The Sun is Held together by Pressure

If this was in the upper forums I would laugh and join in. However, this is not the upper forums and this is not funny.

Okay so let's pretent the sun is instead a giant ball of gas which ignited under pressure into a giant ball of fire...

This ball of fire blasted all the little chunks of rock into deep space.

Now... how did the asteroid belt get there?

It's a little off topic but to say the least, maybe there are frequencies to gravito-electromagnetism which bind the planets into common orbital zones.


If not... how did it get there?

I retract my previous post's second statement. This is hilarious.

Solar Atmosph. Pressure as a Function of Depth

Depth (km)   % Light from this Depth   Temperature (K)   Pressure (bars)

0   99.5   4465   6.8 x 10-3
100   97   4780   1.7 x 10-2
200   89   5180   3.9 x 10-2
250   80   5455   5.8 x 10-2
300   64   5840   8.3 x 10-2
350   37   6420   1.2 x 10-1
375   18   6910   1.4 x 10-1
400   4   7610   1.6 x 10-1

This table indicates that the solar atmosphere changes from being almost completely transparent to being almost opaque over a distance of about 400 km. Notice also that in this region the temperature drops rapidly as we near the surface, and that the pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.


Therefore, these are the official scientific facts re: the pressure of the Sun's atmosphere.


RE: sunspots:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,39728.msg999057.html#msg999057



Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


And we have of course the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927



You should be aware of the barometric pressure paradox as well:


The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.


“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

You didn't answer my question: WHERE did you get the numbers?

Official, accepted scientific data re: atmosphere/photosphere of the Sun; you know where to look for...

For example:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html


Do not worry, the numbers ARE correct; but we still have the following paradox:

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


Also, the barometric pressure paradox clearly demonstrates our atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravitational law.

Oh I know they're correct. I find it curious that you do too. Do you know how those correct numbers were found?

Quote from: Dr Matrix on September 18, 2012, 10:54:36 AM

PV=nRT

Seems relevant.

Only if we assume an ideal gas within the equations. And I'm not 100% positive, but I don't think it's applicable for a system composed of plasmas'.

It isn't, but it's a start.

Original references for the sun's atmosphere:

Ch. John and H. Babcock, Pressure and Circulation in the Reversing Layer of the Sun’s Atmosphere. Contribution of Mount Wilson Observatory, 278, 1924.

A. Unsold, On the Physical Interpretation of Spectro-heliogram, Contr. M. Wilson Obs. 378, 1929.

Peter Lebedew, An Experimental Investigation of the Pressure of Light, Ann. Rep. of the Smithson. Inst. 1903, John Cox, Comets’ Tails, the Corona, and the Aurora Borealis, ibid.



The pressure of light provides us with another demonstration that there is no such thing as attractive gravity:


The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.


And there are other things you choose to ignore LD...

The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.

Levee, copy and pasting hordes of paragraphs that make no scientific sense has not and will never help your argument.

Levee, copy and pasting hordes of paragraphs that make no scientific sense has not and will never help your argument.

Actually, it's quite effective at making him undefeatable in debate. Everyone just gives up after a few posts.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on September 20, 2012, 06:24:19 AM

Levee, copy and pasting hordes of paragraphs that make no scientific sense has not and will never help your argument.

Actually, it's quite effective at making him undefeatable in debate. Everyone just gives up after a few posts.

Since the forum is for scientific, not political, discussion, attempting to win via the overload of information is not winning at all. I.e. you can not be undefeated at a game you were never playing.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on September 20, 2012, 06:24:19 AM

Levee, copy and pasting hordes of paragraphs that make no scientific sense has not and will never help your argument.

Actually, it's quite effective at making him undefeatable in debate. Everyone just gives up after a few posts.

Except stubborn idiots like myself.

Original references for the sun's atmosphere:

Ch. John and H. Babcock, Pressure and Circulation in the Reversing Layer of the Sun’s Atmosphere. Contribution of Mount Wilson Observatory, 278, 1924.

