course, we do apply them to make further discoveries elsewhere in science.

Thank you. I've always been under the impression that Red Shifting was a way to gauge distance.

The AU is not wrong.  In other threads you said it would be impossible to shine a laser onto the sun if it was 93 million miles away.  So if the sun was only 3,000 miles away then there would be a much greater possibility of shining a laser onto the sun.  Face it, the sun is 93 million miles away.

Regardless of how far away it is - 93 million miles or 3,000 miles - the sun is just as intense. It would take a laser which could put out at least an order of magnitude more intensity per square inch. It has never been done, attempted, or even considered in RE science. Such a thing is simply beyond engineering capability.

If you can find an experiment which bounced a laser off of the sun, please show me.

Lets take a whack at Hubble's Law.

Hubble's law is a statement in physical cosmology which states that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance (flat earth or round earth).



In using Hubble's law to determine distances, only the velocity due to the expansion of the universe can be used. Since gravitationally interacting galaxies move relative to each other independent of the expansion of the universe, these relative velocities, called peculiar velocities, need to be accounted when applying Hubble's law.

In systems that are gravitationally bound, such as galaxies or our planetary system, the expansion of space is (more than) annihilated by the attractive force of gravity.

Damn! Someone beat me to it.


Damn trolls.

Regardless of how far away it is - 93 million miles or 3,000 miles - the sun is just as intense. It would take a laser which could put out at least an order of magnitude more intensity per square inch. It has never been done, attempted, or even considered in RE science. Such a thing is simply beyond engineering capability.

If you can find an experiment which bounced a laser off of the sun, please show me.

Well quickly searching I couldn't find the laser to sun but heres laser to Moon.  NASA did it though so it must be fake, right?
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Edit: another one Radar to mercury.  http://www.astro-tom.com/getting_started/earth-sun_distance.htm

Quote

The way I'm reading this makes it sound like the human-invented-term referring to a certain amount of distance creates a change in the wavelengths of detected radiation.

Yes, but assuming the earth as flat has far reaching effect you couldn't even begin to imagine. If the AU is wrong, everything about Astronomy is wrong. Samuel Birley Rowbotham was an astronomer himself. A member of the Royal Astronomical Society, he knew exactly how his calculations worked.
Science needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to account for phenomena. The entire Copernican model is smashed.

How is it off more than a simple ratio? If the AU is really reduced to a certain percentage than what calculations would be irreversibly damaged?
___

I don't see what your logic is in dividing that figure of 731,268,011 to the estimate for its age.

Your right. I assumed the function of a star's fusion is linear with the mass it uses. It could be exponential in either direction. 

The age of the RE sun relies on something called "Stellar Evolution," which looks at the different sizes of stars in the sky, imagining a life cycle upon where the star gradually warms, turns into a Red Giant, and either explodes or collapses into a White Dwarf. "Stellar Evolution" would then apply the size of the stars to the size of the sun and give an estimate for how far in its cycle our sun is.

If anything, the age of the Sun would stay the same in FE.

The age was estimated based on the Round Earth's fusion cycle. I didn't calculate that figure myself.

Sooo.. the sun is halfway through its lifespan both in RE and FE? That would mean that it burns just as long with only 1/731,268,011 the fuel? 

Sooo.. the sun is halfway through its lifespan both in RE and FE? That would mean that it burns just as long with only 1/731,268,011 the fuel?

The RE Sun is estimated to be composed of:

Hydrogen 73.46 %
Helium   24.85 %
Oxygen   0.77 %
Carbon   0.29 %
Iron   0.16 %
Sulphur   0.12 %
Neon   0.12 %
Nitrogen   0.09 %
Silicon   0.07 %
Magnesium 0.05 %

The visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H- ions. Even if the FE Sun was composed of 100% Hydrogen, it is impossible for it to sustain visible light for the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around.

Looks like you got this under control. 
I need to sleep. I be back tomorrow.

