The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: deathsink on September 25, 2010, 10:34:34 PM
-
All information I am using was originally posted in this message on this forum: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17816.msg332885#msg332885 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17816.msg332885#msg332885)
First, the original quote:
Probably a sphere, 32 miles in diameter, powered by fusion but burning at a slower rate than expected due to its incredible mass, orbiting on a plane roughly parallel to the earth's around a fixed point which is above the approximate center of the earth.
If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, and of anywhere near a reasonable mass, it could never hit the point where fusion would be viable. Thus, the sun cannot possibly a fusing object in hydrostatic equilibrium.
-
The Sun does not shine by any nuclear processes, as you point out, this would be frankly absurd.
-
The Sun does not shine by any nuclear processes, as you point out, this would be frankly absurd.
Do tell us what process the Sun and the Moon come by the huge energy to accomplish their shining in FE, if you can.
-
The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.
-
The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.
Yes, I understand that you make that wild, unsupported claim. But again I ask what is the fuel for that reaction?
-
Biomass.
-
Biomass.
Really? That's all? So rather than the much more energy rich coal that I used in my estimates I can substitute hay?
-
What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.
-
What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.
Please provide any evidence that you have that there exists any biomass unlike terrestial biomass. I doubt that you can.
-
What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.
Please provide any evidence that you have that there exists any biomass unlike terrestial biomass. I doubt that you can.
You made the claim that it would be.
-
According to FEers, the Sun's energy comes from bio-luminescent creatures that emit the entire EM spectrum and move very rapidly.
Where they get their energy is...
Well apparently they don't believe in the laws of Thermodynamics.
-
I maintain that the Sun is a very large mass of quarks and antiquarks, which derives its energy from matter-antimatter annihilation.
-
I doubt the sun has biomass. There is no doubt that the moon does.
-
So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.
1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is a nuclear powered sphere. Moon is sphere with biomass.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
-edited to correct John Davis's opinion.
-
So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.
1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is unknown but disk. Moon is disk with biomass.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Which three FEers would those be?
-
So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.
1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is unknown but disk. Moon is disk with biomass.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Which three FEers would those be?
Tom Bishop.
James.
John Davis.
In that order.
-
I don't hold the Sun or Moon are disks. The sun is made of the same things the RE sun is. Likewise the moon with the exception of the biomass.
-
I hold that the sun cannot be run by nuclear fusion. For the sake of ClockTower, here is the maths to prove this.
I'll do it by comparing a human's energy output to the sun.
To compare the per-kilogram energy outputs of the human body and the Sun, we need to know the mass and total power output of both.
Mass of the Sun. This is very close to 2 x 10^30 kg from science data books RE World).
Total power output of Sun. The Sun loses all of its energy by radiation. Above the Earth's atmosphere, 1.5 × 10^11 metres from the Sun, the intensity of radiation is 1370 W m-2. A spherical surface at this distance from the Sun would have an area of 2.84 × 10^23 m2. Assuming that the Sun radiates energy equally strongly in all directions, the total power passing through this surface would be 1370 × 2.84 × 10^23 = 3.87 × 10^26 W. Ignoring any losses from absorption on the way, this gives us an estimate for the total power output of the Sun.
(You can check this result by noting that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5800K, and using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You get very good agreement).
Mass of a person. People vary a lot in mass, but a typical adult might weigh 65 kg.
Power output of a person. For a person whose weight is steady, their energy output must equal their energy input. People vary a lot in how much they eat, but 2000 kcal, or about 8.6 × 10^6 J, is a reasonable estimate for daily energy input. Divided by the number of seconds in the day, this gives an average power of of about 97 W.
Power outputs per kilogram of the Sun and a human being. We divide the total power output by the mass in each case to get 1.9 × 10-4 W kg-1 for the Sun and 1.5 W kg-1 as the overall power per kilogram of a human being. The human being's power output per kilogram is nearly 8000 times that of the Sun.
So that being the case, if the sun was really nuclear, surely the American's wouldn't have bothered inventing the A-bomb in WW2. They would have just thrown a squaddie out of an aircraft over Hiroshima.
*Edited as it sucked out my superscripts ;D
-
Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.
This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.
-
Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.
This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.
Nuclear fusion has a tiny mass:output ratio? The bomb at Nagasaki weighed only 4600kg!
The whole point is the sun is not large. It is 32 miles across and resides at 3000 miles above the earth. Your model doesn't fit. Maybe you should consider ours?
-
OF COURSE IT WON'T WORK IF YOU CROSS DATA FROM BOTH THEORIES.
