Bendy light?

  • 263 Replies
  • 60099 Views
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2010, 07:16:20 PM »
Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.

You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:

Quote
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.


http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.

Seriously. Post some funny stuff. Like fishes nudging boats or sky mirrors. I like it when you post stuff like that.

?

rolls

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #91 on: January 24, 2010, 08:54:09 PM »
whups double post
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 09:02:06 PM by rolls »

?

rolls

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #92 on: January 24, 2010, 09:00:19 PM »
A fusion powered Sun is a Round Earth idea. The FE sun is too small to undergo nuclear fusion for an extended period of time without burning out.

So where does the radiation come from then?

The Laws Of Physics.

Could you be more specific?  I just cannot understand how the third law of thermodynamics prevents light from bending.

Light has no mass hence it won't bend. Go read a textbook if you are obviously so thick you think light can be bent in this way. You are the person who is postulating it can be bent, YOU show how it can be bent, not the other way around.

It is like if I say that there's a flying spaghetti monster that I see every night, it is up to ME to prove it, not you.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #93 on: January 24, 2010, 10:42:34 PM »
So where does the radiation come from then?

This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.

Light has no mass hence it won't bend. Go read a textbook if you are obviously so thick you think light can be bent in this way. You are the person who is postulating it can be bent, YOU show how it can be bent, not the other way around.

It is like if I say that there's a flying spaghetti monster that I see every night, it is up to ME to prove it, not you.

Actually, you're misunderstanding our claims. We are not saying "light definitely bends". We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light. REers are the only ones claiming that they are able to prove anything, with their unfounded statements that "bendy light has been disproven".
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-124
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2010, 06:36:31 AM »
So where does the radiation come from then?

This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.

Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2010, 09:08:33 AM »
We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.

I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2010, 09:18:08 AM »
So where does the radiation come from then?

This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.

Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?

Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO."  

Though cosmological theorists believe that the early universe (almost immediately after the Big Bang) was a quark-gluon plasma.

So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons?  What flavor of quarks are they?

edit:  I stand corrected.  It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven.  However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees.  Hardly hot enough.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 09:31:23 AM by cwolfe »

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2010, 09:46:40 AM »
A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into hydrogen. Thats something that johannes can do in his garden for a couple of thousand dollars, possibly less. How on Earth does this whole QGP thing work? I don't even know where to start with whats wrong with that.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2010, 09:48:44 AM »
I think you mean that hydrogen is being fused into helium.  I'm not sure what you mean exactly by Johannes being able to do this in his garden.

In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #99 on: January 25, 2010, 09:57:28 AM »
I think you mean that hydrogen is being fused into helium.  I'm not sure what you mean exactly by Johannes being able to do this in his garden.

In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

Yeah i did mean that. In one of the neutrino threads ive been trying to come up with a way of detecting neutrinos for less than a copy of a popular science magazine.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #100 on: January 25, 2010, 09:58:22 AM »
I haven't yet succeded, when I do though ill book my tickets to Stockholm.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #101 on: January 25, 2010, 12:39:57 PM »
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?

Yes.

We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.

I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.

As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.

Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO." 

Then you would present a conclusion without first testing the hypothesis.

So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons?  What flavor of quarks are they?

It's the only mechanism I can think of capable of producing such a large amount of power in such a small space for such a long period of time. Their flavour is unknown.

edit:  I stand corrected.  It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven.  However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees.  Hardly hot enough.

The core temperature of the Sun is 15.7 million K according to RET, yes. Try not to get it mixed up with FET; "flat" and "round" are quite different concepts.

A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into helium.

Could you provide me a source which supports this idea? I'm very curious as to how this would work, given that in the RE model sunlight is produced in the photosphere and nuclear fusion takes place in the core.

In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

They don't "know" anything. They have a theory that seems to work, that's all.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5130
  • +0/-0
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #102 on: January 25, 2010, 12:46:17 PM »
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?

Yes.

We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.

I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.

As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.

Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO." 

Then you would present a conclusion without first testing the hypothesis.

So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons?  What flavor of quarks are they?

It's the only mechanism I can think of capable of producing such a large amount of power in such a small space for such a long period of time. Their flavour is unknown.

edit:  I stand corrected.  It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven.  However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees.  Hardly hot enough.

The core temperature of the Sun is 15.7 million K according to RET, yes. Try not to get it mixed up with FET; "flat" and "round" are quite different concepts.

A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into helium.