Well quickly searching I couldn't find the laser to sun but heres laser to Moon.  NASA did it though so it must be fake, right?
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Looks like a middle school binder sitting on a beach to me. What's that piece of trash in the background? Those astronauts really need to watch where they litter!

Edit: another one Radar to mercury.  http://www.astro-tom.com/getting_started/earth-sun_distance.htm

I forget the exact details on how the radar to Venus was ascertained, but I'm pretty sure it was through one of those radar probes to Venus NASA claimed to have sent up.

From the Flat Earth Society's point of view, NASA never gave the specifics of their work to the public for peer review. NASA simply made a broadcast, saying "here's how it is." We have no real way of verifying their work.

But that's neither here nor there. The specifics of the Conspiracy should be left to another thread. I'm more concerned with the inquiry of how much the universe would change if the distance of an AU was modified.

Sooo.. the sun is halfway through its lifespan both in RE and FE? That would mean that it burns just as long with only 1/731,268,011 the fuel?  Huh

We have no idea how much mass the Sun has to eat through. The sun could be as dense as it needs to be. It would be difficult to ascertain the true mass of the sun either way. Even in RE, a tiny dense Neutron star operates via fusion.

The recently reemerged theory of Cold Fusion might even better suit the source of power for the FE sun. It is a class of low energy nuclear reaction, which is part of the condensed matter nuclear science. I haven't looked into the exact mathematics, but this might be a future topic worth investigating considering the sudden reemergence of Cold Fusion's practicality in various scientific circles.

The visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H- ions. Even if the FE Sun was composed of 100% Hydrogen, it is impossible for it to sustain visible light for the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around.

That just tells us that if fusion is the source of its power, the plasmatic composition of the FE sun must be rather dense to compensate. Remember, even those tiny dense Neutron stars in the Round Earth hypothesis operates by fusion.

That just tells us that if fusion is the source of its power, the material composition of the FE sun must be rather dense to compensate. Remember, even those tiny dense Neutron stars in the Round Earth hypothesis operate by fusion.

The density of the sun can be obtained, should you have accurate measurements of mass.

As you probably already know, density = mass/volume.

Because your FAQ fails to mention the estimated mass of your sun, we must use the following:

The  ratio of the weight of a unit volume of some substance to the weight of an equal volume of a standard substance, measured under standard pressure and temperature conditions, is called  specific gravity.

If the specific gravity of a liquid or solid is known, the density of the liquid or solid maybe obtained by multiplying its specific gravity by the density of water. Specific gravity and density are independent of the size of the sample under consideration and depend  only  on  the  substance  of  which  it  is  made.

Specific Gravity = Density of the Substance/ Density of Water.

Rearranged, this equation becomes:

Specific Gravity x Density of Water = Density of the Substance.

Therefore, if the (RE and FE) sun is made of a majority of hydrogen (say, 75%), its density can be estimated.

You must provide the specific gravity of your sun in order to prove its stability and effect on a flat earth.

Neutron 'stars' don't carry out fusion, and in any case, no star can carry out fusion if there is no gravity. The massive gravity of the sun is required to provide the pressure and temperature to force hydrogen into fusing, and even if 'cold fusion' could be a achieved, the sun, having no counterbalancing gravity, would be instantly blown apart by the un-counteracted outward push of a fusion reaction. Explain?

I see that Gin beat me too it. Gravity is strong enough to contain the enormous pressure within a star. (This pressure and heat is a required condition for nuclear fusion) When gravity is overpowered, a supernova results. Without gravity, the sun couldn't have ever formed, and even if it had it would have exploded a long time ago.

As for cold fusion, it has yet to be proven to exist. I do say it is entirely plausible but not a likely source of power for a superheated celestial object with solar flares. Even so, the name "cold fusion" is inappropriate because this proposed reaction has much lower potential for power. Cold fusion (if it exists) relies on weak interaction rather than the nuclear force involved in fusion. The sun's energy would be reduced by 10¹³ were it caused by cold fusion.