The Sun

  • 115 Replies
  • 13424 Views
?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The Sun
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2010, 03:25:40 AM »
How does it discredit the RE sun?

Because the RE sun relies on a process that has never been experimentally validated.
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2010, 03:26:41 AM »
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.

How does this change the fact that the process which supposedly powers the Sun in RET has never been experimentally shown to be viable?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The Sun
« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2010, 03:28:09 AM »
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.

How does this change the fact that the process which supposedly powers the Sun in RET has never been experimentally shown to be viable?
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2010, 03:36:19 AM »
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.

Irrelevant. Until you can provide evidence that sustained nuclear fusion has been shown to be a viable source of energy, the RE sun - and hence the entire RE model - is based on pure speculation.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The Sun
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2010, 03:40:34 AM »
So, you want me to prove that a certain form of energy is viable, which will prove the sun works the way it is said to do? First of all, doing so won't prove the inner workings of the sun at all. I just told you why proving fusion on a small scale is difficult, while on a large scale it isn't.

Second, how does the RE rely entirely on the way the sun works? Last I checked, the earth would still be round whether then sun existed or not.

Explain yourself, stupid head.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2010, 04:18:20 AM »
So, you want me to prove that a certain form of energy is viable, which will prove the sun works the way it is said to do? First of all, doing so won't prove the inner workings of the sun at all. I just told you why proving fusion on a small scale is difficult, while on a large scale it isn't.

I don't want you to prove anything. I am simply making a statement about the validity (or lack thereof) of the RE model as it currently stands.

Second, how does the RE rely entirely on the way the sun works? Last I checked, the earth would still be round whether then sun existed or not.

The Sun quite obviously does exist, and the RE model has its own explanation for its workings. Making statements about what might be if the Sun did not exist is not only an invalid response to my point, but utterly inane.

Explain yourself, stupid head.

Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The Sun
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2010, 05:09:34 AM »
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.

Just to make it clear, can I make personal attacks in the debate fauna?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: The Sun
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2010, 07:42:44 AM »
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.

Just to make it clear, can I make personal attacks in the debate fauna?

Yes, feel free to go out into the woods and insult all the critters that you want.
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.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2010, 08:13:43 AM »
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response. 

It's simple.  Here you go.
1.  By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2.  By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.
3.  Now, to reduce the scale of your model to something more manageable, we use a common household item, a quarter, as your sun.  The quarter measures .96875 inches across (you can measure that is you want.  You'll get 31/32, I just turned it into a decimal.)
4.  Now, knowing that your Earth is 778.125 times larger than your sun, we simply multiply the quarter's diameter, .96875 by 778.125 and we come up with 753.809 inches, or 62.817 ft.
5.  Now to calculate the altitude of our sun.  In your model, the altitude is 93.75 times the diameter of the object, so we can take the diameter of the quarter, .96875, and multiply by the 93.75, and we get 90.8203125 inches, or 7.57 ft.
6.  Now you can build your scaled down model, if you're not too lazy.
7.  Go somewhere flat, I recommend a large parking lot, and measure out a circle with a diameter of 62.817 ft..
8.  Obtain a spotlight like your site claims the sun is.  I'll even allow you to go bigger than a quarter.  Hold your light source at a height of 7.57 ft.
9.  Try to illuminate at least half of the circle you measured out.
10.  Post your results.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2010, 08:18:15 AM »
Scientists can't artificially create nuclear fusion because it is so unstable and requires so much fuel to initiate. That fact alone discredits the FE sun.

Actually, it only discredits the RE sun, which is the only one (to my knowledge) which is claimed to operate through nuclear fusion.
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: The Sun
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2010, 08:30:01 AM »
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response. 

It's simple.  Here you go.
1.  By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2.  By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.

Actually, at this point you should have told him that once the ratios have been established, then he can use whatever unit of measure he prefers (in his case, metric).
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.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2010, 08:35:52 AM »
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response. 

