The Sun

  • 20 Replies
  • 5106 Views
The Sun
« on: April 26, 2007, 05:36:58 AM »
ok i havent read extensivly through this forum but from all i have read i havent seen this issue with the FE model raised.  if gravity is just an upwards accelleration then what stops the sun from blowing itself apart? just a clear answer please

Re: The Sun
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2007, 05:38:16 AM »
I'm pretty sure this hasn't been covered.  If it has, it probably has to do with ignoring physics in some way.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2007, 06:44:40 AM »
ok please someone explain

Re: The Sun
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2007, 06:51:22 AM »
Best explanation I could find:

We have no idea how much mass the Sun has to eat through. The sun could be as dense as it needs to be. It would be difficult to ascertain the true mass of the sun either way. Even in RE, a tiny dense Neutron star operates via fusion.

The recently reemerged theory of Cold Fusion might even better suit the source of power for the FE sun. It is a class of low energy nuclear reaction, which is part of the condensed matter nuclear science. I haven't looked into the exact mathematics, but this might be a future topic worth investigating considering the sudden reemergence of Cold Fusion's practicality in various scientific circles.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2007, 07:02:16 AM »
all well and good but it doesnt explain why the massive amounts of energy the sun is producing doesnt simply rip the whole thing apart and surely the mere fact that we feel heat on the earth round or flat suggests its not COLD fusion going on in the sun.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2007, 07:02:53 AM »
all well and good but it doesnt explain why the massive amounts of energy the sun is producing doesnt simply rip the whole thing apart and surely the mere fact that we feel heat on the earth round or flat suggests its not COLD fusion going on in the sun.


No comment.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2007, 02:56:12 AM »
Cold fusion doesn't mean it doesn't give out heat, it means that the fusion takes place in relatively "cold" conditions (compared with the million degree temperatures for normal, hot fusion.

It was decided that Tom's abuse of his suspiciously acquired mod powers was too much to let continue.  His account was deleted.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2007, 03:07:42 AM »
sorry my mistake i was forgetting the FE theory places the sun much closer to the earth than the RE meaning it can be colder as the radiation needs not travel so far :-[ my bad

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: The Sun
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2007, 03:14:29 AM »
I was tempted at first to say the rotation of the sun would prevent it, but it moves in such a wierd 'orbit' on a flat eart (up and down for day/nite in/out for the seasons) that I can't see it having a stable rotation.

Secondly if the UA is real, I thought maybe it would push it inwards, but UA is an upwards force, so no joy there.


I was tempted then to say something about everything non-earth has gravity but that won't wash with other thoeries.

Basically it's unanswerable simply because the Sun isnt a flat sotlight but a flaming ball!

Re: The Sun
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2007, 04:28:43 AM »
I was tempted at first to say the rotation of the sun would prevent it, but it moves in such a wierd 'orbit' on a flat eart (up and down for day/nite in/out for the seasons) that I can't see it having a stable rotation.

Look up binary star systems (I think that's them) and you'll have your answer to if it's possible.  If it's possible with stars on RE, Tom will claim that it is also possible for the sun/moon.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: The Sun
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2007, 04:46:19 AM »
I was tempted at first to say the rotation of the sun would prevent it, but it moves in such a wierd 'orbit' on a flat eart (up and down for day/nite in/out for the seasons) that I can't see it having a stable rotation.

Look up binary star systems (I think that's them) and you'll have your answer to if it's possible.  If it's possible with stars on RE, Tom will claim that it is also possible for the sun/moon.

that's not the same thing at all...Binary systems are held in check by each other's gravity, here only one sun which apparently isn't a nice stable ball (or it is, depending on which FE thoery you go with) I'm saying that the Sun moves in ridiculous inexplicable patterns on FE have you seen some of the diagrams posted here?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2007, 05:33:52 AM »
I was tempted at first to say the rotation of the sun would prevent it, but it moves in such a wierd 'orbit' on a flat eart (up and down for day/nite in/out for the seasons) that I can't see it having a stable rotation.

Look up binary star systems (I think that's them) and you'll have your answer to if it's possible.  If it's possible with stars on RE, Tom will claim that it is also possible for the sun/moon.

that's not the same thing at all...Binary systems are held in check by each other's gravity, here only one sun which apparently isn't a nice stable ball (or it is, depending on which FE thoery you go with) I'm saying that the Sun moves in ridiculous inexplicable patterns on FE have you seen some of the diagrams posted here?

Uhhm, the sun/moon are trapped in a binary orbit according to Tom Bishop are they not?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2007, 05:53:35 AM »
Uhhm, the sun/moon are trapped in a binary orbit according to Tom Bishop are they not?

