The RE sun, bombs, and you!

Narc, the reason that all of the hydrogen doesn't fuse at the same time is that the only hydrogen that is under sufficient pressure to produce the continuing reaction is that at the Sun's center. The Hydrogen at the surface is not under abnormal pressure (other the massive gravitational pull, which wouldn't make it fuse).

I can't see where you don't get this Narco, can you please point out the points in our arguement that make you want to argue?

Yeah I've set off a lot of firecrackers that won't explode because of the massive force of gravity...

You have firecrackers the size of the sun?

You don't?

I think it is clear by now that the RE sun theory just doesn't work.

I think it is clear by now that the RE sun theory just doesn't work.

Keep dreaming. 

Despite he fact that RE has resented plenty of evidence AND disprovd your case. Yes, you obviously win...

Yes, you obviously win...

Yay, we agree!

Thaks for playing Narcster, sorry RE kicked your ass.

I think it is clear by now that the RE sun theory just doesn't work.

With those refutations of awesomeness, you are 100% cough**in**cough correct.

So, about this force of gravity which doesn't exist:

A) With small speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is CORRECT. Newton's theory of gravity contains a force called GRAVITY or the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. There is nothing wrong with using the word GRAVITY.¹
B) At high speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is WRONG. There IS no force of gravity because it would create contradictions. Then we cannot use the word "gravity" (pertaining to the force of gravity).

If our geologist friend here is measuring how large mountains are (which aren't very big, and aren't moving very fast), he is certainly able to use Newton's theory of gravitation, in which there exists a force called (gasp!) gravity!

1: By correct I mean agrees with experimental evidence to any detectable precision.

Generally, when something doesn't work, it's not used anymore. GR works just fine with gravitation, and in GR, gravity as a force does not exist. That's the entire point.

Quote from: andrews on July 28, 2007, 08:01:17 PM

So, about this force of gravity which doesn't exist:

A) With small speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is CORRECT. Newton's theory of gravity contains a force called GRAVITY or the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. There is nothing wrong with using the word GRAVITY.¹
B) At high speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is WRONG. There IS no force of gravity because it would create contradictions. Then we cannot use the word "gravity" (pertaining to the force of gravity).

If our geologist friend here is measuring how large mountains are (which aren't very big, and aren't moving very fast), he is certainly able to use Newton's theory of gravitation, in which there exists a force called (gasp!) gravity!

1: By correct I mean agrees with experimental evidence to any detectable precision.

Generally, when something doesn't work, it's not used anymore. GR works just fine with gravitation, and in GR, gravity as a force does not exist. That's the entire point.

I agree that GR is a better theory in terms of range of applicability, and that a force called gravity doesn't make sense (actually I'm trusting you guys to be right!), but for some (most) purposes, it is unnecessarily complicated (face it, who here actually understands GR?). What I am saying is that Newton's theory works just fine in most cases. That's my point.

Nobody said it didn't work just fine.  However, it is flawed, as it assumes gravity to be a force which is applied instantaneously.  In GR, it is not a force and is limited to the speed of light.

Nobody said it didn't work just fine.  However, it is flawed, as it assumes gravity to be a force which is applied instantaneously.  In GR, it is not a force and is limited to the speed of light.

Ok fine, nobody use Newtons formula for gravity. From now on just use the derivation of the GR gravity formula when its velocity is near zero when compared to the speed of light. just for reference that derived formula is F=Gm/r²
That should clear up any confusion from here on out

How does that apply to what I said?

It comes from GR so therefore it is not flawed and we can use it to demonstrate gravitation without being refuted as a flawed equation

It comes from GR so therefore it is not flawed and we can use it to demonstrate gravitation without being refuted as a flawed equation

flawed does not mean useless.
The transmission in new fords is flawed yet it will still work for a long time before it gives out.

Can we get back on topic?

Can we get back on topic?

No. Apparently you forgot where you are.

The flat earth society. The only real topic is what's not in the subject line.

No. Apparently you forgot where you are.

The flat earth society. The only real topic is what's not in the subject line.

