It was an aside. Why do you feel you need to try and contradict anything I say? What I referenced is a fact. Carbon dating is only known to be accurate up to 6 thousand years. After that, it is assumed accurate. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. But scientifically it is only proven to be accurate up to 6 thousand years.
Since when are we discussing carbon dating? We can't carbon date the sun. Well maybe you can, but not me.
Who said gravity?
Me just now. Enough mass to keep the sun burning would give birth to a small black hole. Unless you don't believe in black holes. :O
This is explained elsewhere, but simply the UA effect is dampened by distance, much like a magnetic field. The denser objects find equilibrium at higher altitudes.
Surely dampened by distance, we accelerate away yet gravitation remains constant?
If its dampened by distance why does it follow us? WHAT'S GOING ON?! A second UA pushing the first?
Are you saying we understand all celestial forces? You are naive.
1. No I'm not.
2. I would have said that, prove it wrong.
3. I was just saying we know more about gravity than the UA. (which has no evidence for it)
Your assuming an FE sun that puts out RE levels of radiation. The proportions are the same and indistinguishable.
I'm assuming that nuclear fusion acts the same way everywhere in the same conditions. Everything we know from advancing our studies in the lab to functioning power plants supports this. I took into account that the FE sun was smaller with less when I said the radiation levels would be extremely high.
The earth is flat, the sun is not.
It has a flattened surface.
WTF? Now it's the shape of a dented orange?
One second, I'll get it.
Thank you.