Put the spectroscopy bullshit to rest already

I'm saying the Sun is solid. if it is solid, spectroscopy will only measure the composition of the gases that get in the way of its light.
For a gaseous Sun, the gases that get in the way compose it. For a solid Sun, there would be either abstractly between the Sun and us, or be against its surface for whatever reason. Personally I conclude that they are against the Sun.

Quote

Maybe a refresher will help. In one sentence, what is the topic?

Try starting here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74133.msg2018103#msg2018103

This is a refutation of the RE claim that the absorption spectra of the Sun tells us its composition.

Quote

Refresher:  either agree with JROWE or you are... insert insults...
To disagree is to ignore in his mind.  Always has been.  To ask for clarification or evidence is insulting him in his mind.

No.
A hundred times no.
I am sick of this. You lie openly, blatantly, right to my face.
I like it when people disagree. I like to debate. I do not like wasting my time with a hundred people that aren't saying anything of relevance or value. if you want to debate, respond to what I say rather than ignore it. David is guilty of that, any readthrough of the threads on my forum will demonstrate that. I answer his question, he repeats it without the slightest acknowledgement.
If you ask for evidence when we have already spoken dozens of time before and you have already been directed to it, then you are wasting time, objectively.

I like discussion, but I like honest discussion. The only time I ever lose my temper is when I am face to face with dishonest tactics. Posturing, like yours, and like David's. Outright wilful ignorance, like lonegranger's. I am not going to put up with it, don't whinge when you get called out.

You have people in this thread that didn't even read the OP. Fuck you if you think I am the unreasonable one here.

Find such a combination.
Until you do, stop acting like it is possible.

I don't know what you want me to say. The Sun is too hot to be solid. The absorption lines make it clear what the plasma/gaseous surface of the Sun is composed of and what the ratios are. It is 73.5% Hydrogen, 25% Helium, .75% Oxygen and the rest is trace elements. The spectrum doesn't lie.

My whole point from the start is that the spectra of the sun and many of the stars shows that they cannot be solid.

Don't get all huffy with me junior.  What i said is plainly true.  Anyone can pull up your posts to verify that.  Hell, even look through this very thread. 
So stop complaining and insulting people when they disagree with you.  Stop lying about wanting that.  Basically stop acting like a child who got fussed at.  Either have the guts to answer questions about your assertions like an actual adult, or condemn yourself to mockery.  It makes no real difference to me.  My only skin in this game is that I honestly like you for some reason and I tire of seeing you mocked.  I actually want you to stand up for yourself, not childishly lash out.

Quote

Quote

I'll have to strongly disagree with you here : anyone on Earth can see details on the surface of the Sun that are small enough to allow for a precise measurement of its period of rotation. See for example https://petapixel.com/2013/02/13/photographer-captures-detailed-photos-of-the-sun-from-his-backyard/ : I literally just googled "amateur picture of the Sun", and as you can see, these photographs anyone could take. Such a detailed view of the Sun would allow for error margins much thinner than the 1 day to which you are referring.

I'll have to get back to you on that, there are some serious technical questions to ask. The majority of the image looks like natural distortion rather than a detailed perspective of something supposedly billions of km away.

I don't know where you see distorsion. But even if there was, there are telescopes out there that use adaptative optics to actively correct wavefront distortion from the Earth's atmosphere. Even better, there are space telescopes, which do not suffer from said distorsion at all. All of them give the same rotation rate for the Sun. Granted, you won't find these in everyone's garden, but they're there.

Quote

Quote

Concerning your last question : yes I have, namely the fact that the frequencies of all spectral lines from all known (or unknown) elements in the Universe can be computed by means of quantum mechanics. A given element doesn't feature just one absorbtion line, it features tens and tens of them, so that you would have to find an element whose entire spectrum is in the Sun's observed absorption spectrum. There is none... unless you take redshift into account.

I don't fully understand your objection here; you already believe there are elements contained in the absorption spectrum. I'm just proposing different ones. Yes, there are multiple lines for each element, but there's no reason what gets read as hydrogen has to just be one other element, there could be multiple elements all making up part of those lines, and then part of the rest of the spectum.

