Solar Flares

  • 58 Replies
  • 8150 Views
?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2007, 03:15:54 PM »
What would you suggest is causing the sun to radiate massive amounts of energy across virtually the entire EM spectrum? Combustion? We know these things through a funny little thing called science. No I did not conduct the experiments myself, but they have been conducted. Yes I trust those results as there is no reason to doubt them.

Edit: You didn't answer what holds the sun together. The RE answer is 'gravitation by mass'.

Many scientist are trying, desperately, to define a set of laws that plasmas operate under. Their movement seems entirely unpredictable. Yet, in these forums, we are to explain how an extremely dense body of plasma undergoing fusion, influenced by the most bizarre forces imaginable is held together? There are millions of factors, and only a small number of them are currently predictable.

So it is very unlikely that they are right for the sun to stay together?

I would say yes, but clearly the sun is staying together. So we know there is a needle in the haystack of unknown forces that is acting on it.

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2007, 03:16:04 PM »
I have a rather obvious question partaining to this sun.  If the sun was only 3000 miles away, would people who picture it not notice that they are only looking out 3000 miles with the telescope and not 93 million~ miles?

This is a good point, a telescope is designed for a specific range and you cannot argue that they mistake the two distances.

Are you saying that a telescope goes out of focus when you are looking at something that is 3k miles away when the scope is set to 93m miles away?

Building a 93m telescope is a significantly harder task than building a 3k one, I think we can agree.
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2007, 03:17:07 PM »
Quote
Are you saying that a telescope goes out of focus when you are looking at something that is 3k miles away when the scope is set to 93m miles away?

Indeed it does. I have personally observed the need to focus differently when looking between different parts of the moon at certain magnifications (the centre of the moon is closer than the edges as it is a sphere), so a 93,000,000 miles discrepancy would definitely get noticed.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2007, 03:18:55 PM »
Quote
Edit: You didn't answer what holds the sun together. The RE answer is 'gravitation by mass'.

FE also has gravitation. It's a side effect of the Equivalence Principle.

Quote
I have a rather obvious question partaining to this sun.  If the sun was only 3000 miles away, would people who picture it not notice that they are only looking out 3000 miles with the telescope and not 93 million~ miles?

It is impossible to discern the distance of the sun just by looking at it. You could be looking at something as big as a lightyear in diameter for all you know. How would you tell if the light you are receiving left two seconds ago or 20 years ago? Are you truly that naive?

Quote
Building a 93m telescope is a significantly harder task than building a 3k one, I think we can agree.

People don't observe the sun through telescopes, they take a picture of it with a special camera through a telescope. A telescope is just a magnification device.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 03:21:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2007, 03:21:12 PM »
If the sun works in a spotlight effect, then do flares too? How can we see flares emerging from the side of the sun then?

Sorry for jumping from point to point, there are so many.
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2007, 03:21:54 PM »
Tom, it would be out of focus. See "laws of optics". I have observed the sun through a telescope using a piece of card to have the image projected...no cameras required.

How would the equivalence principle give the sun and moon gravitation?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2007, 03:22:05 PM »
The sun is a sphere, it light is radiated in all directions. As are its solar flares.

Quote
It would be out of focus. See "laws of optics".

There is no way you can tell in your adjusting of focus if the object is near or far after a distance of a few miles. Notice how when looking through binoculars, distant objects all seem clear despite being far away and being at varying increasing distances. Only very close objects seem blurry. Things being out of focus only works for objects which are very close up. Past a mile, it is imperceptible.

That's not how Astronomers judge for distance, anyway.

Quote
How would the equivalence principle give the sun and moon gravitation?

Because according to Einstein, an accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable to a gravitational field.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 03:28:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2007, 03:23:35 PM »
Then, as I previously proved, unless the sun moved 55,000 km away it would not even come close to setting.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2007, 03:25:14 PM »
Are you saying that a telescope goes out of focus when you are looking at something that is 3k miles away when the scope is set to 93m miles away?

Mine does. (That could just be the crappy Chinese manufacturing, though)

How would the equivalence principle give the sun and moon gravitation?

