Solar power source

in fact he is one of the top heliocentrists in the world.

You sure do love making these pointless appeals to authority.

The argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on who is making it.
If you need to appeal to authority then you have already lost.

And like so often, the authority you are appealing to is quite flawed.
He is a professor of radiology at the Wexner medical centre of OSU.

RADIUS OF THE SOLID SURFACE SUN

Where does this say the sun is flat or doesn't undergo nuclear fusion in its core?

It seems that yet again you are trying to make massive logical leaps.

P.S. gasses can have surfaces. All it requires is a significant change in density.

The gaseous models cannot provide an adequate means for generating a real surface.

The gaseous Sun possesses no sudden change in density which could allow tangential emission to its surface. In fact, modern solar models assume a density of only 10⁻⁷ g/cm³ for the photosphere, a density lower than some of our earthly vacuums.

"In these images, the “optical illusion” is now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state."

The final piece of the puzzle comes from one of the most enigmatic astronomical observations ever recorded in the past two hundred years.

Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley:



A 2 million degree temperature of the Sun's corona was invented ad-hoc in order to avoid having to admit the existence of an element lighter than hydrogen.

Now scientists think that the temperature of the solar corona can exceed even the temperature of the core itself.

In order to explain the huge temperatures in the solar corona, mainstream science turned to magnetic reconnection (merging).

Dr. Hannes Alfven, Nobel prize laureate, stated that the concept of magnetic "merging" or "reconnection" was a pseudo-science which was infecting cosmology and even plasma science:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23869134_On_frozen-in_field_lines_and_field-line_reconnection

Dr. Donald Scott on the erroneous concept of magnetic reconnection:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110301221517/http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

The most devastating analysis of the notion of magnetic reconnection was published by Walter J. Heikkila in the Astrophysics and Space Science journal:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973Ap%26SS..23..261H

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00645155

The hypothesis regarding the very hot temperature of the solar corona originated with B. Edlen's analysis of the unusual spectral features.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2018.00009/full

He was faced with a basic choice: either accept that at least two lighter than hydrogen elements are emitted by the Sun (even though Newtonium is released by the Black Sun), or put forth an outrageous hypothesis where the temperature of the solar corona becomes at least 400 times hotter than the temperature of the photosphere (even though the reverse temperature gradient of the Sun contradicts every original expectation of the thermonuclear model). This implausible supposition had to be accompanied by an even more outlandish explanation: magnetic reconnection.

A 2 million degree temperature of the Sun's corona was invented ad-hoc in order to avoid having to admit the existence of an element lighter than hydrogen. But this huge temperature requires pseudo-science: magnetic reconnection, a concept fully debunked by the Nobel prize laureate Dr. Hannes Alfven.

Within the context of a gaseous solar model, it is not surprising that extreme temperatures must be invoked. A gaseous Sun has no other means of producing highly ionized species.

"Since the corona must be excessively hot to produce such
ions in a gaseous context, the continuous spectrum of the K-corona
has been dismissed as a strange artifact, produced
by electronic scattering of photospheric light. Otherwise,
the coronal continuous spectrum would be indicating
that apparent coronal temperatures are no warmer than those
of the photosphere. It would be impossible for the gaseous
models to account for the presence of highly ionized
species within the outer solar atmosphere.

Current temperature estimates are
flirting with violations of both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics: it is difficult to conceive that localized temperatures
within flares and the corona could greatly exceed
the temperature of the solar core."

P.M. Robitaille


KORONIUM:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

The gaseous model

Who cares?
Even if you want to have the sun not made entirely of gas, that doesn't mean that it is flat or that it isn't undergoing nuclear fusion.

You aren't doing anything at all to show the sun is flat or that it isn't undergoing nuclear fusion in the core.

P.S. elements lighting than hydrogen are pseudoscience.

it isn't undergoing nuclear fusion in the core.

Fair enough.

Here is the most devastating proof against the nuclear furnace model.

FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

it isn't undergoing nuclear fusion in the core.

Fair enough.

Here is the most devastating proof against the nuclear furnace model.

That sure looks like far more than the 10 seconds you claimed before.


You seem to provide lots of words, but no actual explanation of the problem.
You have lots of vague statements, like "Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years", but no indication of just what this "much" is, especially considering the ice ages.

It also seems to focus heavily on just the solar output of the sun, ignoring many other factors.
And of course, you provide no working and instead just assert that "As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today"

And again, it isn't actually a problem for the sun being a nuclear furnace.

What this allegedly shows is that the sun is much younger, not that it isn't undergoing nuclear fusion.

Actually, much, much younger.

Here is the MARTIAN FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX.

"Today, Mars has a temperature far too cold to allow water on its surface. Therefore, as one goes back into the past, the temperature of Mars’ atmosphere will become even colder because the Sun was cooler in that far distant period.

Eric Burgess, as early as 1985, addressed this problem:

“The problem with Mars is even more difficult to resolve. Today, Mars is a
frozen world, yet in times past, large quantities of liquid water must have flowed
across its surface to sculpt the erosional features seen today. Yet, at the time of a
lower solar luminosity, Mars would be expected to be much colder than today.”

Jeffrey S. Kargel gives a more in depth description of this problem:
“The emerging vision of a once-watery Mars poses a serious dilemma. Mars is
now so remote from the Sun that water is frozen solid (in equilibrium with the barest
trace of water vapor), and the radiation environment billions of years ago was much
worse. The Sun has steadily brightened with time, and running the clock backward
make the Sun an even fainter object delivering only 70% as much heat and light 4
billion years ago as it does today. Yet, Martian geology indicates that liquid water
was present [then]."

“Mechanisms involving alternatives to ice and water could not explain certain
features and soon fell by the wayside, but so did some of the water – and ice –
related hypotheses. For instance, the wind hypothesis for the origin of [massive
flooding] outflow channels failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for erosional
terraces and ‘high water’ marks [observed] in Martian channels, the transport and
deposition of large boulders and the chaotic nature and origin of chaotic nature and
origin of collapse[d land] of the sources of the [immense] outflow channels. The
proposed eolian [wind sculpted] origin of Martian channels had no sustaining
power and it withered and blew away without a sound foundation; most of these
non-water ideas were soon forgotten.”

Having failed to supply non-water sources to explain the evidence, the scientists tried
to “finagle” with the atmosphere and “rethink” certain gases existed that produced a greenhouse effect to allow water to flow on Mars in its early history.

Careful calculations contradict the early greenhouse effect thesis for Mars. Mars’ atmosphere containing carbon dioxide carbon monoxide and water vapor, would not have been able to last. These gasses, the calculations show, would have condensed out of it quite rapidly and permanently. Therefore, much more carbon dioxide would be required to heat the atmosphere to offset the condensation problem. Secondly, where did all this extra carbon dioxide come from? By analogy with the early Earth, one can get some idea of the enormity of the problem.