Could you provide me a source which supports this idea? I'm very curious as to how this would work, given that in the RE model sunlight is produced in the photosphere and nuclear fusion takes place in the core.

In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

They don't "know" anything. They have a theory that seems to work, that's all.
So FET has a floating plasma ball trillions of kelvins hot a few thousand miles above the surface?

No wonder there's planar warming.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #103 on: January 25, 2010, 01:08:23 PM »
So let me get this straight.  In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense.  Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?

Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #104 on: January 25, 2010, 01:21:13 PM »
So let me get this straight.  In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense.  Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?

The pursuit of truth.

Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?

I agree. We should never have adopted relativity; Newtonian mechanics was all we needed.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-124
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #105 on: January 25, 2010, 01:27:10 PM »
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?

Yes.

Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #106 on: January 25, 2010, 01:27:52 PM »
So let me get this straight.  In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense.  Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?

The pursuit of truth.

Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?

I agree. We should never have adopted relativity; Newtonian mechanics was all we needed.

Your analogy is an incorrect one.  Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete.  It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses.  This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes.  You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #107 on: January 25, 2010, 01:33:18 PM »
Whats wrong with relativity? If it wasn't for relativity gold would look just like silver, funky new 'spintronics' stuff wouldn't exist and radiotherapy machines would look somewhat different. In fact anything using spin wouldn't work fermi-dirac statistics, you'd be able to make anything into a bose-einstein condensate. Chemistry would be very different assuming it even existed. A universe with out relativity would be a strange beast indeed

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #108 on: January 25, 2010, 02:29:16 PM »
Your analogy is an incorrect one.  Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete.  It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses.  This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes.  You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.


Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics make fundamentally different assumptions about how the universe works. They can't both be right.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #109 on: January 25, 2010, 02:33:26 PM »
Your analogy is an incorrect one.  Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete.  It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses.  This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes.  You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.


Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics make fundamentally different assumptions about how the universe works. They can't both be right.

What fundamentally different assumptions do they make?  The only things Newtonian mechanics assumes are that a force applied to an object is equal to the change in its momentum over time, that an unperturbed object will not accelerate, and that for every force applied to an object, there is an equal and opposite force applied back.  Relativistic mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics under normal conditions.

They are both correct, under different conditions.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 02:35:26 PM by cwolfe »

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #110 on: January 25, 2010, 02:55:37 PM »
If 1 person says a cow is a 4 legged mammal and another person says a cow is a 4 legged mammal from the family bovidae, is the first person wrong and the second person correct? Of course not the second description is a little more complete. Now if i transfer this to mechanics we can explore what Einstein saw that Newton didn't. Classical mechanics (often, and perhaps unfairly, called Newtonian Mechanics) uses Gallilean transforms to transfrom between inertial reference frames not Lorentz transforms. It is also based on Newtons 3 laws of motion. These laws are (copied shamelessly from wikipedia)

First law
    There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.
Second law
    Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. Since by definition the mass of a particle is constant, this law is often stated as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma): the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
Third law
    Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. Newton's third law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law.

We see that the second law is a definition, not really right or wrong, the third law follows largely from the second law. The first law just says if you don't do anything nothing will change. None of these points are wrong as such, the problem lies more with Galilean relativity. Einstein added a further two postulates to mechanics. Again from wikipedia,

    * The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.

    * The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.". That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. Newton's third law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law.

The second one is the key one. It is this postulate that leads us to replace Galilean transforms with Lorentz transforms. From this change comes all of the special relativity. So then are the two mutually exclusive? No they're not. When describing an object of low mass and low speed both Lorentz transforms and Galilean transforms give the same answer. So make to my rather trivial example with the cows Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't realise that he was incomplete. Einstein is quite possibly incomplete as well, although the mixture of special relativity and quantum mechanics used to describe electromagnetism is the most successful theory ever.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #111 on: January 25, 2010, 02:59:40 PM »
Exactly.  Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances.  Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.

I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #112 on: January 25, 2010, 04:31:29 PM »
Exactly.  Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances.  Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.

I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.

No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #113 on: January 25, 2010, 04:43:45 PM »
With Physics we can model reality, thats all. Most of the time we can model it reasonably closely. Every now and again we stumble on something that appears to be more than a model. Newtonian mechanics was for a long while thought to be the later, until James Maxwell showed that it could not be. Einstein, with significant help from messiers Maxwell, Lorentz and Possion showed why Newton's work was only an approximation. The general theory of relativity is now starting to show some tension with cosmological data, though thats beyond the scope of this forum as presumably cosmological data is faked anyway. In quantum mechanics there seems to be some possibility we have found something that really has some underlying truth to it. At least it agrees with experiment to within 1 part in 10^12 or so. However while this describes the mechanics of particles it doesnt exaplin why we have the different types and families of particles we do, a question I personally find very interesting.