Please answer the question, Tom.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2007, 03:25:19 PM »
Particles of mass are ejected from the sun at about one third the speed of light. There is a significant time delay between a flare being observed an the particles reaching earth, i.e a few minutes. By your reasoning they would be moving a lot slower than stated speed, which is not consistant with the energies involved in flares.
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2007, 03:28:17 PM »
Tom, with the sun 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles up, if you were looking out to the equivalent of 93 million miles you aren't going to see anything but a blur of colour, unlike what happens in RL.  Right? 

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2007, 03:30:57 PM »
Your ignorance of optics is appalling.

Objects farther than a mile don't blur. There's no setting for "3,000" miles and "93 million miles."

Quote
Particles of mass are ejected from the sun at about one third the speed of light. There is a significant time delay between a flare being observed an the particles reaching earth, i.e a few minutes. By your reasoning they would be moving a lot slower than stated speed, which is not consistant with the energies involved in flares.

Now you're just making things up. We can't physically detect individual particles from the sun. The atmosphere is way too big for that. It's just hypothesized that particles are bombarding the earth at whatever speed. Do you really think we can clock individual particles in the atmosphere?

Show me evidence to assert your claim.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 03:35:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2007, 03:32:29 PM »
There really is. You can observe blurring on the moon as I said.

You still didn't answer "How does the equivalence principle give the sun and moon gravitation?"
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2007, 03:32:41 PM »
Actually, telescopes are constructing with a very specific focal length and aperture, you can calculate their magnification and resolution exactly.
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2007, 03:33:40 PM »
Your ignorance of optics is appalling.

Objects farther than a mile don't blur. There's no setting for "3,000" miles and "93 million miles."

No shit.  But would the process for knowing how far you are looking out with a telescope be similar to that of a microscope?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2007, 03:38:58 PM »
Your ignorance of optics is appalling.

Objects farther than a mile don't blur. There's no setting for "3,000" miles and "93 million miles."

No shit.  But would the process for knowing how far you are looking out with a telescope be similar to that of a microscope?

They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, the effect on the microscope gets more and more pronounced, while that of a telescope gets less and less pronounced.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2007, 03:39:45 PM »
Quote
There really is. You can observe blurring on the moon as I said.

Yes, if you adjust out of focus. But the focus parameters have no barring on distance. Optics and lenses have been around since the 1600's, and the sun's distance has varied wildly in literature.

Quote
You still didn't answer "How does the equivalence principle give the sun and moon gravitation?"

What you know as acceleration is really a gravitational field.

Quote
No shit.  But would the process for knowing how far you are looking out with a telescope be similar to that of a microscope?

No, completely different methodologies. It's much harder, in terms of optics fabrication, to build a microscope than a telescope. See the post above mine.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2007, 03:44:08 PM »
What you know as acceleration is really a gravitational field.

Ummm...what? I'm aware of how this applies to the Earth, how does it apply to the sun and moon?

Let's get this straight, accelerating does not generate a gravitational field around you, the equivalence principle doesn't say that at all, what it says is that it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of mass creating gravity and your natural resistance to acceleration. A fast-accelerating car could generate 1 G on the passengers, but this would act only against the direction of the motion of the car, not in all directions.

Don't think the equivalence principle says "Acceleration is the same as gravity" or "acceleration causes gravity". It says the two are indistinguishable in the right circumstances i.e. in the direction opposite the acceleration. For an object to exert a full gravitational field like a massive object in RE, it would need to constantly accelerate in all directions.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 04:09:03 PM by Tom Bishop »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2007, 03:46:06 PM »
Your ignorance of optics is appalling.

Objects farther than a mile don't blur. There's no setting for "3,000" miles and "93 million miles."

No shit.  But would the process for knowing how far you are looking out with a telescope be similar to that of a microscope?

They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, the effect on the microscope gets more and more pronounced, while that of a telescope gets less and less pronounced.

That's my point, they do the same but opposite thing.  If they find out how far a small telescopic model will view, than why couldn't they judge how far their larger ones would?

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2007, 04:12:45 PM »
Quote
That's my point, they do the same but opposite thing.  If they find out how far a small telescopic model will view, than why couldn't they judge how far their larger ones would?