Kasting explains:
“Warming early Mars is a challenging problem, both because of the planet’s
distance from the Sun and because the Sun, itself, was less bright. . .
“In climate calculations . . . we initially determined that this low solar flux could
have been offset by a CO2 - H2O atmosphere with a surface pressure of about 5 bars
[5 times that of the Earth]. However, we failed to account for the fact that CO2
should have condensed in the upper parts of our model troposphere . . .
“When we revised our calculations to include this effect, we got a rather
surprising result. We found it was impossible to warm early Mars with CO2! . . .
The results show that for the present [day] solar flux, Mars’ surface temperature
could be raised to arbitrarily high values by adding CO2 to its atmosphere. About
2-3 bars of CO2 would be sufficient to being the average temperatures above the
freezing point of water . . .
“For early Mars, though, the result of increasing atmosphere CO2 levels are
entirely different. At 3.8 Ga [billion years ago], the latest time when most of the
valleys could have formed, the solar flux [to Mars] was still only 75 percent of its
present value . . . and it takes us back to the question: How can we explain the
fluvial features? . . .
“Couldn’t one simply add more CO2 . . . and thereby make them warmer? The
answer is no, for two reasons . . . at high CO2 pressures and low solar fluxes, CO2
. . . forms clouds of CO2 ice . . . surprisingly, CO2 clouds would actually have
warmed Mars’ surface . . . But the process of forming the CO2 clouds would
[remove heat and] have helped limit greenhouse warming . . .
“A second equally important factor in limiting the magnitude of the greenhouse
effect on early Mars is the effect of CO2 on the planet’s albedo [reflection of
sunlight by cloud cover back to space] . . . Hence, when the atmosphere pressure
increases, more sunlight is scattered back into space, and the planetary albedo
increases, cooling the climate [even more greatly]. Both these factors make it
difficult or impossible to warm early Mars.”"


There would be only one solution, in the heliocentrical context: that Mars was in an
orbit closer to the Sun recently.

However, this would shatter the very foundation of the present day approach to celestial mechanics: the stability of the orbits of planets.


The martian faint young sun paradox is much worse than the faint young sun paradox: the main sequence interval is now reduced to just some tens of thousands of years (no fluctuations whatsoever allowed).

To summarise Sandokhans last two posts

The Sun is older than 5 Billion years old

The Sun is tens of thousands of years old

naice

Actually, much, much younger.

Yet not much much flatter, or much much not a nuclear furnace.

Again, can you provide any argument to show that the sun is flat or that nuclear fusion isn't occurring at the core?

I have done so from the very start.

Clayton model/equation, which is more accurate than the Lane-Emden equation, and comparable to the integrated hydrostatic equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

"Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun."

I have done so from the very start.

Clayton model/equation, which is more accurate than the Lane-Emden equation, and comparable to the integrated hydrostatic equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

"Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun."

So just 2 layers of the sun according to you are now 10400km?

Getting confused now.

Photosphere facts you post are not correct I'm afraid, photosphere is about 100km, pressures seem a bit off as well.

Are you going to provide something conclusive on the solar power source, seems like you are trying to head towards the 'electric universe '...again

I have done so from the very start.

Clayton model/equation, which is more accurate than the Lane-Emden equation, and comparable to the integrated hydrostatic equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

"Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun."

Have you tried looking at the sun with the proper solar filters?

The RE have computed the centrifugal acceleration:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centripetal-acceleration-d_1285.html

a_c = 0.0063 m/s²

Let us now use the Clayton equation to calculate the actual acceleration of gravity.



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

If anyone wants to see what the clayton model actually is, here is a good paper.

www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf

"We have seen above that the Clayton model is expected to be seriously in error for valuesof x  greater  than   unity,  and   certainly   grossly   wrong   at  the   surface   of the star"

Sandokahn is shitting all over it.

The acceleration on earth from the sun is around g=0.0059 m/s². So at the sun it's "g = 0,0000507 m/s2"?


Durrr

The RE have computed the centrifugal acceleration:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centripetal-acceleration-d_1285.html

a_c = 0.0063 m/s²

Let us now use the Clayton equation to calculate the actual acceleration of gravity.



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

No it won't!  And you've given no valid reason why it should.
The "surface" gravity of the sun is about 274 m/s² and as you wrote a_c = 0.0063 m/s² so that's negligible.
You say "PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR" so what?
The "air" pressure 600 km above earth is about 4.8x10^-10 kPa and Earth's retains that just fine!

It cannot be 274 m/s2.

That is the ASSUMED figure.

However, the pressure in the chromosphere is extremely small.



The Clayton model is the standard, accepted stellar model.

It is not my equation, the heliocentrists have been using it for decades to obtain the necessary results.