 

Double 

Ever been to a barbeque? Someone starts the charcoal using too much lighter fluid and giant flames erupt. After the flames are going, more fuel will make the flames bigger, brighter, and hotter.

Ever play with black powder? The more you use, the bigger the bang. This is always the case.

Nuclear weapons are the same way. The bigger the core, the bigger the explosion. However, you can make a bomb so big that it wont explode. That's right. You give it soo much fuel that it would rather burn slowly, over billions of years.

Cue the sun. The fantastic giant bomb that never explodes. It's magical properties allow it to maintain unimagineably high pressure, heat, and fuel supply (3 things that bombs love) without ever exploding. Just slowly burn, you magical monster you!

A pot of hot water thrown in the arctic will freeze before it hits the ground. This is because hot water freezes faster than cold water.

Using your logic.. this physics fact is so totally "whacky" that it must not be true.

You referred to the RE sun as "magical". This leads to an obvious question.
Question: If the current model of the sun doesn't make sense in physics because it's too "whacky" to be true.. what exactly IS the sun? I've asked Tom this like 100 times but he doesn't even try to respond. He denied that it's a giant space laser powered by happiness, so now I'm totally confused. 

The sun is an object denser than earth. We know it is denser because it has a higher equilibrium than earth within the UA. Its regular cycles are the effects of residual motion. The pressure of the UA has squished the sun so that the top and bottom are nearly flat. The bottom surface is dense, flat, and highly reflective. As the heat, which comes from the core of earth, dissipates towards the sun it is reflected off the surface. This is why sunlight is percieved as "warm." Most of this infrared light is changed due to the acceleration of the earth and sun, as well as atmospheric effects into visible light.

There, much more likely than a giant bomb that is fueled, detonated but refuses to explode.

A pot of hot water thrown in the arctic will freeze before it hits the ground.

I'd like to see that.

The pressure of the UA has squished the sun so that the top and bottom are nearly flat

If the Sun is squished like that how come no matter what angle you look at it its always round? If its an optical illusion that makes it appear round then how was it possible to work out it got squished? If you can conclusively prove that its been squished then I will be very impressed.

Quote

The pressure of the UA has squished the sun so that the top and bottom are nearly flat

If the Sun is squished like that how come no matter what angle you look at it its always round? If its an optical illusion that makes it appear round then how was it possible to work out it got squished? If you can conclusively prove that its been squished then I will be very impressed.

It is assumed squished based on experimental accelerative models. We have no conclusive evidence, we have good theories that are consistant with our experience and data.

Quote from: Squirrel on September 05, 2007, 02:16:11 PM

Quote

The pressure of the UA has squished the sun so that the top and bottom are nearly flat

If the Sun is squished like that how come no matter what angle you look at it its always round? If its an optical illusion that makes it appear round then how was it possible to work out it got squished? If you can conclusively prove that its been squished then I will be very impressed.

It is assumed squished based on experimental accelerative models. We have no conclusive evidence, we have good theories that are consistant with our experience and data.

More accurately, you have horrible theories that are inconsistent with your experience and data. For example you need only do the math to realize that over 3,000 miles between Sun and the FE's surface the blue-shift of light from infrared (heat) to blue (visible) would be impossible to explain by the FE's acceleration. Furthermore, I know of no theory, and FEers have presented none to my knowledge, that atmospheric effects can cause blue-shifting.

Is there any chance you could redirect me to these models? A debate without me seeing your data would just end up being a pointless argument proving nothing. If the data isn't easily available can you give me a brief summary?

Is there any chance you could redirect me to these models? A debate without me seeing your data would just end up being a pointless argument proving nothing. If the data isn't easily available can you give me a brief summary?

Are you talking about the squished attribute of the sun specifically?

I was but if theres anywhere where there is a list of experiments and research that has been done then I would like to read it. It might be that theres a link somewhere on the site that I'm just too blind to notice.

Quote from: KingBunny on September 05, 2007, 07:14:55 AM

A pot of hot water thrown in the arctic will freeze before it hits the ground.

I'd like to see that.

k