It doesn't work that way.  If you don't know how far away or how big a specific celestial body is, what hope do you have of determining the distance from the sun through random adjusting of aperature? That's not how astronomers judge distances. Aperture of the lens isn't remotely related to the distance.

Astronomers use triangulation from two distant points on earth, assuming a sphere.

Quote
Let's get this straight, accelerating does not generate a gravitational field around you, the equivalence principle doesn't say that at all,

Yes it does.

For the exact mathematics on Einstein's Principle of Equivalence see this paper on the subject: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

"However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is exactly equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept."

Also, read this recent thread where TheEngineer breaks down the Equivalence Principle: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11670.0

-

Classical gravity, in retrospect, relies on a speculative messenger particle called the Graviton that has not been discovered by modern science. There is a big problem with the existence of the Graviton. In a previous post on this forum Narcberry shares his concerns, which I believe sums it up:

    "If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependant on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

    Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of newtonian physics. It would mean you could create energy from nothing.

    This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistant with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

    Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere."
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 04:18:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #50 on: April 23, 2007, 04:17:43 PM »
Quote
That's my point, they do the same but opposite thing.  If they find out how far a small telescopic model will view, than why couldn't they judge how far their larger ones would?

It doesn't work that way.  If you don't know how far away a specific celestial, what hope do you have of determining the distance from the sun? That's not how astronomers judge distances.

Why on earth would you use a celstial body to determine the strength of a telescope?  I would use something that I know how far away it is from me.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2007, 04:19:57 PM »
Quote
Why on earth would you use a celstial body to determine the strength of a telescope?  I would use something that I know how far away it is from me.

What 3,000 mile distant object would you compare it to?  A country on the other side of the ocean?  ::)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 04:29:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #52 on: April 23, 2007, 04:21:57 PM »
Quote
Why on earth would you use a celstial body to determine the strength of a telescope?  I would use something that I know how far away it is from me.

What 3,000 mile distant object you compare it to?  A country on the other side of the ocean?  ::)

Start with the scales which you would determine the strength of through experiment, then make the big ones which you would CALCULATE the strength of, not determine.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2007, 04:27:40 PM »
So you're saying that a car accelerating at 9.8m/s/s will exert a gravitational force in all directions equivalent to Earth's?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2007, 04:28:49 PM »
So you're saying that a car accelerating at 9.8m/s/s will exert a gravitational force in all directions equivalent to Earth's?

I'm pretty sure that is the false, but correct limited FE view.  TheEngineer says otherwise (If I have this right).

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2007, 04:33:59 PM »
Quote
Start with the scales which you would determine the strength of through experiment, then make the big ones which you would CALCULATE the strength of, not determine.

Good luck in your experiment and profound assumption that focus is linear. Report back to us when you've proven that the earth is a globe.

Quote
So you're saying that a car accelerating at 9.8m/s/s will exert a gravitational force in all directions equivalent to Earth's?

Read the article.

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2007, 04:42:15 PM »
Well, I really didn't mean to say that a scale would be the same, but stronger (in a linear pattern), as a large scale.  I'm saying that I'm sure there are methods to calculate the strength of telescopes after determining strength through experiment on weaker ones.  Didn't mean to misslead.  Why on earth would people spend money on telescopes if they couldn't even determine if what they were doing would do any good anyway?  (That last sentence is a rhetorical question.  I swear, some people on these forums have never heard of them. 

Edit: Which means you can determine how far you are looking with larger telescopes, and it would be obvious if the sun was that close.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 04:52:12 PM by EIRD »

*

sokarul

  • 17577
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2007, 05:09:21 PM »
So you're saying that a car accelerating at 9.8m/s/s will exert a gravitational force in all directions equivalent to Earth's?

Apparently so, so I guess the next time your kids our fighting over a toy in the back seat just throw it out the window.  It will be orbiting you so you won't actually lose it.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Solar Flares
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2007, 05:58:11 PM »
So you're saying that a car accelerating at 9.8m/s/s will exert a gravitational force in all directions equivalent to Earth's?

Apparently so, so I guess the next time your kids our fighting over a toy in the back seat just throw it out the window.  It will be orbiting you so you won't actually lose it.

Well, I guess if you were in a vacuum.