There is no such thing as a completely true theory. Thats why we call them theories. If theres one piece of scientific philosophy that people tend to know its that it takes an infinite number of experiments to prove a theory and only 1 to disprove it. Except on this forum where it takes 1 experiment to prove something and getting on for an infinite number to disprove it.

?

ugaboga313

  • 710
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #114 on: January 25, 2010, 04:44:55 PM »
Question, this was brought up before, how come you like to use parts of relativity (specifically special relativity and how the earth never accelerates past light speed) but not the whole gravity = space time curvature?


Also Newtonian physics works very well in ordinary situations. I will give you a chemistry example. We are all taught the ideal gas law and we use it frequently. It works decently (not as well as newtonian physics but this is just an example) but it does not hold on the extremes (pressure, temperature, and attraction of the molecules). Very similar to newtonian physics.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #115 on: January 25, 2010, 05:05:20 PM »
With Physics we can model reality, thats all. Most of the time we can model it reasonably closely. Every now and again we stumble on something that appears to be more than a model. Newtonian mechanics was for a long while thought to be the later, until James Maxwell showed that it could not be. Einstein, with significant help from messiers Maxwell, Lorentz and Possion showed why Newton's work was only an approximation. The general theory of relativity is now starting to show some tension with cosmological data, though thats beyond the scope of this forum as presumably cosmological data is faked anyway. In quantum mechanics there seems to be some possibility we have found something that really has some underlying truth to it. At least it agrees with experiment to within 1 part in 10^12 or so. However while this describes the mechanics of particles it doesnt exaplin why we have the different types and families of particles we do, a question I personally find very interesting.

There is no such thing as a completely true theory. Thats why we call them theories. If theres one piece of scientific philosophy that people tend to know its that it takes an infinite number of experiments to prove a theory and only 1 to disprove it. Except on this forum where it takes 1 experiment to prove something and getting on for an infinite number to disprove it.

In what sense is Ptolemic cosmology at odds with observed data? The only theories which face "tension" are those which seek to go beyond the obvious ramifications of that which is revealed by empirical study.

Question, this was brought up before, how come you like to use parts of relativity (specifically special relativity and how the earth never accelerates past light speed) but not the whole gravity = space time curvature?

What rationale could I possibly have for accepting parts of a thesis which are clearly false, or rejecting parts which are clearly true? In the spirit of proper science, I have no sentimental commitment to Einstein's work, and accordingly I will only subsume those claims he make which cohere in reality, just as one may thoroughly accept Cartesian geometry whilst abhoring and lampooning Cartesian metaphysics.

Also Newtonian physics works very well in ordinary situations. I will give you a chemistry example. We are all taught the ideal gas law and we use it frequently. It works decently (not as well as newtonian physics but this is just an example) but it does not hold on the extremes (pressure, temperature, and attraction of the molecules). Very similar to newtonian physics.

I consider a scientific model to "work well" when it accurately maps the connection between different pieces of related empirical data by matters of fact, such that it may make reliable predictions about the outcomes of further empirical testing. Since by your own admission in the above quote, Newtonian physics fails to perform this definitive procedure, you will forgive me for not considering it a model which "works well".
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #116 on: January 25, 2010, 05:14:19 PM »
So let me get this straight.  In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense.  Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?

Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
The current theory isn't perfect at the moment. The neutrino flux from the sun is way off, so the model of the neutrino is being modified to include neutrinos oscillating to different mass states in transit from the sun. This model is still being tested and improved.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #117 on: January 25, 2010, 06:43:27 PM »
So let me get this straight.  In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense.  Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?

Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
The current theory isn't perfect at the moment. The neutrino flux from the sun is way off, so the model of the neutrino is being modified to include neutrinos oscillating to different mass states in transit from the sun. This model is still being tested and improved.

Well, "perfect" certainly may have been an overstatement, we do understand enough about the Sun to know that it isn't made of free quarks and gluons.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #118 on: January 25, 2010, 06:47:23 PM »
Exactly.  Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances.  Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.

I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.

No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.

Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course?  Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances.  Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys.  Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics?  Good luck with that.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #119 on: January 25, 2010, 11:49:00 PM »
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?

Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.