FE Model of a Nuclear Sun is false.

Springboarding from our success with demonstrating that the non-nuclear FE Sun is false, let's turn our attention to a nuclear-fueled FE Sun. Turns out it's false too.

First let's eliminate fusion. Fusion requires tremendous pressures. A nearby Sun, of any shape with major axis of 32 miles, would not have the volume to hold the mass necessary to compress the deuterium nuclei together for fusion to occur. A distant Sun would only work for the infinite disc. But since g does not vary with distance, the Sun would be accelerated at 9.8 m/s² toward the Earth. It's beyond an sense of reason that an unseen "nexus line" holds up a massive Sun from this massive acceleration. So a fusion-fueled Sun is out.

Second let's eliminate fission. Fission produces nasty by-products. Even at a distance of 3000 miles, we'd be in serious trouble from the nuclear radiation. Even ignoring that problem, let's plug in the numbers to the coal model.

First reference: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_density_of_uranium_g_ml to see that the density is: 19.1 g/mL.
Second reference: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf to see that the output is 3.7 * 10¹³ joules/pound.

Gives us: 23,000 years. Again, that's way too short. So let's see if this analysis holds. If so FET is demonstrated to be false.

To check the calculations type the following into Google Search: (32 mile/2)^2*pi*16 mile * 19.1 grams/ml * 3.7*10^13 joules/pound / 10^25 joules /day
or just click this link: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=(32+mile/2)^2*pi*16+mile+*+1.5+grams/ml+*+1.6*10^7+joules/pound+/+10^25+joules+/day#hl=en&expIds=17259,18167,23320,25907,26751,26798&sugexp=ldymls&tok=XGxwevFRig7PZkSuX3SdaA&xhr=t&q=(32+mile/2)%5E2*pi*16+mile+*+19.1+grams/ml+*+3.7*10%5E13+joules/pound+/+10%5E25+joules+/day&cp=46&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=(32+mile%2F2)%5E2*pi*16+mile+*+19.1+grams%2Fml+*+3.7*10%5E13+joules%2Fpound+%2F+10%5E25+joules+%2Fday&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fa151da40c6c8a2a

Doesn't the non-nuclear FE sun not work for the same reason a nuclear FE sun wouldn't?

Doesn't the non-nuclear FE sun not work for the same reason a nuclear FE sun wouldn't?

Yes, the math is here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42826.0. Thanks.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 28, 2010, 01:17:48 AM

Doesn't the non-nuclear FE sun not work for the same reason a nuclear FE sun wouldn't?

Yes, the math is here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42826.0. Thanks.

Assuming it's made of coal, which it isn't.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 28, 2010, 01:24:21 AM

Quote from: Vindictus on September 28, 2010, 01:17:48 AM

Doesn't the non-nuclear FE sun not work for the same reason a nuclear FE sun wouldn't?

Yes, the math is here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42826.0. Thanks.

Assuming it's made of coal, which it isn't.

And the stupid comment is discussed ad nauseam in the proper thread.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 28, 2010, 01:24:21 AM

Quote from: Vindictus on September 28, 2010, 01:17:48 AM

Doesn't the non-nuclear FE sun not work for the same reason a nuclear FE sun wouldn't?

Yes, the math is here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42826.0. Thanks.

Assuming it's made of coal (or any other fuel with a similar energy density), which it isn't.

Fixed.

Look...

No FEer in history has successfully created a working model of the solar system.  Hell, they haven't even created a working model to predict planetary movement in the sky!

When they do that, then I'll start looking at their work more seriously.  Until then, they've got nothing.

A nearby Sun, of any shape with major axis of 32 miles, would not have the volume to hold the mass necessary to compress the deuterium nuclei together for fusion to occur.

Why does it have to be deuterium?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 28, 2010, 01:02:50 AM

A nearby Sun, of any shape with major axis of 32 miles, would not have the volume to hold the mass necessary to compress the deuterium nuclei together for fusion to occur.

Why does it have to be deuterium?

Because tritium has too short a half-life and regular hydrogen takes even more pressure to fuse than deuterium.

Much of the energy which Clocktower thinks comes from the Sun actually comes from beneath our feet. Clocktower's globularist Atenism is the mistaken axiom from which all of these irrelevant calculations stem. No amount of number-crunching by Clocktower on this subject is going to usefully reveal to him any facts about the universe whilst this fundamental error is still present.

Much of the energy which Clocktower thinks comes from the Sun actually comes from beneath our feet. Clocktower's globularist Atenism is the mistaken axiom from which all of these irrelevant calculations stem. No amount of number-crunching by Clocktower on this subject is going to usefully reveal to him any facts about the universe whilst this fundamental error is still present.

James (a. k. a. dogplatter), no amount of saying something makes it true. Please stop your delusional nonsense. If you have evidence or sources that counter the University of Washington's solid academic documentation (again the reference: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf), please by all means present it. Otherwise, accept the defeat of your theory with grace.

No one in this thread is debating the relative contributions of the Earth and the Sun--expect a thread derailer, you.

You didn't eliminate all the 'nuclear' processes.