It's simple.  Here you go.
1.  By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2.  By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.

Actually, at this point you should have told him that once the ratios have been established, then he can use whatever unit of measure he prefers (in his case, metric).
Good point.
Go for it Parifal.  Use your metric measurements.  Here are your formulas
S-Sun's Diameter
E-Earth's Diameter
A-Sun's Altitude Above Earth.

E=S*778.125
A=S*93.75

So, use whatever you want for your sun's diameter, it will give you the other measurement, and then you can try it out for yourself.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: The Sun
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2010, 10:12:12 AM »
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.

Irrelevant. Until you can provide evidence that sustained nuclear fusion has been shown to be a viable source of energy, the RE sun - and hence the entire RE model - is based on pure speculation.

The principle of sustained nuclear fusion has indeed been experimentally validated in atomic bomb tests, in which it is theoretically possible to produce an uncontrolled fusion reacton of any size, although in all tests it was limited for practical purposes. I think you're confusing "sustained" with "controlled". Once the fusion fuel is all used, the reaction will end. The Sun is using up fuel at a vast rate. It is an uncontrolled reaction going as fast as it can.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lorddave

  • 16782
Re: The Sun
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2010, 12:15:06 PM »
I also want to make mention that, whatever powers the Sun, would have to be extremely dense to produce the measure of energy we get hit with every year.  For 5,000 years of power, the mass would be enough to pull the Earth into the sun due to gravity.  And that's assuming a perfect energy to matter conversion.

Of course, you know what the sun is made of because you've done spectrum analysis on the incoming light...

Right?
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2010, 04:05:30 PM »
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?

Who said anything about the FE Sun? We're talking about the RE Sun.

The principle of sustained nuclear fusion has indeed been experimentally validated in atomic bomb tests, in which it is theoretically possible to produce an uncontrolled fusion reacton of any size, although in all tests it was limited for practical purposes.

Atomic bombs explode once, and then the fusion ends. Applying these results to the Sun, it should have blown up as soon as it was formed. Since the Sun obviously still exists, we conclude that the atomic bomb is not evidence for the plausibility of the RE Sun.

I also want to make mention that, whatever powers the Sun, would have to be extremely dense to produce the measure of energy we get hit with every year.  For 5,000 years of power, the mass would be enough to pull the Earth into the sun due to gravity.  And that's assuming a perfect energy to matter conversion.

Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lorddave

  • 16782
Re: The Sun
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2010, 04:07:51 PM »
Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.

Sure.  It'll take me a day or two but I will.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2010, 05:50:26 PM »
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?

Who said anything about the FE Sun? We're talking about the RE Sun.
This whole thread has been about the FE sun.  My posts where about how your model won't work.  You changed the subject and instead of attempting the experiment I gave you, you took shots at currently scientifically accepted model for the sun.  So try answering the question, instead of dodging it.  What gives credit to your sun's model?

Quote from: Parsifal
Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.
Please try the experiment I gave you.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2010, 05:54:36 PM »
This whole thread has been about the FE sun.  My posts where about how your model won't work.  You changed the subject and instead of attempting the experiment I gave you, you took shots at currently scientifically accepted model for the sun.  So try answering the question, instead of dodging it.  What gives credit to your sun's model?

Which do you mean by my Sun's model? I haven't advocated a specific model of the Sun.

Please try the experiment I gave you.

I don't see why I should. Experiments should be attempting to falsify existing science, not confirm it. Since you are attempting to falsify accepted physics, which predicts that the size of a light source is irrelevant to the area it can light up, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2010, 06:05:36 PM »
Which do you mean by my Sun's model? I haven't advocated a specific model of the Sun.
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ.  Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.

Please try the experiment I gave you.
Quote from: Parsifal
I don't see why I should. Experiments should be attempting to falsify existing science, not confirm it. Since you are attempting to falsify accepted physics, which predicts that the size of a light source is irrelevant to the area it can light up, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?  I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics.  I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong.  It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface.  I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2010, 06:29:12 PM »
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ.  Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.