Well Tom Bishop mst be wrong, because:
A. Binary systems require the objects to stay opposite of the barycenter from one another. The sun and moon can be seen at the same time in the sky.
B. Binary systems need to have objects of about the same mass. The sun and the moon can't have same mass because this would throw off the FE explanations for tides and a number of other effects.
C. The objects in a binary system are held together from gravitation by mass. Gravitation by mass can't exist in FE.

Try again.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2007, 05:55:12 AM »
Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point.  But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2007, 05:58:32 AM »
Uhhm, the sun/moon are trapped in a binary orbit according to Tom Bishop are they not?

Well Tom Bishop mst be wrong, because:
A. Binary systems require the objects to stay opposite of the barycenter from one another. The sun and moon can be seen at the same time in the sky.
B. Binary systems need to have objects of about the same mass. The sun and the moon can't have same mass because this would throw off the FE explanations for tides and a number of other effects.
C. The objects in a binary system are held together from gravitation by mass. Gravitation by mass can't exist in FE.

Try again.

A.  Why wouldn't they be?
B.  Tom says they are  ::)
C.  Not sure about the whole gravity/gravitation situation, it's so messed up for FE

Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point.  But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.

Why would they rise/fall in a wave like path?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2007, 06:00:33 AM »
Why would they rise/fall in a wave like path?
They wouldn't.


Re: The Sun
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2007, 06:03:51 AM »
please take note of the fact (to the best of my limited knowledge) that it is only RE'er who are posting here.  this seems like a typical trait of the FE'ers when they find something they cannot explain they ignore it

Re: The Sun
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2007, 06:14:43 AM »
Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point.  But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.

Umm, it doesn't work that way. Binary systems are always changing their distance between one another. Think the Earth and the Moon, think Pluto and Charon, and so on. This is also the reason why the Earth would orbit the sun in an ellipse. If there is a large differential between the masses, the smaller object seems to orbit aound the other, i.e. the sun and planets. If the masses are close, you get something like this.

Now, if you slow the binary orbits down to about once every 365 days, and the Earth rotates beneath it once every 24 or so hours, then Tom's explanation for seasons almost seems almost plausible...except for the reasons I posted above.

The problem with the whole binary thing is that it is made of RE physics, by RE physics, and for RE physics. When you take RE models and throw out some of the entities they're based on (gravitation by mass) you get something that doesn't work. Tom just doesn't understand that and continues to butcher physics as we know it.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 06:21:54 AM by Agent_0042 »
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2007, 06:15:09 AM »
(reply to Tobias)

Because FE is a completely ridiculous, inconsistent theory full of exceptions and inconsistencies.  Earth doesn't have gravity, but the sun moon and stars do.  Why doesn't the sun and moon exert gravity on us?  Are we immune to gravity?  If they do, then the UA is more than 9.8 to compensate for pull from the sun and moon.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: The Sun
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2007, 06:34:32 AM »
Uhhm, the sun/moon are trapped in a binary orbit according to Tom Bishop are they not?

Well Tom Bishop mst be wrong, because:
A. Binary systems require the objects to stay opposite of the barycenter from one another. The sun and moon can be seen at the same time in the sky.
B. Binary systems need to have objects of about the same mass. The sun and the moon can't have same mass because this would throw off the FE explanations for tides and a number of other effects.
C. The objects in a binary system are held together from gravitation by mass. Gravitation by mass can't exist in FE.

Try again.

A.  Why wouldn't they be?
B.  Tom says they are  ::)
C.  Not sure about the whole gravity/gravitation situation, it's so messed up for FE

Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point.  But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.

Why would they rise/fall in a wave like path?

This is how they explain seasons (moving closer to different parts of the Earth at different parts of the year) and day/night (Moves closer to the Earth in the day, further at night, read the FAQ)

Re: The Sun
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2007, 08:55:41 AM »
Uhhm, the sun/moon are trapped in a binary orbit according to Tom Bishop are they not?

Well Tom Bishop mst be wrong, because:
A. Binary systems require the objects to stay opposite of the barycenter from one another. The sun and moon can be seen at the same time in the sky.
B. Binary systems need to have objects of about the same mass. The sun and the moon can't have same mass because this would throw off the FE explanations for tides and a number of other effects.
C. The objects in a binary system are held together from gravitation by mass. Gravitation by mass can't exist in FE.

Try again.

A.  Why wouldn't they be?
B.  Tom says they are  ::)
C.  Not sure about the whole gravity/gravitation situation, it's so messed up for FE

Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point.  But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.

Why would they rise/fall in a wave like path?

This is how they explain seasons (moving closer to different parts of the Earth at different parts of the year) and day/night (Moves closer to the Earth in the day, further at night, read the FAQ)

That doesn't create a wave at all.  That would still keep the sun/moon at a constant distance from earth.  That is what we're talking about right?  The distance they are above the earth/a wave through the differences in the distance?