The Sun's power source.

Quote from: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 05:44:31 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 20, 2011, 04:34:38 PM

Quote from: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 02:43:25 PM

I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

Nice cop-out.

Do you mean me saying what I've been saying all along, or me commenting that the obviousness of my trolling made me feel like James?

Were you being sarcastic in your post about the sun being fire?

Yes, he was. Tausami is a very sarcastic Round Earther who likes to mess with the lunatics who think the Earth is flat...
-Vincent.

I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

So you don't support the conservation of energy law. Good to know.

Quote from: Tausami on May 20, 2011, 02:43:25 PM

I already told you, the sun is made of pure, unadulterated fire. Again, Earth's fire isn't as hot or bright because it is kept as energy in various fuels, let out by chemical reactions. The Sun's fire is not kept in fuel, it simply is.

God, I feel like James.

So you don't support the conservation of energy law. Good to know.

If the round earth exists, how can anyone without an infinite universe view hold the conversation of energy.  Its a giant "possibility" matrix that has made wise men fools ! look at truth!  why would we suggest something so ridiculous as a round earther, if not to hide our lies (to ourselves) and our faults.  This is the most important thing you will read in your life.

This is the most important thing you will read in your life.

And sadly I don't understand it.

I could only make out the first sentence, so if you care to rephrase the rest of your post, that would be appreciated.

As for the first sentence - why does the universe need to be infinite for the conservation of energy to hold? Consider a closed system, a finite system. The law holds for that case in all observations to date, so why wouldn't it hold for your FE sun?

If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:18:48 PM

If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 12:22:47 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:18:48 PM

If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.

I have bolded the parts of your post that jumped out at me.  We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 12:22:47 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 12:18:48 PM

If we could get away from trying to defend the troll statement of the sun being pure fire, and back to answering the question of what powers the sun in FE, that would be awesome.

We honestly don't know.  None of us has ever been there.  And we're not so presumptive as to assume an untestable theory is the correct answer.

You are the only one presuming anything, i am asking what your theory is to a pretty important aspect of your flat earth beliefs.  RE still do not have a great explanation for magnetic fields on the sun, but we have theories as to the suns power source that work great.  We have tested and re tested many possible fuel sources, and found that the only one that we know of that would work is in fact fusion of hydrogen.  By calculating the energy output of the sun at 1 AU, and how much mass it has using newtons version kelpers third law, we can determine that the sun could possibly be fusing hydrogen in its core.  I was just wondering what the FE theory was, i do not think it has to be correct, but the fact that there is no credible theory is alarming.

I have bolded the parts of your post that jumped out at me.  We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".

Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 01:28:58 PM

Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on May 21, 2011, 02:00:19 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 01:28:58 PM

Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.

To critique one's own ideas against one's own arbitrary standards is a laughable activity. Socrates rightly perceived himself to be the wisest man in the world for recognising his ignorance. RE'ers and lovers of the scientific model would do well to learn from his example.

 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".

Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 02:04:54 PM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on May 21, 2011, 02:00:19 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 01:28:58 PM

Again, you can highlight what you want in my post, but this is our theory of how the sun works.  Let me make that clear, theory.  What is the FE theory?

Tis better to stay silent than to promulgate fantastical absurdities--sorry--theories.

Your right, trying to understand the universe around you by formulating and testing theories to the best of your ability, then comparing and critiquing them is... just plain wrong.

To critique one's own ideas against one's own arbitrary standards is a laughable activity. Socrates rightly perceived himself to be the wisest man in the world for recognising his ignorance. RE'ers and lovers of the scientific model would do well to learn from his example.

Two things.  One, what arbitrary standards are you talking about?

Two, I do not believe that Socrates was a supporter of ignorance.  While it is important to reconize that you do not infact know everything, or in fact, almost anything, that should not stop you from your quest to learn everything possible about your surroundings. Again, our idea of how the sun works is merely a theory, yet, whenever we look at new information, it still works with our current theory.  As time goes on and technology improves, we may find new information regarding how the sun works and it may completely change our perception of the sun and other celestial bodies.  but that should not stop you from trying to contemplate the unknown.

So at this point i am assuming that there is no theory for how the sun works in FE, which is cool, obviously you cant have a theory about everything, and you dont have funds to conduct a research, so its not a big deal.  But arguing semantics regarding knowing versus thinking was not the purpose of this thread, and it makes it seem as though you are hiding something.  RE theories do not have an explanation for everything, and i would assume that FE does not either.

However, i will say that the sun is sort of a big deal.  It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.  If you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community, and convince others of the earths flatness, these are the kinds of things that need looking into.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 01:12:33 PM

 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".

Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?

Oh, sure.  But I have the wisdom to recognize that they probably don't.

I'd like to see a list of predictions made that are dependent on the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion that have proven to be true, by the way.  Just to be sure you aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  I'm having trouble understanding how such predictions could even exist but I look forward to learning something new.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 03:00:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 21, 2011, 01:12:33 PM

 We're zeteticists here.  We do not presume to know what's going on inside a giant ball of fire thousands of miles away from anything we are able to come into contact with because some artificial model we've created and tweaked to our satisfaction "works".

Ok. And when those models make predictions that then turn out to be correct, does that not make you think that maybe just maybe those models might represent what is going on?

Oh, sure.  But I have the wisdom to recognize that they probably don't.

And this wisdom comes from where exactly?

I'd like to see a list of predictions made that are dependent on the theory that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion that have proven to be true, by the way.  Just to be sure you aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  I'm having trouble understanding how such predictions could even exist but I look forward to learning something new.