You can't take data ascertained under the premise that the Sun is 700,000kms in diameter, then apply it to a 32 mile diameter Sun and claim it's evidence in the case of FE.
Most FE believers on here don't even agree as to what the Sun is made of, let alone use the numbers you used.
-
Robert Oppenheimer said
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
He's let the cat out of the bag right there! He is admitting that his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. At only a fraction of the mass rounder earthers allege, using exactly the same power source.
I don't want to hear that Oppenheimer doesn't know what he is talking about, or that you know more than Oppenheimer or that Oppenheimer is a liar.
Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun. As for FE our answer is bioluminesence, that the sun is 32 miles across and it resides 3000 miles above earth. For further information on the bioluminesense you will have to wait until Ichi and Bullhorn finish their experiments and publish the conclusions. These are very exciting times. ;D
-
Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.
-
Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.
Read again Zork.
I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.
Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.
-
Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.
Read again Zork.
I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.
Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.
So I said. You do that without any evidence. Totally illogical conclusion. An the sun is powerful, more powerful than anything on the earth.
-
Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.
Read again Zork.
I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.
Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.
So I said. You do that without any evidence. Totally illogical conclusion. An the sun is powerful, more powerful than anything on the earth.
I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?
-
I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?
Yo haven't demonstrated that. You showed some numbers about power output per kilogram. That is not in any way demonstration that human body is more powerful energy source than the sun. Please, show me some energy source here on the earth which output is 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. And Oppenheimer was only poetic. This is not in any way countable evidence for something. And it seems to me that way that you itself don't read what you write, your posts usually seems like concocted up from various sources without any logic.
-
I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?
Yo haven't demonstrated that. You showed some numbers about power output per kilogram. That is not in any way demonstration that human body is more powerful energy source than the sun. Please, show me some energy source here on the earth which output is 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. And Oppenheimer was only poetic. This is not in any way countable evidence for something. And it seems to me that way that you itself don't read what you write, your posts usually seems like concocted up from various sources without any logic.
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
Oh dear, Zork.
In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
Oh dear, Zork.
In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.
In baby steps. There is no connection in energy output per kilo and nuclear fusion. Nothing. So your conclusion is wrong. I.E it can be nuclear.
Oppenheimer was poetic(you really don't understand that word?), when he described it as thousands suns then it was in relation to brightness, not in relation to energy output. So, you have nothing but your illogical concoction. And you consistently fail to show me the energy source here on the earth with the output of 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. So, where it is?
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
Oh dear, Zork.
In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.
In baby steps. There is no connection in energy output per kilo and nuclear fusion. Nothing. So your conclusion is wrong. I.E it can be nuclear.
Oppenheimer was poetic(you really don't understand that word?), when he described it as thousands suns then it was in relation to brightness, not in relation to energy output. So, you have nothing but your illogical concoction. And you consistently fail to show me the energy source here on the earth with the output of 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. So, where it is?
Zork, I have demonstrated how feeble the sun is. It cannot be nuclear.
I don't have to show the sun puts out 3.87 x 10^26 W/s as a comparison of an earth based object for 3 reasons.
1. The sun isn't on earth
2. I believe the sun to be only 3000 miles away and 32 miles across, so I don't believe for a second it puts out that kind of power. If much closer, it doesn't need to put out that power to show the same effects we feel on earth - light heat etc.
3. I have. The A-bomb is 1000 times more powerful, as testified by Oppenheimer.
Now don't bother posting with any more "but I still don't understand" objections. Come back when you have evidence to the contrary. You are taking my valuable time away from learning more FE science, which of course can be proven.
-
Zork, I have demonstrated how feeble the sun is. It cannot be nuclear.
I don't have to show the sun puts out 3.87 x 10^26 W/s as a comparison of an earth based object for 3 reasons.
1. The sun isn't on earth
2. I believe the sun to be only 3000 miles away and 32 miles across, so I don't believe for a second it puts out that kind of power. If much closer, it doesn't need to put out that power to show the same effects we feel on earth - light heat etc.
3. I have. The A-bomb is 1000 times more powerful, as testified by Oppenheimer.
No, you haven't demonstrated it to anyone else than to you personally. And because of that your demonstration is worthless.
And you have to show that there is on the earth some power source which outputs 3.87 x 10^26 W/s because you said that human body is more powerful than the sun. So, sun puts out 3.87 x 10^26 W/s and how much human body does? These are the numbers which matters, your output per kilo doesn't have any relation here.