You didn't eliminate all the 'nuclear' processes.

True, but the third nuclear process, radioactive decay, produces even less energy per volume and declines with time exponentially. You can plug in several of the energy values into the equation and you'll find them to be less, but then you'll have to deal with the half-life of the isotope you select.

Much of the energy which Clocktower thinks comes from the Sun actually comes from beneath our feet. Clocktower's globularist Atenism is the mistaken axiom from which all of these irrelevant calculations stem. No amount of number-crunching by Clocktower on this subject is going to usefully reveal to him any facts about the universe whilst this fundamental error is still present.

1. Evidence is in favour of the current model of the Sun.
2. There is no evidence that suggests the Earth radiates energy

As much as you may dislike this, it is true. You must provide evidence to the contrary or show why this abundance of evidence is wrong. Hell, at least explain your beliefs with more depthh.

You've proven time and time again that you cannot cough up the smallest speck of evidence in favour of anything you say, you just ramble on about your beliefs, throw in the word globularist, and claim everything contrary to your beliefs is wrong.

This is not the way science, zeteticism, or arguing works.

2. There is no evidence that suggests the Earth radiates enough energy to account for these discrepancies

Fixed, best to be precise here.

Vindictus, if you believe that the Earth does not radiate heat, you are out of step with your own globularist scientists, who acknowledge that it does. Whilst I applaud your bold defiance of the scientific status quo, I would suggest that you make absolutely sure that this is what you believe, in case you end up looking very stupid by accident!

James: can you provide any verifiable objective evidence that the earth radiates most of the heat we experience here?

Vindictus, if you believe that the Earth does not radiate heat, you are out of step with your own globularist scientists, who acknowledge that it does. Whilst I applaud your bold defiance of the scientific status quo, I would suggest that you make absolutely sure that this is what you believe, in case you end up looking very stupid by accident!

1. Used the word 'globularist'
2. Taken me out of context
3. Condescending argument
4. Still no evidence of anything

I didn't see that coming.

Thank you GD. I didn't think I had to be that specific here. The Earth does not radiate near enough energy to even mention.

James likes to throw out the word globularist as if that automatically makes that person wrong.

And I have yet to see James post a shred of evidence for his outlandish claims. He also seems to think that him saying something enough times will make them true.

Quote from: parsec on September 28, 2010, 06:27:34 PM

You didn't eliminate all the 'nuclear' processes.

True, but the third nuclear process, radioactive decay, produces even less energy per volume and declines with time exponentially. You can plug in several of the energy values into the equation and you'll find them to be less, but then you'll have to deal with the half-life of the isotope you select.

The solar irradiance at the Earth's surface with the surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays is approximately 1 kW/m². This is an experimentally measurable fact.

All other calculations using this figure are model dependent and are drastically different between RE and FE.

For example, assuming RE and a Sun - Earth distance of 1.50 x 10¹¹ m, one finds that the Sun should radiate such power that a sphere with this radius will be irradiated with the above mentioned irradiance. This gives an estimate for the Solar power of:

P_{RE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (1.50 x 10¹¹ m)² = 2.83 x 10²⁶ W

In FE, however, the Sun is about 3,100 mi = 5.0 x 10⁶ m from the Earth. Then, the power is

P_{FE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (5.0 x 10⁶ m)² = 3.1 x 10¹⁷ W

Did you account for this huge difference of around 9 orders of magnitudes? Please note that the energy that the RE Sun could radiate in 1 second would be radiated by the Sun in FE in 29 years! Did you account for this discrepancy while "refuting" FE?

Why should I shy away from calling globularists what they are - globularists? Do you deny that you are a globularist?

Back to the topic at hand - of course the Earth radiates a great quantity of heat, as even the most stubborn globularists are forced to admit (except Vindictus, who requires correction by his own globularist cronies). I have provided a description of the kind of experiment which inevitably yields evidence in favour of my claim, I have done this myself on idle days and know it is the case. I do not see that this absurd debate has any further to go. I have won it.

And I have provided a description of a better experiment which inevitably yields evidence against your claim. I have done this myself on idle days and know it is the case.

You're a strange man, James.

I could just as easily claim that I've been to the sun and have measured it's energy, along with Earth's, I'm just not going to supply any evidence of it, though.

Also, I'm right and I've won the argument because of this. Yep.

I will repost my experiment here for the sake of lurking less:

I just used the Zetetic method to find out where the heat comes from.

I went outside, and held my hand in the sunlight and the shade. It got hot in the sunlight, but not in the shade. I also noticed that I only felt excessive heat on the upper side of my hand, and not the lower side. I touched the ground in both the sunlight and the shade, and the sunny ground was much hotter than the shaded ground.

I therefore conclude that heat comes from the sun!

Quote from: ClockTower on September 28, 2010, 06:37:26 PM

Quote from: parsec on September 28, 2010, 06:27:34 PM

You didn't eliminate all the 'nuclear' processes.

True, but the third nuclear process, radioactive decay, produces even less energy per volume and declines with time exponentially. You can plug in several of the energy values into the equation and you'll find them to be less, but then you'll have to deal with the half-life of the isotope you select.