Sure. The most obvious is that the sun should be a big neutrino source. That's pretty strongly confirmed. Note that fewer neutrinos than initially predicted have been detected, but the basic prediction is correct within a factor of 3  and the correct result is consistent with the Standard Model with oscillating neutrinos with non-zero rest mass. In contrast, most other obvious heat sources (three that have been mentioned on these boards are good-old fashioned fire, nuclear fission, and other radioactive decay processes) will all produce far fewer neutrinos.

The other important thing to realize is that the general theory which is making these predictions isn't just that the sun is powered by fusion but that stars in general are powered by fusion. Thus, one can predict that stars which we expect to be older stars (such as red giants) will have correspondingly different element ratios. And in fact one sees this. Thus for example, red giants have higher nitrogen/carbon ratios than does the sun. This is due to the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen fusion cycle. This was predicted in advance and then found to be true. Another related prediction predicts ratios of carbon-13, carbon-14 and carbon-12. And we've confirmed those. In particular, younger stars (that is stars which are predicted to be young by standard theories) have a higher c-13/c-12 ratio.

If you want, I can give other examples.

If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 08:14:36 PM

If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!

You don't care for more examples, but rather to waste his time.

FEers are just modern day cavemen. They still believe the Earth is flat and the sun is a giant fireball.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 21, 2011, 08:14:36 PM

If you want, I can give other examples.

Please!

We should expect to see an upsurge in neutrinos during a nearby supernova, especially at the very beginning of the supernova. This was dramatically confirmed  with the 1987a supernova which was bright enough to be visible to the naked eye (although this isn't perfect evidence because the supernova apparently occurred at a star that we didn't expect to supernova and people are still trying to figure out what happened.) A few hours prior, neutrino detectors saw spikes in neutrino  in the few hours before the supernova was visible.

The standard fusion theory predicts that stars can't have a mass more than about 300 times that of the sun, and that there should be almost none more than 200 masses (since heavier, less efficiently fusing elements are now prominent). In fact, the largest stars found are about a 150 solar masses. This has been consistent even as we've found the masses of more and more stars. (Note that estimating stellar mass is really difficult, so this is one of the weaker pieces of evidence).

The model of star formation also gives strong predictions about what elements will be most common in the universe. In particular, it predicts that elements that are heavier than iron will be rare and that they will be progressively rarer the heavier they are. This is something of a weak prediction, since we already had this information for Earth itself and the stellar model simply predicts that this will be true more or less in general.

This isn't to say that we have everything figured out. Far from it.  There's a lot still we don't know. For example, as I mentioned earlier, estimating stellar mass is really difficult. And then there are a handful of just weird things, like how Betelgeuse has been apparently changing size over the last hundred years. A lot of our understanding is very rough. Part of this is just due to the computational difficulty (even today, simulating the inside of a star is tough). And although there is some near-surface fusion, the vast majority of the fusion is taking place deep inside stars which is very hard to get data about (again, neutrinos are one of our few sources of information). And even some surface behavior like that of solar flares and sunspots, where we do have a lot of data, are still not well understood. But, these are all essentially details. The overarching picture of stellar fusion is pretty strongly established.

I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

Please refrain from crackpottery in the upper fora.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

I see a picture of ancient illustrations, a porcupine and a cartoon sun - yet no data is to be found.

Not very zetetic of you, James.

Do not pretend to moderate in the upper fora, this is against site rules. Consider this an official warning.

Quote from: James on May 22, 2011, 02:41:46 AM

I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

Please refrain from crackpottery in the upper fora.

No memberating

I am sorry, but the Sun is most certainly not made of fire.  This is easily proven by reflection on the well known fact that the light of the Sun puts out terrestrial fires.  It is absurd to posthulate that a fire would put out another fire.  If one was to go outside during a fire and observe fires interacting with one and another, something interesting happens.  When you have one fire beside another, for some reason, when they touch each other, they join up and become a single fire.  According to the education system, 1 fire and another fire should be 2, but according to real world science one fire and another fire touching equals one fire.  Some of you may say but there are 2 fires they are just together.  Therefore the Sun is not made of fire, because it puts out fires, yet when a fire interacts with another fire they join and become a stronger fire.

In fact, the Sun is bioluminescent.  You may read my excellent article on the subject, here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

Yet the phrase of Fight Fire with Fire holds true.  A common method of fighting fires is - with other fires!  And there are many real world applications where the fires remain separate.

I think you may wish to do go out and do more experiments.

Berny
Wonders why he even bothers arguing with this Homo Ergaster.

It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 03:09:06 PM

It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Then how can claiming that the sun's or moon's luminescence is biological in nature meet zetetic standards?

Wonders why he even bothers arguing with this Homo Ergaster.

Do not make personal attacks in the upper fora, consider this an official warning.

Do not pretend to moderate in the upper fora, this is against site rules. Consider this an official warning.

As a member of this forum should I not be entitled to some freedom of speech? Or do you expect to be able to throw your crackpottery around like a troll without a bridge without being singled out?

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on May 22, 2011, 08:06:50 AM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 03:09:06 PM

It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Then how can claiming that the sun's or moon's luminescence is biological in nature meet zetetic standards?

When have I said they're bioluminescent? I take no part in baseless speculation.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 21, 2011, 03:09:06 PM

It powers all life on this earth, and has been doing so for a long time, billions of years by our best calculations.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Water powers life on this Earth, a fact which can be evidenced by zetetic standards. The same is not so clear for a luminescent object in the sky.

Sure, minus bacteria that live near heat vents at the bottom of the ocean, photosynthesis is the basis by which all energy is obtained.  Producers are the base of every energy pyramid, and producers use photosynthesis.