And Oppenheimer didn't say anywhere that his bomb is 1000 times more powerful. You quoted him - "radiance of a thousand suns". Radiance isn't power. I thought that you are a english person but seems that you don't know even the meanings of the words. Also, stop presenting poetic lines as conclusive evidence for science. They don't qualify.
In conclusion, even if your personal revelations matter to you they don't matter to others because you fail to provide valid evidence and proof for your visions. Like that the sun isn't nuclear. You still haven't provided any reasonable thoughts for that.
-
3.87 x 10^26 W/s
Interesting. Can you tell me what sort of quantity has units of power divided by time?
-
3.87 x 10^26 W/s
Interesting. Can you tell me what sort of quantity has units of power divided by time?
I see you conveniently ignore that Thork posted it first and for some reason ask it from me. Why? I was just lazy and did copy/paste from his post. Take it up with him if you want answer.
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
Oh dear, Zork.
In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.
Wait, people emit UV light? Jesus, you really do learn something new every day.
-
Zork, you were instructed to find evidence to the contrary, but still you bring nothing. It is clear that this subject is way over your head but still you protest.
And you have to show that there is on the earth some power source which outputs 3.87 x 10^26 W/s because you said that human body is more powerful than the sun
Zork, I have demonstrated that kilo for kilo it is. Now unless you can prove a giant ball of people is not more powerful, desist this ridiculous line of questioning.
Radiance isn't power
The sun according to RE, radiates all of its power. That is how the power is transferred. The huge deficit serves only to show how flawed RE theory on the sun is.
Interesting. Can you tell me what sort of quantity has units of power divided by time?
Are you being deliberately stupid? All power is measured with respect to time. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
It is the average amount of work done or energy converted per unit of time
Now until you grasp the fundamentals and return with a fact or too, maybe you should leave this thread for those that understand physics.
*Forgot the word 'not'. Would change the meaning otherwise.
-
Interesting. Can you tell me what sort of quantity has units of power divided by time?
Are you being deliberately stupid?
You're new here, aren't you?
-
Are you being deliberately stupid? All power is measured with respect to time. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
Units of power are units of energy divided by units of time. You have given units of power divided by time, which is something else altogether.
-
Are you being deliberately stupid? All power is measured with respect to time. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
Units of power are units of energy divided by units of time. You have given units of power divided by time, which is something else altogether.
Parsifal, have you run out of REr's to pick fault with?
-
Parsifal, have you run out of REr's to pick fault with?
Irrelevant.
-
ClockTower is sick (probably from the moon). Zork is coming down with the same thing, theJackel couldn't behave himself so we are out of REr's.
-
Zork, you were instructed to find evidence to the contrary, but still you bring nothing. It is clear that this subject is way over your head but still you protest.
Known fact is that the sun in nuclear powered. You claim the otherwise so it is your duty to find evidence for something else. And you haven't. Case closed for me.
And you have to show that there is on the earth some power source which outputs 3.87 x 10^26 W/s because you said that human body is more powerful than the sun
Zork, I have demonstrated that kilo for kilo it is. Now unless you can prove a giant ball of people is not more powerful, desist this ridiculous line of questioning.
I don't have to. You itself said that the sun emits the 3.87 x 10^26 W per second and human body doesn't. Your "kilo for kilo" comparison is totally irrelevant. Case closed for me.
Radiance isn't power
The sun according to RE, radiates all of its power. That is how the power is transferred. The huge deficit serves only to show how flawed RE theory on the sun is.
Don't go astray. Radiance of the thousands suns refers directly to the visible brightness. You can't in any way to show that Oppenheimer somehow measured the power output. He just visually observed and made one poetic statement which you interpret falsely. Also case closed for me.
Now until you grasp the fundamentals and return with a fact or too, maybe you should leave this thread for those that understand physics.
You haven't still brought out any evidence and you have demonstrated your failure to understand physics. Can you stop spewing out nonsense and start doing some real research?
-
Well as everything is 'case closed' for you without a shred of RE evidence produced, you can happily believe whatever it is you have been told.
Parsifal is clearly the expert. I suggest you now direct all of your nonsense towards him. Please title them FOA Parsifal to be sure that it is his words of wisdom you receive. Try if you can to get his mobile number. That way he can be on hand to answer any queries directly day or night. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you shared this number with any other RErs who have concerns, so as they might also call him. He is a generous and warm man, and only too eager to share his wealth of knowledge.
-
The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.
So at what temperature do the "bio-luminescent" organisms radiate?
-
Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?
Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.
Oh dear, Zork.
In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.
Wait, people emit UV light? Jesus, you really do learn something new every day.
Actually, we will emit all the entire EM spectrum, but for the most part we emit infrared I guess.