If you say "there is iron there" for example, all of iron absorption lines have to be there, not just one or two. Now, anyone can look for such or such element and observe if they are present or not, and in what proportions. And observations for the Sun show conclusively that it is comprised of about 71 % of hydrogen, 27 % of helium, and a little over 1 % of metals.

I don't know where you see distorsion. But even if there was, there are telescopes out there that use adaptative optics to actively correct wavefront distortion from the Earth's atmosphere. Even better, there are space telescopes, which do not suffer from said distorsion at all. All of them give the same rotation rate for the Sun. Granted, you won't find these in everyone's garden, but they're there.

If you say "there is iron there" for example, all of iron absorption lines have to be there, not just one or two. Now, anyone can look for such or such element and observe if they are present or not, and in what proportions. And observations for the Sun show conclusively that it is comprised of about 71 % of hydrogen, 27 % of helium, and a little over 1 % of metals.

Quote

Find such a combination.
Until you do, stop acting like it is possible.

Prove there is no combination. Until then, stop acting like it's impossible.

I'm not the one that relies on spectroscopy, it's a roundie argument, I'm not doing your job for you.

If the Sun was as hot as you say and as close as FET states, we would be dead. It doesn't work like that.

I've already been over unreliabilities in how you try to measure the temperature.

Quote

My whole point from the start is that the spectra of the sun and many of the stars shows that they cannot be solid.

Nope, refuted, pay attention.

I am polite by default, but when someone repeatedly openly lies to my face

I answer questions and justify everything I say.

Look at this thread. Genuinely.

who is openly asserting and refusing every time I ask him to justify it... They deserve nothing. They are trolls.

I have provided a reference to the spectral lines of the elements.
From that it is quite clear that you can't just magically make something appear as hydrogen shifted (or a combination of elements shifted).

No, you are the one making an argument that the apparently red-shifted signals are in fact just other elements.
As such it is your job to show this.

You repeatedly made baseless assertions which you were completely unable to back up.

It's the basic sight of the Sun's surface. You get regular, repeating patterns that resemble static more than anything naturally occurring.

Space telescopes are unreliable is space travel is unconfirmed.

if there were space travel, the world would not be flat so we wouldn't need to talk about this.

Stop lying. Your posted a link and said "There! Done!" and washed your hands of it without bothering to provide any actual proof.

Nope. Using spectroscopy to prove the composition of the Sun is a roundie argument. You know that.

No, you just ignored it, like always.

Why is it every fucking time I see you post you have nothing but more lies?

What is the fucking point. I'm done.

Half your post is just whining and whinging and as ever you have no argument.

So, back up your claim that no combination of elements could provide the lines we see directly on the absorption spectra of the Sun, or fuck off.

I provided a link showing the highly specific nature and significantly different patterns of spectral lines.
These indicated you can't simply substitute in other elements to make the same pattern instead of redshifting.

Quote

I provided a link showing the highly specific nature and significantly different patterns of spectral lines.
These indicated you can't simply substitute in other elements to make the same pattern instead of redshifting.

No it doesn't, it indicates there are a lot of spectral lines that might need to be combined.

I am not humoring your bullshit evasion.
You are the one that relies on making this spectroscopy argument, you are the one that needs to prove it. I don't give a damn about it, it doesn't work until you prove it.

You have the nerve to talk about proof! Where are the proofs for all the claims you make?
How about providing some of your own.

Quote

You have the nerve to talk about proof! Where are the proofs for all the claims you make?
How about providing some of your own.

Look at that. I get a roundie on the run, and you pop in to try and distract and help them evade.

Already provided the evidence, linked in my sig all the time. You just ignore it because it's all you can do.

Do you feel like help jackblack justify his point, or will you keep evading?

No it doesn't, it indicates there are a lot of spectral lines that might need to be combined.

I am not humoring your bullshit evasion.

Quote

I provided a link showing the highly specific nature and significantly different patterns of spectral lines.
These indicated you can't simply substitute in other elements to make the same pattern instead of redshifting.

No it doesn't, it indicates there are a lot of spectral lines that might need to be combined.

I am not humoring your bullshit evasion.
You are the one that relies on making this spectroscopy argument, you are the one that needs to prove it. I don't give a damn about it, it doesn't work until you prove it.