I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics.

I have bolded the part where you are trying to discredit accepted physics:

I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong.  It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface.  I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Sun
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2010, 06:30:24 PM »
Parsifal admits that it is impossible to do because of his wonderful dodging and moving the goalpost.

Great work, have a gold star Parsifal.

You should play a sport and be the goalie.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2010, 06:46:44 PM »
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ.  Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.



I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics.

I have bolded the part where you are trying to discredit accepted physics:

I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong.  It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface.  I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model.  I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work. 

Since you are the FE'er, I'd say your beliefs have a lot to do with this thread.  Especially since you keep trying to defend FET.  This tells me you believe it.

*

Lorddave

  • 16782
Re: The Sun
« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2010, 06:50:43 PM »
Well, it looks like the sun will never crash into the FE Earth.

Well, the FE earth doesn't have gravity (except the oceans for some reason) so there isn't any gravitational attraction.

Secondly, the sun's age can't be determined so the use of fuel doesn't seem to apply unless we want to say it has enough fuel for 1 million years.

Then you have the problem of solar energy the sun actually produces.  Does all of it go to the Earth?  Or only some of it?

But I'm going back to my first point:
The Earth doesn't have gravity even though it's made of matter thus the sun will never crash into it no matter HOW much mass it has.  And you can also apply the same gravity canceling factor to the sun so it could actually have the mass of a black hole and not even bend light.


Conclusion:

FE science is is inconsistent. The FE universe is a chaotic system and can never be proven.  This means that everything anyone says on this site in favor of FE is a guess and can never be proven to be factual.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2010, 06:51:41 PM »
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model.  I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work.  

Your claim that "a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, [cannot] effectively illuminate half of that surface" is in contradiction to accepted physics. Ergo, you are trying to discredit accepted physics.

Since you are the FE'er

What gave you that impression?

the mass of a black hole

What mass does a black hole have?

FE science is is inconsistent.

No, only your understanding of it.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 06:53:45 PM by Parsifal »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: The Sun
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2010, 06:57:43 PM »
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model.  I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work.  

Your claim that "a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, [cannot] effectively illuminate half of that surface" is in contradiction to accepted physics. Ergo, you are trying to discredit accepted physics.

Since you are the FE'er

What gave you that impression?

the mass of a black hole

What mass does a black hole have?

FE science is is inconsistent.

No, only your understanding of it.
Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area?  Please, show me.  As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2010, 07:00:48 PM »
Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area?  Please, show me.

If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.

As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.

I don't follow your reasoning.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2010, 07:06:40 PM »
And the only guy to try and make a 3D model of the sun projecting onto a flat disk has failed to do so.  I'm not even sure he's still around.
well then, its tobad im with the Re, because i know a bit about blender( 3D program) to make a small video of how the Fe  would/wouldn't work.

*

Lorddave

  • 16782
Re: The Sun
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2010, 07:10:16 PM »
the mass of a black hole

What mass does a black hole have?

Does it matter?  the FE Earth has no gravitational field and thus can't be attracted by gravity.
Quote
FE science is is inconsistent.

No, only your understanding of it.
Oh I understand it just fine.

The UA applies to all bodies not on the Earth and not within it's atmosphere but it does apply to the bottom of the Earth.  It also fails to apply to any body that exists the Earth's atmosphere that was once on the Earth.  (otherwise sustained space flight would be possible.)

The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own and is completely reliant on the UA for it's "gravity".  No other bodies in the universe have this requirement.

Water is manipulated by the moon, signifying that water has gravity.

Light will bend based on factors that allow a spotlight sun to seem to not change shape when it moves into the distance or comes from a distance.

All stellar bodies orbit above the plane of the Earth.



Have I missed anything?
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The Sun
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2010, 07:14:15 PM »
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own

This is where your understanding falls short.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: The Sun
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2010, 07:18:19 PM »
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own

This is where your understanding falls short.
So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?