-
Well as everything is 'case closed' for you without a shred of RE evidence produced, you can happily believe whatever it is you have been told.
Blah, there isn't any evidence to bring out because you failed to make the point. You spewed out some totally illogical "kilo per kilo" argument which has no connection with anything. And cited one poetic line. What evidence I supposed to give you when you haven't made the point and haven't brought any evidence for your cause?
Parsifal is clearly the expert. I suggest you now direct all of your nonsense towards him. Please title them FOA Parsifal to be sure that it is his words of wisdom you receive. Try if you can to get his mobile number. That way he can be on hand to answer any queries directly day or night. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you shared this number with any other RErs who have concerns, so as they might also call him. He is a generous and warm man, and only too eager to share his wealth of knowledge.
And here we have the little FE disciple who blindly accepts everything without thinking. Quite sad.
-
Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.
This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.
Nuclear fusion has a tiny mass:output ratio? The bomb at Nagasaki weighed only 4600kg!
The whole point is the sun is not large. It is 32 miles across and resides at 3000 miles above the earth. Your model doesn't fit. Maybe you should consider ours?
What is the mass, volume and density of the FE Sun?
-
Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.
This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.
Nuclear fusion has a tiny mass:output ratio? The bomb at Nagasaki weighed only 4600kg!
The whole point is the sun is not large. It is 32 miles across and resides at 3000 miles above the earth. Your model doesn't fit. Maybe you should consider ours?
That was a fission device, idiot.
-
Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.
This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.
Nuclear fusion has a tiny mass:output ratio? The bomb at Nagasaki weighed only 4600kg!
The whole point is the sun is not large. It is 32 miles across and resides at 3000 miles above the earth. Your model doesn't fit. Maybe you should consider ours?
What is the mass, volume and density of the FE Sun?
Exactly.
He took the power output of the RE sun, then divided it by the diameter of the FE, and he concludes that RE is wrong because he gets a stupid number. Thork, how the hell did you get out of school with that kind of maths?
This thread is completely stupid. Let it die.
-
I hold that the sun cannot be run by nuclear fusion. For the sake of ClockTower, here is the maths to prove this.
I'll do it by comparing a human's energy output to the sun.
To compare the per-kilogram energy outputs of the human body and the Sun, we need to know the mass and total power output of both.
Mass of the Sun. This is very close to 2 x 10^30 kg from science data books RE World).
Total power output of Sun. The Sun loses all of its energy by radiation. Above the Earth's atmosphere, 1.5 × 10^11 metres from the Sun, the intensity of radiation is 1370 W m-2. A spherical surface at this distance from the Sun would have an area of 2.84 × 10^23 m2. Assuming that the Sun radiates energy equally strongly in all directions, the total power passing through this surface would be 1370 × 2.84 × 10^23 = 3.87 × 10^26 W. Ignoring any losses from absorption on the way, this gives us an estimate for the total power output of the Sun.
(You can check this result by noting that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5800K, and using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You get very good agreement).
Mass of a person. People vary a lot in mass, but a typical adult might weigh 65 kg.
Power output of a person. For a person whose weight is steady, their energy output must equal their energy input. People vary a lot in how much they eat, but 2000 kcal, or about 8.6 × 10^6 J, is a reasonable estimate for daily energy input. Divided by the number of seconds in the day, this gives an average power of of about 97 W.
Power outputs per kilogram of the Sun and a human being. We divide the total power output by the mass in each case to get 1.9 × 10-4 W kg-1 for the Sun and 1.5 W kg-1 as the overall power per kilogram of a human being. The human being's power output per kilogram is nearly 8000 times that of the Sun.
So that being the case, if the sun was really nuclear, surely the American's wouldn't have bothered inventing the A-bomb in WW2. They would have just thrown a squaddie out of an aircraft over Hiroshima.
*Edited as it sucked out my superscripts ;D
That's not a valid conclusion.
The Sun's mass is made up of it's fuel. However the energy expended per second is NOT the result of all the fuel being burned at once. In fact, only a small fraction of the Hydrogen is being used every second. So really you'd need to find the hydrogen that's converted into helium per second and use THAT mass instead of the mass of the whole Sun.
For humans your point is even worse. The total mass of a human is not it's fuel source and the only relation the mass of a human has to the energy outputted is that the more mass a human has, the more energy is required to keep that mass alive. And with warm blooded organisms such as us, the more mass you have, the more energy is required to produce the correct body temperature.