Here is the final result using the Clayton equation:

g = 0,0000507 m/s2

That is, this figure is much smaller than the value for the computed centrifugal acceleration: the Sun cannot be a sphere.

Here is the pressure diagram using the Clayton model vs. the integrated equation:



Not my equation, not my diagram.

This is the standard accepted today in heliocentrism.

It cannot be 274 m/s2.

That is the ASSUMED figure.

However, the pressure in the chromosphere is extremely small.



The Clayton model is the standard, accepted stellar model.

It is not my equation, the heliocentrists have been using it for decades to obtain the necessary results.

Here is the final result using the Clayton equation:

g = 0,0000507 m/s2

That is, this figure is much smaller than the value for the computed centrifugal acceleration: the Sun cannot be a sphere.

Here is the pressure diagram using the Clayton model vs. the integrated equation:



Not my equation, not my diagram.

This is the standard accepted today in heliocentrism.

 

Quote your sources!

You are bouncing around all over the place, again.

It cannot be 274 m/s2.

Why not? I  work it out as 274.35  m/s² from the Sun's GM product and its radius.

That is the ASSUMED figure.

However, the pressure in the chromosphere is extremely small.

So what?
There is no more connection between the "pressure in the chromosphere" and the surface gravity of the  Sun than between the   pressure at, say, 400 km and the surface gravity of Earth.

The Clayton model is the standard, accepted stellar model.

It is not my equation, the heliocentrists have been using it for decades to obtain the necessary results.

Here is the final result using the Clayton equation:

g = 0,0000507 m/s2

Please show exactly where the Clayton equation claims "g = 0,0000507 m/s2".

However do you get that out of the "Clayton equation"? Look what you said in here!

Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on August 09, 2017, 03:24:06 AM »
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."

You say "the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas" but that has no effect on the gravitation outside that region.
Gravitation can't be cancelled or "used up" like that.

The gravity on the "surface" (there is, of course, no well defined surface) of the Sun is quite unaffected anything underneath.

So the surface gravity of the Sun is about the 274 m/s² claimed.
If that were not so the planets would not have the present orbital radius/orbital period relations.

Sure, "It is not your equation" but that does not mean that you've been using it correctly.

The 274 m/s2 figure is obtained using THEORETICAL values for the pressure.

The ACTUAL VALUE recorded is much, much lower (this was a huge surprise for scientists):



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The Clayton model was published in 1986 and was immediately accepted worldwide; in fact, it has become the standard in heliocentrism.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:




There is no more connection between the "pressure in the chromosphere" and the surface gravity of the  Sun than between the   pressure at, say, 400 km and the surface gravity of Earth.

You are trolling this thread.

The computed value of the g acceleration for the Sun turns out to be much, much lower than predicted, while for Earth there is no such problem.

Since g_Sun is much smaller than a_centrifugal, you are left with a gigantic gas centrifuge with no outer casing.

Stop just repeating yourself.

Ok break it down where is the graph from, supply the paper so we can see it.

'TahDah' doesn't cut it.

The RE have already checked the equation, the figures, the graphs years ago.

They know that it is not my equation: it is the standard formula used in stellar structure physics.

I just plugged in the numbers and obtained a final result.

If you do not like this equation, then please write to your nearest university and let them know of your concern.

The RE have already checked the equation, the figures, the graphs years ago.

They know that it is not my equation: it is the standard formula used in stellar structure physics.

I just plugged in the numbers and obtained a final result.

If you do not like this equation, then please write to your nearest university and let them know of your concern.

Fair enough so looking at the evidence you have provided the sun has a radius of just under 700,000 Km, has a layered pressure gradient atmosphere, and the inward force of gravity is balanced with outward force of nuclear fusion activity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Fair enough so looking at the evidence you have provided the sun has a radius of just under 700,000 Km, has a layered pressure gradient atmosphere, and the inward force of gravity is balanced with outward force of nuclear fusion activity.

Let's put your word to the test.

