The Sun

How was it worked out that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and 3,000 miles away?
If FE is true, how can the Sun provide such a huge amount of light and heat to the Earth? At any one time, the Sun would be covering an area over 300,000 times bigger than itself.

A while back someone on this forum did calculations showing that that since the RE sun is so much farther away, it needs to output a lot more energy per square inch to heat up the earth than the FE sun. Since the FE sun is so much closer, to heat up the earth it only needs to output a fraction of the RE sun's energy per square inch.

If I get bored I'll take a look and see if I can find those calculations again.

A while back someone on this forum did calculations showing that that since the RE sun is so much farther away, it needs to output a lot more energy per square inch to heat up the earth than the FE sun. Since the FE sun is so much closer, to heat up the earth it only needs to output a fraction of the RE sun's energy per square inch.

If I get bored I'll take a look and see if I can find those calculations again.

The power per unit area is necessarily the same for both models.  However, the total power output of the RE sun and FE sun differ substantially.

I posted this some time ago
from this thread
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19125.msg349361#msg349361

Accepted figures for the Sun
Energy emitted at the surface = 63 000 000Wm^-2
Radius = 700000km
Earth-Sun distance = 149 600 000km(rounded)

Inverse square law of radiation
S/(4*PI*r^2)=I

S/(4*PI*700000^2)=63*10^12W/km^2
S=(6.1*10^12)*63*10^12
S=3.9^10^26      387,923,860,865,267,669,085

Inverse square 149600000/700000=213 radius to Earth
1/213^2=1/45521
Intensity at Earth = 8.5*10^15

For the RE Sun

FE Sun
To receive the same amount of energy on Earth I at the Earth must be constant

Radius = 25.6km
Earth-Sun distance = 4800km

1/188^2=1/35344
8.5*10^15=(1/35344)*I
I=2.4*10^11


S/(4*PI*2400^2) = 2.4*10^11
S=72382294*241112097413
S=1.7*10^19

Volume difference
4/3*PI*r^3

RE Sun = 1.4*10^18 cubic kilometers

FE Sun = 70276 cubic kilometers

The FE Sun is 1.9^10^13 times smaller than the RE Sun.

What method of energy production is assumed to power a sphere this size to produce the energies above?
What powers keep the FE Sun from exploding due to the contained energy?

One thing is that according to TB, gravitational attraction by the stars is due to their energy density. The energy density of a FE sun is fairly remarkable for it's size and proximity to the surface of the Earth. I would have imagined if the stars cause some kind of effect on the clouds(not sure what it was) then the Sun would probably cause havoc.

And you know the stars are less energetically dense than the sun, how?

Well a commonly raised point is that stars are motes of dust.

I still don't understand how the FE Sun holds together. How would microscopic dust motes hold together if they had the energy density of a RE star?

I don't know, but I find it hard to believe.

I have no evidence that the stars are motes of dust. I like to think they are placed throughout the heavens somewhat like a fractal pattern -- smaller and smaller but maintaining the same basic common forms. I don't know that it is strictly a fractal pattern, but something similar.

Sure. Well I haven't heard that line of thought before.

What are they composed of?

I wouldn't pretend to know.

I wouldn't pretend to know.

Of course you could.  You pretend to know just about everything else about the flat earth.   

The story of FE so far:

"We will take this well established and tested fact and throw it out of the window, and replace it with an idea that some guy in the 18th century proposed. We will not test our idea, instead relying on the one result this guy got a few hundred years ago in an experiment that has never been succesfully repeated, and in fact regularly has had the opposite result to what this guy got.
We will not offer any coherent explanation for the vast array of natural phenomona that are experienced every day, and in fact sometimes claim we have no explanation for them at all. It will not occur to us that the well-established theory elegantly explains all of these things.
We will denounce the huge amount of evidence against our idea as a conspiracy, of which we will offer no proof."

I can see the earth is flat. That's observable phenomona. RE requires I assume it just 'curves' because of an inexplicable force called gravity.

My kitchen floor is flat, therefore the Earth is flat.

My kitchen floor is flat, therefore the Earth is flat.

Please don't stoop to using quantificational fallacies to make an argument.  You're better than that.   For those unaware, this is a "Proof by Example" fallacy.  You can look it up if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

You haven't been here long enough. Has he, Narcberry?

We've been over this before. You see a small part of the earth. It maybe flat. You cannot extrapolate that to the whole of the planet.

Back on topic please.

I love the way you accepted the RE off-topic post I was replying to, but expect me to post on topic. You being a moderator and having the authority to tell me what to do, of course.

The point is I can't observe the earth being round (without being told to do something financialy impossible), it appears flat from any point on the earth I have ever stood, and hence it is far more logical to extrapolate that it is flat than that it is round because of an inexplicable force.

Personally I've never seen the planet as flat; I've always lived in fairly hilly locations. Evidence seems to suggest that most FEers live in the middle of a huge plain, however.

As for what the Sun and stars are made of, spectral analysis suggests that they are composed mainly of hydrogen.

I have seen a large portion of North America and Europe. The whole of which have appeared flat. I think Marko earlier suggested the earth was a snow-globe where most of the world is flat but Asia is curved, but I find it hard to take seriously.

Personally I've never seen the planet as flat; I've always lived in fairly hilly locations. Evidence seems to suggest that most FEers live in the middle of a huge plain, however.

While not claiming to be an FEer, I've managed to travel over large portions of the earth, some flat, some bumpy, some downright steep and mountainous.  In fact, for awhile I lived in Colorado and managed to hike a couple of 14,000 foot peaks.  During that time I never saw anything that would, alone lead me to believe the earth was round.  Again, I'm not choosing sides, I'm simply pointing out that earthbound altitude never caused me to question or confirm my beliefs regarding the state of the planet's shape. 

While I admit that I am not a mathematician, the thing in your post that immediately stands out is that trigonometry is a study of right triangles.  If the earth were curved, as you seem to say, wouldn't the ability to form a right triangle be impossible?  Even adjusting for a slight curvature of the earth would seem to call the entire enterprise into question.

While I admit that I am not a mathematician, the thing in your post that immediately stands out is that trigonometry is a study of right triangles.  If the earth were curved, as you seem to say, wouldn't the ability to form a right triangle be impossible?  Even adjusting for a slight curvature of the earth would seem to call the entire enterprise into question.

Trigonometry is the study of triangles in general, not just right triangles.