However, the human body doesn't produce it's own energy. Instead it takes energy in the form of food and converts that into other energy. In essence you've only proven that humans use and expel energy. Again, you need to take the mass of the fuel, not the mass of the machine using that fuel. You wouldn't use the mass of a car to determine the energy density of gasoline would you? Of course not. If you did, you'd find that gasoline's energy density varies based on the make and model of the car.
Also, a human who chooses not to eat any food for 1 day has a caloric intake of 0 yet produces 97w of energy which changes your numbers significantly.
-
That's not a valid conclusion.
The Sun's mass is made up of it's fuel. However the energy expended per second is NOT the result of all the fuel being burned at once. In fact, only a small fraction of the Hydrogen is being used every second. So really you'd need to find the hydrogen that's converted into helium per second and use THAT mass instead of the mass of the whole Sun.
For humans your point is even worse. The total mass of a human is not it's fuel source and the only relation the mass of a human has to the energy outputted is that the more mass a human has, the more energy is required to keep that mass alive. And with warm blooded organisms such as us, the more mass you have, the more energy is required to produce the correct body temperature.
However, the human body doesn't produce it's own energy. Instead it takes energy in the form of food and converts that into other energy. In essence you've only proven that humans use and expel energy. Again, you need to take the mass of the fuel, not the mass of the machine using that fuel. You wouldn't use the mass of a car to determine the energy density of gasoline would you? Of course not. If you did, you'd find that gasoline's energy density varies based on the make and model of the car.
Also, a human who chooses not to eat any food for 1 day has a caloric intake of 0 yet produces 97w of energy which changes your numbers significantly.
I already told him the Sun has an incredibly large mass. Apparently it doesn't.
-
What thork did not tell anyone is: his whole argument in the opening post was copied from Phil Plait. Except for the rant, of course.
There is nothing bad with a very low energy density, since it is in the realm of the possible, not like the FE where the problem is an excess of energy density. And there is no point in comparing the Sun with the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs because those are nuclear fission devices, not nuclear fusion.
So lets not discuss this with Thork, who could not even cut and paste properly and dishonestly copied the whole argument, including the comparison with the power output of a human being, without giving credit to the real author. Anyone can discuss it with Phil at badastronomy.com and report back his results (which will obviously be devastating to FES).
-
I hold that the sun cannot be run by nuclear fusion. For the sake of ClockTower, here is the maths to prove this.
I'll do it by comparing a human's energy output to the sun.
To compare the per-kilogram energy outputs of the human body and the Sun, we need to know the mass and total power output of both.
Mass of the Sun. This is very close to 2 x 10^30 kg from science data books RE World).
Total power output of Sun. The Sun loses all of its energy by radiation. Above the Earth's atmosphere, 1.5 × 10^11 metres from the Sun, the intensity of radiation is 1370 W m-2. A spherical surface at this distance from the Sun would have an area of 2.84 × 10^23 m2. Assuming that the Sun radiates energy equally strongly in all directions, the total power passing through this surface would be 1370 × 2.84 × 10^23 = 3.87 × 10^26 W. Ignoring any losses from absorption on the way, this gives us an estimate for the total power output of the Sun.
(You can check this result by noting that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5800K, and using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You get very good agreement).
Mass of a person. People vary a lot in mass, but a typical adult might weigh 65 kg.
Power output of a person. For a person whose weight is steady, their energy output must equal their energy input. People vary a lot in how much they eat, but 2000 kcal, or about 8.6 × 10^6 J, is a reasonable estimate for daily energy input. Divided by the number of seconds in the day, this gives an average power of of about 97 W.
Power outputs per kilogram of the Sun and a human being. We divide the total power output by the mass in each case to get 1.9 × 10-4 W kg-1 for the Sun and 1.5 W kg-1 as the overall power per kilogram of a human being. The human being's power output per kilogram is nearly 8000 times that of the Sun.
So that being the case, if the sun was really nuclear, surely the American's wouldn't have bothered inventing the A-bomb in WW2. They would have just thrown a squaddie out of an aircraft over Hiroshima.
*Edited as it sucked out my superscripts ;D
Hi Yall, I have some free time on my hands again, and this is a funny one.
Source for energy density values:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Source for Sun energy output:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lecture_12.htm
The calculation for the Sun's power output agrees with the Arizona.edu number, so I will use 3.87 × 10^26 W for comparison.
Source for nuclear power output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
Source for Deuterium prevalence on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
Thork Thesis: The sun cannot be a nuclear power source because of its low energy density.
