What powers the Sun?

What object other than a rotating sphere could exhibit this type of motion?



The only thing I can think of is a man-made circular image of a sphere, but we didn't make Jupiter.

That's a tragically obvious piece of CGI. They even forgot to paste stars into the background.

Ummm. . .k, then explain how I saw almost an identical bit of footage when I was in elementary school, please.  And before you say CGI, I was in elementary school between 1981 and 1986, and again, before anyone starts in with "supercomputers," my grandfather was one of the original computer programmers in the 70s and he was jazzed about what they could do, which was about as much as a modern copy machine, provided they had punch cards fed in at regular intervals.

Ummm. . .k, then explain how I saw almost an identical bit of footage when I was in elementary school, please.  And before you say CGI, I was in elementary school between 1981 and 1986, and again, before anyone starts in with "supercomputers," my grandfather was one of the original computer programmers in the 70s and he was jazzed about what they could do, which was about as much as a modern copy machine, provided they had punch cards fed in at regular intervals.

That footage was probably just made with a model on a wire, then. I bet it was grainy and fairly unclear, no High-Definition back in the early 80's.

I've seen all manner of ridiculous globularist propaganda in a variety of different media. Do you honestly think the only reason I still think the Earth is flat is that I just happen not to have seen any of this stuff? Did you think that by posting it I would suddenly realise my terrible mistake?

No, that's not what I personally thought at all. I am just intrigued at what your responses will be considering you are defending a ridiculous set of notions.

That's a tragically obvious piece of CGI. They even forgot to paste stars into the background.

  Why should there be stars visible in the background?  Have you been taking photography lessons from Tom Bishop?

No, no hi-definition, but the media was not nearly as grainy as one might expect.  It was almost precisely like what was shown there.  And seriously, I still am not seeing what the gain of making all this crap up.  I'm no scientist, but I have been involved in entertainment tech/production for 20 years and I can assure you that whatever "conspiracy" would spend a hefty sum creating the kind of hoaxes assumed here, especially prior to the advent of computers.  The profit margin after "faking" tons of equipment (which I've seen personally), footage, photos, and "performances" would be mighty slim, considering the numbers of people who'd have to be on their payroll.  It would have to be more profitable for each and every person involved to spend a lot of energy keeping this secret than to spill it.  

NASA's 2008 budget was just over $17B.  People Magazine is happy to pay $10M for pictures of Brangelina's twins; how much do you think they'd pay for one little bit of proof of a global conspiracy?  How about some of the harder news media like Time or Newsweek?  How about Fox News?  Hell, they could have a field day, blaming and bringing down all the "crazy lefties," and maybe stave off the right-wing collapse for a couple decades, given that information.  

If there were only 1700 people on the Conspiracy's payroll, they'd each get $10M.  Roughly 200 staffers are required to bring an average-sized opera through to closing night.  Do we suspect that a global conspiracy would take less than ten times as many people to produce/maintain than an opera?  And that doesn't even take into consideration the "props--" vehicles, sets, falsified pictures, potential bribes, etc etc.  As we've seen with the various governmental bailouts, $17B doesn't buy a whole lot these days.

^Not from NASA.^

Explain it, please, if you will.

No-one has satisfactorily explained yet where the energy used to power the Sun comes from.

There are no spherical, rotational celestial bodies in space. See how your predetermined globularist convictions shape your own justifications of the theory. It's a circular belief system.

That is just such a excuse that you levelitarists could come up. Anything that threatens you you just bash down with demagogy. But anyway, as you didn't require us to deny the existence of the telescopes then you must be aware that people observe the sun and other planets through telescopes. And you can observe sub spots moving. They disappear from one edge and the reappear from another. And so with the moons which circle around planets.

Since flatulence is a characteristic of living things, surely the presence of Solar flatulence would actually be evidence IN FAVOUR of the notion that the Sun is bioluminescent rather than against it?

  If it is a flatulence. Flatulence consists of gases and you usually can see gases when they burn. So, if it is burning faltulence on the picture then the Sun can't be bioluminescent because luminescence is cold light. And if the Sun is bioluminescent then you actually claim that we can't distinct between cold and hot light.

RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.