The solar irradiance at the Earth's surface with the surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays is approximately 1 kW/m². This is an experimentally measurable fact.

All other calculations using this figure are model dependent and are drastically different between RE and FE.

For example, assuming RE and a Sun - Earth distance of 1.50 x 10¹¹ m, one finds that the Sun should radiate such power that a sphere with this radius will be irradiated with the above mentioned irradiance. This gives an estimate for the Solar power of:

P_{RE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (1.50 x 10¹¹ m)² = 2.83 x 10²⁶ W

In FE, however, the Sun is about 3,100 mi = 5.0 x 10⁶ m from the Earth. Then, the power is

P_{FE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (5.0 x 10⁶ m)² = 3.1 x 10¹⁷ W

Did you account for this huge difference of around 9 orders of magnitudes? Please note that the energy that the RE Sun could radiate in 1 second would be radiated by the Sun in FE in 29 years! Did you account for this discrepancy while "refuting" FE?

Sorry, but you messed up. My calculation is based on the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun, as reported by the UW citation. Your calculation goes awry by calculating the entire output of the RE Sun, which, as you so like to say, is irrelevant.

Please do try again when your intelligence rises to the level of sokural's. Thanks.

Quote from: parsec on September 28, 2010, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 28, 2010, 06:37:26 PM

Quote from: parsec on September 28, 2010, 06:27:34 PM

You didn't eliminate all the 'nuclear' processes.

True, but the third nuclear process, radioactive decay, produces even less energy per volume and declines with time exponentially. You can plug in several of the energy values into the equation and you'll find them to be less, but then you'll have to deal with the half-life of the isotope you select.

The solar irradiance at the Earth's surface with the surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays is approximately 1 kW/m². This is an experimentally measurable fact.

All other calculations using this figure are model dependent and are drastically different between RE and FE.

For example, assuming RE and a Sun - Earth distance of 1.50 x 10¹¹ m, one finds that the Sun should radiate such power that a sphere with this radius will be irradiated with the above mentioned irradiance. This gives an estimate for the Solar power of:

P_{RE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (1.50 x 10¹¹ m)² = 2.83 x 10²⁶ W

In FE, however, the Sun is about 3,100 mi = 5.0 x 10⁶ m from the Earth. Then, the power is

P_{FE Sun} = 10³ W/m² x 4 x 3.14 x (5.0 x 10⁶ m)² = 3.1 x 10¹⁷ W

Did you account for this huge difference of around 9 orders of magnitudes? Please note that the energy that the RE Sun could radiate in 1 second would be radiated by the Sun in FE in 29 years! Did you account for this discrepancy while "refuting" FE?

Sorry, but you messed up. My calculation is based on the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun, as reported by the UW citation. Your calculation goes awry by calculating the entire output of the RE Sun, which, as you so like to say, is irrelevant.

Please do try again when your intelligence rises to the level of sokural's. Thanks.

wat?

Back to the topic at hand - of course the Earth radiates a great quantity of heat, as even the most stubborn globularists are forced to admit (except Vindictus, who requires correction by his own globularist cronies). I have provided a description of the kind of experiment which inevitably yields evidence in favour of my claim, I have done this myself on idle days and know it is the case. I do not see that this absurd debate has any further to go. I have won it.

 I don't understand why you do this when there is sun out? Do it at night. Every night when there is no sun, you can go out and touch the ground. It's not hot, its not even warm. You have lost it.
 And I provided you counter-experiment which anyone can try and which proves that the sun is hotter and radiates more heat.

Quote from: James on September 28, 2010, 07:39:28 PM

Back to the topic at hand - of course the Earth radiates a great quantity of heat, as even the most stubborn globularists are forced to admit (except Vindictus, who requires correction by his own globularist cronies). I have provided a description of the kind of experiment which inevitably yields evidence in favour of my claim, I have done this myself on idle days and know it is the case. I do not see that this absurd debate has any further to go. I have won it.

 I don't understand why you do this when there is sun out? Do it at night. Every night when there is no sun, you can go out and touch the ground. It's not hot, its not even warm. You have lost it.
 And I provided you counter-experiment which anyone can try and which proves that the sun is hotter and radiates more heat.

But that's contrary to his predetermined world-view, so his brain just shuts it out.

Why should I shy away from calling globularists what they are - globularists? Do you deny that you are a globularist?

Back to the topic at hand - of course the Earth radiates a great quantity of heat, as even the most stubborn globularists are forced to admit (except Vindictus, who requires correction by his own globularist cronies). I have provided a description of the kind of experiment which inevitably yields evidence in favour of my claim, I have done this myself on idle days and know it is the case. I do not see that this absurd debate has any further to go. I have won it.

Please re-examine your false convictions. Your experiment fails to support your conclusion. The heat of the Earth is not anywhere in the calculation, nor should it be. You tilt after windmills, yet again.

Please do not call me stubborn, especially since I may not call you lazy.

Again demonstrate that the UW research on the matter is faulty or yield.

We are all still very worried about you clocktower.  Have you see a medical professional yet?