Why the Sun Doesn't Work

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

Maybe the sun does not use nuclear fusion to create its light and heat.

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

FE'rs do not even admit that the Sun should be seen smaller and less bright at dawn and dusk than at midday.

It is true, either the Sun would be far too small to have started fusion, or it would be far too small to contain enough chemicals for a fire that has been burning for billions of years, or it would be a brown dwarf (a star that started being several times the size of the Sun as modern science knows it and imploded.

There is no way to do a single important prediction about the Sun starting with Rowbotham's idea of a cosmos.

As long as we talk about the Sun, there is another problem to consider: The Sun distributes, on average throughout the year, the same amount of energy to both poles. But while the Arctic is a medium-sized island, Antarctica is a huge rim more than 60000 miles long.

If the energy received by the Arctic is just enough to keep water at -40^oC to 0^oC, the vastly greater Ice Wall, distributing the same energy on many times the area, would hve a temperature of at most half that of the Arctic (and that is being very, very generous with FE). That means the Antarctic would have temperatures of about -150^oC and lower, and that is cold enough to liquefy nitrogen.

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

"Gravity" as you know it does not exist

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

So you're saying that if and when the physicists finally create a sustained fusion reaction the reactor would have to be the size of the Earth?

The sun's made up of different compounds than the Earth. Mass is not a sufficient condition for nuclear fusion to happen.

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

"Gravity" as you know it does not exist

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

Didn't you see your own two phrases? "We" do not know much, so "You" are talking without knowing.

We (those who accept modern science) can predict the apparent location of the Sun and the other celestial objects, have shown that our measurements are consistent with the theory we endorse, and even have detected the neutrinos that result from the atomic fusion in the Sun. From the simple experiments that anyone can do with little more than a compass to the sophisticated and hard to understand and incredibly expensive, we have a lot of experiments that warrant the assumptions of grogberries.

On the other hand, it is also true that "you" the FE believers do not know much about the Sun or Earth. If we measure the knowledge through predictable results, even your "not much" is a wild overestimation. "Almost nothing" would be a lot closer to the truth.

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

So you're saying that if and when the physicists finally create a sustained fusion reaction the reactor would have to be the size of the Earth?

The sun's made up of different compounds than the Earth. Mass is not a sufficient condition for nuclear fusion to happen.

You are mixing two absolutely unrelated issues: The knowledge about how to produce a nuclear fusion reaction and the technology to create nuclear fusion reactions are one thing, the capacity to make it commercially feasible is another.

There is no doubt that our models describing the requirements to make the fusion happen in the center of the Sun are sound, since we have come close to those conditions on Earth and the partial results confirm the validity of the models. We have produced nuclear fusion in the laboratories.

Now, the fact that we are able to surpass the temperature requirements but not the pressure requirements to make the fusion self sustaining does not invalidate our knowledge.

Mass plus hydrogen plus pressure plus temperature is enough to make the fusion happen. We are able to create these conditions here on Earth, and we have seen the fusion happen for some decades now. Self sustaining fusion reactions are not feasible for the predictable future and the ability to recover more energy than what is put into the reactor, as far as I know, has been possible for a few years.

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

So you're saying that if and when the physicists finally create a sustained fusion reaction the reactor would have to be the size of the Earth?

The sun's made up of different compounds than the Earth. Mass is not a sufficient condition for nuclear fusion to happen.

Mass is a sufficient condition for nuclear fusion to happen. Except that the sun is much too small for this to happen so it must not be happening by this process. The sun is made up of primarily Hydrogen and Helium. All of which are on earth and the earth is just waste products from other stars that have caste off their mass. But the sun is not a star! It is yet another unexplainable, unique celestial body just like our flat plane we exist on.

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

"Gravity" as you know it does not exist

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

You are a silly person.

You're such an idiot I don't know where to begin helping you.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 15, 2009, 09:43:48 AM

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

"Gravity" as you know it does not exist

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

You are a silly person.

What's wrong with his statements?

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 01:10:47 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 15, 2009, 09:43:48 AM

Quote from: grogberries on January 15, 2009, 12:23:01 AM

According to the FAQ the sun is 32 miles in diameter. And sense the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, it must be less massive. This means that the earth is more likely to undergo nuclear fusion than the sun. So since the earth is flat and does not fuse nuclei, the sun must not produce light by way of fusion and it is not a star. What is it and how does it produce light?

"Gravity" as you know it does not exist

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

You are a silly person.

What's wrong with his statements?

Nearly everything.

We do not know much about the sun or the earth. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

We know plenty about the Sun and Earth in both models. The only difference is that the FE model assumes that most of the evidence is faked by the conspiracy, or evidence of a vast array of otherwise unexplainable forces.

I just really wanted to point out that the sun is not a star.

The problem is you are incapable of understanding basic physics.

The problem is you are incapable of understanding basic physics.

So then what powers the sun and how does it fool us into thinking what we do about it

The problem is you are incapable of understanding basic physics.

F=m*a

The problem is you are incapable of understanding basic FE physics.

Fixed that for you.  As we all know, FE physics bear little resemblance RE physics. *cough* bendy light *cough*