Rebuttal A: The sun is not a living organism. Living organisms require dense sources of energy to survive. Humming birds must constantly eat honey, plants must collect solar energy and store it as sugar and starch. The sun does not appear to have the structure of a complex organism. It is modeled as a gas cloud that happens to contain nuclear materials. The power emitted by the sun is clearly necessary for life on Earth, however the actual mass or power density of the sun is irrelevant to our survival. If the sun was one million times larger or smaller yet had the same power output, neglecting gravity effects, we as dependent organisms would not notice the difference.
Rebuttal B: Power density is not a necessary indication of useful power. A nuclear bomb is purposefully designed to cause destruction. It is not a conventional power source because its power is too great to be usefully harnessed. A nuclear reactor uses similar fuel to a bomb, but the reaction is intentionally slowed down so that the reaction chamber can be contained by modern materials. If you take into account the entire weight of a nuclear power plant, including all cooling and control systems, the total power density is very low. Consider the US Nimitz nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Its two nuclear power plants generate a total of 280MW, and the ship weighs 100,000 tons. This gives the Nimitz a power density of 2.8W/kg, which is less than twice the 1.5W/kg of a human being, according to Thork.
Rebuttal C: On Earth we can measure the presence of nuclear fusion material in water. Assuming the prevalence of deuterium on Earth is similar to the rest of the solar system, the ratio of nuclear material in the sun would be 1:6400. This explains why the Sun does not reach a critical state and explode like a nuclear fusion bomb. It also explains the low power density.
-
I hold that the sun cannot be run by nuclear fusion. For the sake of ClockTower, here is the maths to prove this.
I'll do it by comparing a human's energy output to the sun.
To compare the per-kilogram energy outputs of the human body and the Sun, we need to know the mass and total power output of both.
Mass of the Sun. This is very close to 2 x 10^30 kg from science data books RE World).
Total power output of Sun. The Sun loses all of its energy by radiation. Above the Earth's atmosphere, 1.5 × 10^11 metres from the Sun, the intensity of radiation is 1370 W m-2. A spherical surface at this distance from the Sun would have an area of 2.84 × 10^23 m2. Assuming that the Sun radiates energy equally strongly in all directions, the total power passing through this surface would be 1370 × 2.84 × 10^23 = 3.87 × 10^26 W. Ignoring any losses from absorption on the way, this gives us an estimate for the total power output of the Sun.
(You can check this result by noting that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5800K, and using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You get very good agreement).
Mass of a person. People vary a lot in mass, but a typical adult might weigh 65 kg.
Power output of a person. For a person whose weight is steady, their energy output must equal their energy input. People vary a lot in how much they eat, but 2000 kcal, or about 8.6 × 10^6 J, is a reasonable estimate for daily energy input. Divided by the number of seconds in the day, this gives an average power of of about 97 W.
Power outputs per kilogram of the Sun and a human being. We divide the total power output by the mass in each case to get 1.9 × 10-4 W kg-1 for the Sun and 1.5 W kg-1 as the overall power per kilogram of a human being. The human being's power output per kilogram is nearly 8000 times that of the Sun.
So that being the case, if the sun was really nuclear, surely the American's wouldn't have bothered inventing the A-bomb in WW2. They would have just thrown a squaddie out of an aircraft over Hiroshima.
*Edited as it sucked out my superscripts ;D
Hi Yall, I have some free time on my hands again, and this is a funny one.
Source for energy density values:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Source for Sun energy output:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lecture_12.htm
The calculation for the Sun's power output agrees with the Arizona.edu number, so I will use 3.87 × 10^26 W for comparison.
Source for nuclear power output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
Source for Deuterium prevalence on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
Thork Thesis: The sun cannot be a nuclear power source because of its low energy density.
Rebuttal A: The sun is not a living organism. Living organisms require dense sources of energy to survive. Humming birds must constantly eat honey, plants must collect solar energy and store it as sugar and starch. The sun does not appear to have the structure of a complex organism. It is modeled as a gas cloud that happens to contain nuclear materials. The power emitted by the sun is clearly necessary for life on Earth, however the actual mass or power density of the sun is irrelevant to our survival. If the sun was one million times larger or smaller yet had the same power output, neglecting gravity effects, we as dependent organisms would not notice the difference.
Rebuttal B: Power density is not a necessary indication of useful power. A nuclear bomb is purposefully designed to cause destruction. It is not a conventional power source because its power is too great to be usefully harnessed. A nuclear reactor uses similar fuel to a bomb, but the reaction is intentionally slowed down so that the reaction chamber can be contained by modern materials. If you take into account the entire weight of a nuclear power plant, including all cooling and control systems, the total power density is very low. Consider the US Nimitz nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Its two nuclear power plants generate a total of 280MW, and the ship weighs 100,000 tons. This gives the Nimitz a power density of 2.8W/kg, which is less than twice the 1.5W/kg of a human being, according to Thork.
