Nuclear Fusion and the Sun

All information I am using was originally posted in this message on this forum: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17816.msg332885#msg332885

First, the original quote:

Probably a sphere, 32 miles in diameter, powered by fusion but burning at a slower rate than expected due to its incredible mass, orbiting on a plane roughly parallel to the earth's around a fixed point which is above the approximate center of the earth.

If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, and of anywhere near a reasonable mass, it could never hit the point where fusion would be viable. Thus, the sun cannot possibly a fusing object in hydrostatic equilibrium.

The Sun does not shine by any nuclear processes, as you point out, this would be frankly absurd.

The Sun does not shine by any nuclear processes, as you point out, this would be frankly absurd.

Do tell us what process the Sun and the Moon come by the huge energy to accomplish their shining in FE, if you can.

The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.

The Sun and the Moon are bioluminescent.

Yes, I understand that you make that wild, unsupported claim. But again I ask what is the fuel for that reaction?

Biomass.

Biomass.

Really? That's all? So rather than the much more energy rich coal that I used in my estimates I can substitute hay?

What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.

What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.

Please provide any evidence that you have that there exists any biomass unlike terrestial biomass. I doubt that you can.

Quote from: James on September 26, 2010, 12:36:18 AM

What basis do we have to suppose that Solar biomass is like terrestrial biomass? Claiming baselessly that it is like hay is just silly.

Please provide any evidence that you have that there exists any biomass unlike terrestial biomass. I doubt that you can.

You made the claim that it would be. 

According to FEers, the Sun's energy comes from bio-luminescent creatures that emit the entire EM spectrum and move very rapidly.
Where they get their energy is...

Well apparently they don't believe in the laws of Thermodynamics.

I maintain that the Sun is a very large mass of quarks and antiquarks, which derives its energy from matter-antimatter annihilation.

I doubt the sun has biomass.  There is no doubt that the moon does.

So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.

1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is a nuclear powered sphere.  Moon is sphere with biomass.


Does anyone else see a problem with this?

-edited to correct John Davis's opinion.

So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.

1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is unknown but disk.  Moon is disk with biomass.


Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Which three FEers would those be?

Quote from: Lorddave on September 26, 2010, 03:58:25 AM

So out of 3 FEers, we have 3 different views of the solar system.

1. Sun and Moon are spheres both with biomass.
2. Sun and Moon are Disks both with biomass.
3. Sun is unknown but disk.  Moon is disk with biomass.


Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Which three FEers would those be?

Tom Bishop.
James.
John Davis.

In that order.

I don't hold the Sun or Moon are disks.  The sun is made of the same things the RE sun is.  Likewise the moon with the exception of the biomass.

I hold that the sun cannot be run by nuclear fusion. For the sake of ClockTower, here is the maths to prove this.

I'll do it by comparing a human's energy output to the sun.
To compare the per-kilogram energy outputs of the human body and the Sun, we need to know the mass and total power output of both.

Mass of the Sun. This is very close to 2 x  10^30 kg from science data books RE World).

Total power output of Sun. The Sun loses all of its energy by radiation. Above the Earth's atmosphere, 1.5 × 10^11  metres from the Sun, the intensity of radiation is 1370 W m-2. A spherical surface at this distance from the Sun would have an area of 2.84 × 10^23 m2. Assuming that the Sun radiates energy equally strongly in all directions, the total power passing through this surface would be 1370 ×  2.84 × 10^23 = 3.87 × 10^26 W. Ignoring any losses from absorption on the way, this gives us an estimate for the total power output of the Sun.
(You can check this result by noting that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5800K, and using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You get very good agreement).

Mass of a person. People vary a lot in mass, but a typical adult might weigh 65 kg.

Power output of a person. For a person whose weight is steady, their energy output must equal their energy input. People vary a lot in how much they eat, but 2000  kcal, or about 8.6 × 10^6 J, is a reasonable estimate for daily energy input. Divided by the number of seconds in the day, this gives an average power of of about 97 W.

Power outputs per kilogram of the Sun and a human being. We divide the total power output by the mass in each case to get 1.9 × 10-4 W kg-1 for the Sun and 1.5 W kg-1 as the overall power per kilogram of a human being. The human being's power output per kilogram is nearly 8000 times that of the Sun.

So that being the case, if the sun was really nuclear, surely the American's wouldn't have bothered inventing the A-bomb in WW2. They would have just thrown a squaddie out of an aircraft over Hiroshima.

*Edited as it sucked out my superscripts 

Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.

This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.

Uh, Thork, all you pointed out is that the Sun has a tiny mass:output ratio, as opposed to a human. Of course this is going to be the case. The Sun's mass is extremely large.