RE computed centrifugal acceleration:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centripetal-acceleration-d_1285.html

a_c = 0.0063 m/s²


Now, the actual values using the RECORDED/REGISTERED value for the pressure in the chromosphere:

PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

Your words not mine chap, or at least your citations

Just want links to your Clayton assumptions

I have done so from the very start.

No, you have avoided the issue from the start.
Instead of trying to defend your claims you instead set up non-sequitur arguments.

You may as well be presenting arguments that the sun isn't made of jelly.
It doesn't mean it isn't round nor that nuclear fusion doesn't occur in the core.

Quoting yourself carries no weight.

"Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun.

No it explains it quite well.
Any sufficiently large continuous object will adopt a roughly spherical shape.
The sun is massive, and thus will adopt a roughly spherical shape as well.
The pressure isn't the issue, the strength of gravity is.

Let us now use the Clayton equation to calculate the actual acceleration of gravity.

What equation?

You provided none at all. You just seemed to pull a number from no where, then ran off on a tangent with it without justifying any of your claims.

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M
where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

What is this equation? Where is it from?
What is the basis of it?

You seem to just be spouting a bunch of random numbers with no basis at all.

And again THIS ONLY DEALS WITH THIS MODEL!

The Clayton equation was requested, by the RE, years ago.

Not my equation, not my graphics.

It is the standard RE (modern stellar structure physics) formula used in such calculations.

All I did is to plug in the numbers, that is all.

Do not complain to me about the equation.

Dr. D. Clayton, one of 20th century's best astrophysicists, based his formula exactly on the hydrostatic equilibrium equation, and its parameters on the known laws of physics such as the Boltzmann constant, the polytropic conditions, and much more.

It is based exactly on the principles of physics as they are known to modern science.

The Clayton model is an accepted fact of astrophysics, it is the RE's own model, not mine.

A few words about Dr. D. Clayton.

He was awarded the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1992).

He has done research at CalTech,  Rice University, Cambridge University, Max-Plank Institute for Nuclear Physics, Durham University and Clemson University during an academic career spanning six decades.

The Clayton equation was requested, by the RE, years ago.

Not my equation, not my graphics.

It is the standard RE (modern stellar structure physics) formula used in such calculations.

All I did is to plug in the numbers, that is all.

Do not complain to me about the equation.

Dr. D. Clayton, one of 20th century's best astrophysicists, based his formula exactly on the hydrostatic equilibrium equation, and its parameters on the known laws of physics such as the Boltzmann constant, the polytropic conditions, and much more.

It is based exactly on the principles of physics as they are known to modern science.

The Clayton model is an accepted fact of astrophysics, it is the RE's own model, not mine.

A few words about Dr. D. Clayton.

He was awarded the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1992).

He has done research at CalTech,  Rice University, Cambridge University, Max-Plank Institute for Nuclear Physics, Durham University and Clemson University during an academic career spanning six decades.

So is that a no then?

#threadclosed

Am I supposed to do your homework for you?

You, the RE, do not know the form of the Clayton equation, one of the most famous equations in astrophysics?

http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf

equation (18)

Nope not there, thats Sokrul's link

Take us through your derivation or cite the source, your assumptions and word salad are not in that link

4th time start small where did you cut and paste your graph

No, it's my link from three years ago.

Chapter 18 from the same work contains the graphics as well.

You cannot complain about the Clayton equation since it is YOUR very own formula, derived by one of the best astrophysicists of the 20th century.

It is the standard in stellar structure physics.

If I can backtrack just for a moment.  I believe it was you (Sandokhan) who informed us all a while back that the true diameter of the Sun was just 600 metres. Yet most of the links you have posted since then have given the figure of 700,000km for the radius of the Sun which is much closer to the actual size of the Sun.

So where the heck did you get 600 metres from as the diameter?  Because I'm sure you would agree it is impossible for something just 600m across to generate enough energy to support it for 10 billion years?  Yes/no?