Rebuttal C: On Earth we can measure the presence of nuclear fusion material in water. Assuming the prevalence of deuterium on Earth is similar to the rest of the solar system, the ratio of nuclear material in the sun would be 1:6400. This explains why the Sun does not reach a critical state and explode like a nuclear fusion bomb. It also explains the low power density.
Thork has confessed to trolling and this post is an obvious example. Don't worry about Thork. He has no credibility here any longer.
-
I thought arguing with trolls was the entire reason people come to the FEW.
-
Thork has confessed to trolling and this post is an obvious example. Don't worry about Thork. He has no credibility here any longer.
Why thank you ClockTower. However mindlessly ranting on about credibility brings you no closer to unravelling the deception within the posts. How is your stock in credibility? You are still arguing the earth is round on a children's science forum with low content posts and a belligerent refusal to produce anything worth reading yourself. I have retired as a FE proponent, and will not get sucked into earth's form debates, but will defend my posts as at least having something in them. Albeit often deliberately twisted.
The rebuttal post is lame by the way.
It is modeled as a gas cloud that happens to contain nuclear materials.
No. Hydrogen, helium, lithium etc are not nuclear materials. It is the intense gravity that creates a nucler reaction. A star cannot have nuclear materials. They are all heavy elements. Hydrogen turns to helium, helium to lithium etc all the way up to iron. Once iron is created (Iron being the most stable element) that is the death of the star. Heavy elements are then only created in the ensuing supernova. Our sun hasn't gone supernova. Our sun hasn't really got into even the lithium stage yet. It is 74% hydrogen, 24% helium.
http://www.universetoday.com/18088/what-is-the-sun-made-of/
however the actual mass or power density of the sun is irrelevant to our survival
Wrong
If the sun was one million times larger or smaller yet had the same power output, neglecting gravity effects, we as dependent organisms would not notice the difference.
Wrong. If it was a million times bigger we would be engulfed by it. A million times smaller and you wouldn't see it but the radiation would be so concentrated by reducing size and upping power, I wouldn't be able to reply to your ridiculous assessment. Consider other effects of the sun other than heat or light or gravity as well. A million times bigger? How long would a year be?
Rebuttal B barely warrants comment.
A nuclear bomb is purposefully designed to cause destruction. It is not a conventional power source because its power is too great to be usefully harnessed
.
And the sun is a conventional power source then? Designed to heat your kettle and run your fridge?
Rebuttal C.
the ratio of nuclear material in the sun would be 1:6400.
There is still no nuclear material in the sun. Nuclear reactions take place in sun due to intense gravity squashing atoms together causing a nuclear reaction. It is not the same thing. Uranium and plutonium bombs work by using unstable elements past their critical mass. Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction.
This explains why the Sun does not reach a critical state and explode like a nuclear fusion bomb
So clearly it does not. You can work that one out for yourself. PS - Little Boy and Fat man were fission bombs. The ones I used in the example. I believe the planet had to wait until 1952 before the USA detonated the first fusion bomb. The USSR a year later in 1953. Lastly Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen. The sun is using Hydrogen as its direct source of power converting it into Helium. There is thought to be little deuterium in the interior of the Sun and other stars, as at temperatures there nuclear fusion reactions that consume deuterium happen much faster than the proton-proton reaction that creates deuterium.
you get a D-
ClockTower, you just get a sad shake of the head. Don't slag me off, and I won't feel the feed to post in the upper fora. :-X
-
Thork has confessed to trolling and this post is an obvious example. Don't worry about Thork. He has no credibility here any longer.
Why thank you ClockTower. However mindlessly ranting on about credibility brings you no closer to unravelling the deception within the posts. How is your stock in credibility? You are still arguing the earth is round on a children's science forum with low content posts and a belligerent refusal to produce anything worth reading yourself. I have retired as a FE proponent, and will not get sucked into earth's form debates, but will defend my posts as at least having something in them. Albeit often deliberately twisted.
The rebuttal post is lame by the way.
It is modeled as a gas cloud that happens to contain nuclear materials.