This disproves nothing. It's not even relevant.

Nuclear fusion has a tiny mass:output ratio? The bomb at Nagasaki weighed only 4600kg!

The whole point is the sun is not large. It is 32 miles across and resides at 3000 miles above the earth. Your model doesn't fit. Maybe you should consider ours?

OF COURSE IT WON'T WORK IF YOU CROSS DATA FROM BOTH THEORIES.

You can't take data ascertained under the premise that the Sun is 700,000kms in diameter, then apply it to a 32 mile diameter Sun and claim it's evidence in the case of FE.

Most FE believers on here don't even agree as to what the Sun is made of, let alone use the numbers you used.

Robert Oppenheimer said

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

He's let the cat out of the bag right there! He is admitting that his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. At only a fraction of the mass rounder earthers allege, using exactly the same power source.

I don't want to hear that Oppenheimer doesn't know what he is talking about, or that you know more than Oppenheimer or that Oppenheimer is a liar.

Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun. As for FE our answer is bioluminesence, that the sun is 32 miles across and it resides 3000 miles above earth. For further information on the bioluminesense you will have to wait until Ichi and Bullhorn finish their experiments and publish the conclusions. These are very exciting times. 

 Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.

Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.

Read again Zork.

I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.

Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.

Quote from: zork on September 26, 2010, 06:21:20 AM

Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.

Read again Zork.

I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.

Quote

Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.

So I said. You do that without any evidence. Totally illogical conclusion. An the sun is powerful, more powerful than anything on the earth.

Quote from: Thork on September 26, 2010, 06:29:38 AM

Quote from: zork on September 26, 2010, 06:21:20 AM

Totally irrelevant post by Thork again. And illogical conclusion. You just calculate your power output per kilogram but there is no way to determine from that number if energy source is using nuclear fusion or not.

Read again Zork.

I have concluded it is not a nuclear power source.

Quote

Its clear the sun is not nuclear run, or it would be more powerful, answering the original OP based on his RE opinions of the sun.

So I said. You do that without any evidence. Totally illogical conclusion. An the sun is powerful, more powerful than anything on the earth.

I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?

I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?

Yo haven't demonstrated that. You showed some numbers about power output per kilogram. That is not in any way demonstration that human body is more powerful energy source than the sun. Please, show me some energy source here on the earth which output is 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. And Oppenheimer was only poetic. This is not in any way countable evidence for something. And it seems to me that way that you itself don't read what you write, your posts usually seems like concocted up from various sources without any logic.

Quote from: Thork on September 26, 2010, 06:43:15 AM

I have already demonstrated it is not more powerful kilo to kilo than the human body, and Robert Oppenheimer has said his bomb is 1000 times more powerful than the sun. Two sources of evidence. My maths and the testimony of the father of nuclear physics. Do you read a thread or just post a nonsensical rant at the end of it?

Yo haven't demonstrated that. You showed some numbers about power output per kilogram. That is not in any way demonstration that human body is more powerful energy source than the sun. Please, show me some energy source here on the earth which output is 3.87 × 10^26 W per second. And Oppenheimer was only poetic. This is not in any way countable evidence for something. And it seems to me that way that you itself don't read what you write, your posts usually seems like concocted up from various sources without any logic.

Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?

Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?

Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
 And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.

Quote from: Thork on September 26, 2010, 06:59:06 AM

Oppenheimer was not a poet Zork. He was the director of the Manhattan project. I have posted his bio below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
I have also presented maths to support the argument. 10 posts later you still have not presented anything. Just inane rants along the lines of "but it can't be true, you're ruining my life". Instead of ignorantly discarding the evidence FErs put forth, why not embrace it, learn from it and then make up your own mind about earth's shape from there?

Where did I said he was poet? I said he was poetic. Learn to read. And you have put forth zero evidence and your math doesn't support your argument. Not ever. Your argument is that sun is not nuclear. Your math only shows some power output per kilogram. They are not related in any way. As I said, you concoct things up from various sources without any logic.
 And you ignore tmy question again, where is on the earth some energy source which can put out 3.87 × 10^26 W per second? If you don't have any here then your point that sun is not powerful is invalid.

Oh dear, Zork.

In baby steps. The OP suggests the sun uses nuclear fusion. FE says its bioluminesence. I presented maths showing the human body outputs more energy than the sun kilo for kilo. Therefore a huge ball of people would be hotter. I.E it can't be nuclear.
Robert Oppenheimer used nuclear fusion in his bombs. His tiny bomb in comparison with the size of you RE sun, was 1000 times more powerful using the same power source. How can this be? It can't. In summation then, the sun is obviously not a nuclear power source answering the OP, it must have an alternate smaller source of power like biolumiesence suggested by FE.