I don't see why you'd doubt the legitimacy of the video; it doesn't prove that much, either way. Last time I looked at Saturn though my telescope it looked exactly like that.

Also, I don't see why "no stars" necessitates a faked video. The video was shot with a 480x magnification. The entire view is probably at most about twice as wide as the apparent diameter of the sun, and so it's conceivable that there weren't any bright stars right next to the planet, considering the amount of light pollution in Germany. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Light_pollution_europe.jpg

Guys, we're getting off topic. FET still needs to produce a fuel source that can provide loads of energy, the observed line spectra and can last for billions of years.

Everybody forget about physics?

If that ridiculous proposition were true, how would the Sun emit light at all, regardless of what shape the Earth is?

nuclear fusion! People, i was teached to try to answer any question on my own before asking! Do some research before asking about everything.
Also, how could everybody forget about one thing:
temperature of the sun is about ~5,778K - in that state, almos every compound and element is at gaseous state(tungsten, rhenium and maybe some salts like carbides would be liquid) - if there is no gravity, nothing would held the sun together, so why is it still a circle/sphere/whatever? it would diffuse into space. Also, if it would be tungsten, rhenium or some salt - there would be no reaction that would power the sun.

I know about nuclear fusion. My rhetorical statement was a direct response to this:

There is no chemical reaction that could power the sun for millions of years.
Get over that.

Which is false, by obvious virtue of the existence of nuclear fusion. I thought that was implicit in my rather sarky response.

IMO it's true, And i could make some calculations about that, but that is useless because i will get no response, as i got no response after Andromeda's blueshift calculations.

IMO it's true, And i could make some calculations about that, but that is useless because i will get no response, as i got no response after Andromeda's blueshift calculations.

But you don't believe it's true because you literally just blurted out that the process of nuclear fusion can light the sun for millions of years. You are contradicting yourself on a post-by-post basis here.

nuclear
fusion
is
not
chemical
reaction

Or you were thinking otherwise, or i dont know what it's all about.

nuclear
fusion
is
not
chemical
reaction

Or you were thinking otherwise, or i dont know what it's all about.

You said "chemical process". I consider nuclear fusion to be a chemical process.

chemical proces (and/or reaction) -> rearrangement of chemical bonds. nuclear fussion/fission -> rearrangement of strong interaction forces setup.

RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.

The reason there are no stars is because the telescope is not powerful enough to see them. And you have to remember it is zoomed in, stars will become less dense that way.

RE: "Saturn" video. No stars in the background. It practically looks like a chalk drawing.

And let me ask you, how could this random person gain from faking a video of Saturn?

Go buy a telescope.

See it with your own eyes.

You said "chemical process". I consider nuclear fusion to be a chemical process.

Nuclear fusion -> nuclear reactions. Chemical process -> chemical reactions. They definitely aren't the same. And you still haven't answered, how cold light can be so hot?

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.

It is possible that the Sun is bioluminescent. I have been considering this possibility for quite some time. It strikes me that the Egyptian Atenists might have been onto something (and so might their opponents in the Priesthood of Ra have been).

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.

There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.

Quote from: zork on July 23, 2009, 04:40:27 PM

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.

There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.

Yes, a little heat. Not such a heat which travels 3000 miles and still burns quite much.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 04:57:22 PM

Quote from: zork on July 23, 2009, 04:40:27 PM

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:54:06 PM

The Sun isn't emitting cold light, the Moon is a cold-light emitter.

So you retreat from your theory the Sun being bioluminescent? Because the luminescence is cold light.

There is nothing particular about bioluminescence which precludes its accompaniment with the emission of heat.

Yes, a little heat. Not such a heat which travels 3000 miles and still burns quite much.

We've trascended beyond qualitative statements here. "A little" doesn't mean anything to me. 1 celsius is a little. Is 32 farenheit a little? What about 20 celsius? 3 Kelvins?

We've trascended beyond qualitative statements here. "A little" doesn't mean anything to me. 1 celsius is a little. Is 32 farenheit a little? What about 20 celsius? 3 Kelvins?

Let's say that little is something below 1000 degree celsius. But you can show me some luminescence which produces 1000 degree of celsius or even more.

The Sun.