No. Hydrogen, helium, lithium etc are not nuclear materials. It is the intense gravity that creates a nucler reaction. A star cannot have nuclear materials. They are all heavy elements. Hydrogen turns to helium, helium to lithium etc all the way up to iron. Once iron is created (Iron being the most stable element) that is the death of the star. Heavy elements are then only created in the ensuing supernova. Our sun hasn't gone supernova. Our sun hasn't really got into even the lithium stage yet. It is 74% hydrogen, 24% helium.
http://www.universetoday.com/18088/what-is-the-sun-made-of/
however the actual mass or power density of the sun is irrelevant to our survival
Wrong
If the sun was one million times larger or smaller yet had the same power output, neglecting gravity effects, we as dependent organisms would not notice the difference.
Wrong. If it was a million times bigger we would be engulfed by it. A million times smaller and you wouldn't see it but the radiation would be so concentrated by reducing size and upping power, I wouldn't be able to reply to your ridiculous assessment. Consider other effects of the sun other than heat or light or gravity as well. A million times bigger? How long would a year be?
Rebuttal B barely warrants comment.
A nuclear bomb is purposefully designed to cause destruction. It is not a conventional power source because its power is too great to be usefully harnessed
.
And the sun is a conventional power source then? Designed to heat your kettle and run your fridge?
Rebuttal C.
the ratio of nuclear material in the sun would be 1:6400.
There is still no nuclear material in the sun. Nuclear reactions take place in sun due to intense gravity squashing atoms together causing a nuclear reaction. It is not the same thing. Uranium and plutonium bombs work by using unstable elements past their critical mass. Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction.
This explains why the Sun does not reach a critical state and explode like a nuclear fusion bomb
So clearly it does not. You can work that one out for yourself. PS - Little Boy and Fat man were fission bombs. The ones I used in the example. I believe the planet had to wait until 1952 before the USA detonated the first fusion bomb. The USSR a year later in 1953. Lastly Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen. The sun is using Hydrogen as its direct source of power converting it into Helium. There is thought to be little deuterium in the interior of the Sun and other stars, as at temperatures there nuclear fusion reactions that consume deuterium happen much faster than the proton-proton reaction that creates deuterium.
you get a D-
ClockTower, you just get a sad shake of the head. Don't slag me off, and I won't feel the feed to post in the upper fora. :-X
You have a funny way of not posting here anymore.
-
The fact that you both are talking about Watts per second is a very clear sign that neither of you have a damn clue what you're talking about. I suspected this was why Parsifal called you on it, Thork - so that an REer wouldn't. It's such a basic mistake.
For clarity - Watts are the unit of power, and they already contain time. 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second.
-
The fact that you both are talking about Watts per second is a very clear sign that neither of you have a damn clue what you're talking about. I suspected this was why Parsifal called you on it, Thork - so that an REer wouldn't. It's such a basic mistake.
For clarity - Watts are the unit of power, and they already contain time. 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second.
bob, we're pretty much resigned that Thork is a troll and not worth the effort. But if you want to have fun with a lame troll, look at the error in assuming that energy density of the Sun is uniform.
-
I'm still laughing at the "fusion" of the Nagasaki bomb.
-
No. Hydrogen, helium, lithium etc are not nuclear materials. It is the intense gravity that creates a nucler reaction.
Hydrogen contains a nuclear material, Deuterium. Yes it requires high temperature and pressure to achieve fusion, but much lower than what is required for many other elements.
Wrong. If it was a million times bigger we would be engulfed by it.
For the larger comment, it depends if u are talking about radius or mass. If the sun was a million times more massive its radius would increase approximately (1,000,000)^(1/3)=100. Earth-Sun distance ~=150,000,000km, and Sun radius ~=700,000km, so 100 times the radius would make it 70,000,000km, so it would get about half-way to us. Of course this is irrelevant because we are arguing about power vs power density.
A million times smaller and you wouldn't see it but the radiation would be so concentrated by reducing size and upping power, I wouldn't be able to reply to your ridiculous assessment. Consider other effects of the sun other than heat or light or gravity as well. A million times bigger? How long would a year be?
First you say "upping the power". When did I say that? I specifically said keep the power constant, but increase its size or mass. I also specifically said ignoring gravitational effects, since we are arguing about power output not gravitational pull causing orbits and stuff. As for the heat and light, if the power output was the same, the heat and light would be the exact same!
And the sun is a conventional power source then? Designed to heat your kettle and run your fridge?
You are purposefully ignoring the difference between power and power density. I was comparing different terrestrial energy sources to show you that power density does not necessarily indicate nuclear power or the presence of nuclear fuel.
There is still no nuclear material in the sun. Nuclear reactions take place in sun due to intense gravity squashing atoms together causing a nuclear reaction. It is not the same thing. Uranium and plutonium ...
Ok so here it appears we simply differ on the definition of nuclear material. That will make the remainder of the argument useless.