A. Unsold, On the Physical Interpretation of Spectro-heliogram, Contr. M. Wilson Obs. 378, 1929.

Peter Lebedew, An Experimental Investigation of the Pressure of Light, Ann. Rep. of the Smithson. Inst. 1903, John Cox, Comets’ Tails, the Corona, and the Aurora Borealis, ibid.

So papers almost 100 years old.  Gotcha.

However, are you aware that these numbers only account for only the top 14,000KM?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1924ApJ....60...32S/0000041.000.html

If the radius of the sun is 696,000KM then the pressure of less than 1 atm only accounts for 2% of the sun.  This isn't unexpected since it's on the edge of space and, frankly, there's a giant explosion that's pushing away from the sun.

Let's say the atmosphere is 690 KM high.  The top 2% is 13.8 KM from the top that means the pressure is roughly: 9.86923267 × 10-7 atm

So why would the top 2% of a flaming ball of gas that's literally blowing atoms into space have a higher pressure than the top 2% of the Earth's atmosphere?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on September 18, 2012, 11:32:00 AM

If this was in the upper forums I would laugh and join in. However, this is not the upper forums and this is not funny.

Okay so let's pretent the sun is instead a giant ball of gas which ignited under pressure into a giant ball of fire...

This ball of fire blasted all the little chunks of rock into deep space.

Now... how did the asteroid belt get there?

It's a little off topic but to say the least, maybe there are frequencies to gravito-electromagnetism which bind the planets into common orbital zones.


If not... how did it get there?

First off, that isn't how the sun or the solar system was formed, so it isn't relevant to discuss the physics of such a hypothetical event.

Also, we know how the asteroid belt was formed. In the asteroid belt rocks and rubble were also forming to become planets like Earth and Mars, but only the gas giants formed quicker, so they were able to gravitationally dominate them. Sometimes the proto-planets would just crash into the gas giants, but other times they would be sling-shotted back into the asteroid belt where they would crash into other proto-planets. This happening over and over meant that all the large masses were either stolen or broken. It is possible that the proto-planet the crashed into the Earth to form the moon was a result of this. Even today we see asteroids getting pulled from the belt whenever Jupiter lines up with the Sun gravitationally.

Levee, copy and pasting hordes of paragraphs that make no scientific sense has not and will never help your argument.

No such thing happened. Are you telling us you are not able to follow a few paragraphs of scientific information?

At the ME/MS or PhD level you are compelled to read hundreds (if not thousands) of pages to understand a subject, are you not?


And these paragraphs do make a lot of sense.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.



The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.


LD, you have not addressed at all the fact of the matter:

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

LD, you have not addressed at all the fact of the matter:

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

As mentioned in the paper you referenced, the weak pressure accounts for only 2% of the sun. Do you know the pressure of the atoms below that ?

LD, you are assuming, of course, that gravitation is attractive; you might find it surprising that this is an unproven hypothesis, which is contradicted easily.

In order not to be accused of posting large portions of texts, here is a separate thread with the barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UFxNgbLiaUM


Can you explain to us ld how is it possible for the next, say, 400 km of the photosphere/atmosphere to obey an attractive gravity law, given the perfect demonstration (see the link) that the our own atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravity law, and that  the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with their specific gravities?


If the gases in the Earth's atmosphere simply defy gravity, how would the gases in the Sun's photosphere obey such a nonexistent law of gravitational attraction?


You have chosen, again, to ignore the faint young sun paradox.


Have you ever thought carefully about stellar evolution ld?

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551


There is no possible way the elements of the periodic table could have formed in the big bang scenario; have you ever heard of the helium gap 5 and helium flash paradoxes?


And yet, you find yourself arguing about the first 400 km or so of the Sun's photosphere...


Let us follow now your line of thought.

Can you explain to us how those gases in the first 400 km of the sun's atmosphere stay in place, given the centrifugal force of rotation?

I have just demonstrated to you that those gases DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law.

Are you saying that gravity starts only after the first 400 km? How could that be ld? As you have seen, the pressure of light cannot be used as a supportive argument; so, at the present time, you cannot explain what is going on with those first 400 km.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, how do you explain the presence of gases for the next thousands of km (we are talking here  of course, about the official model of the sun) all the way to the core of the sun?


For those who do not like walls of texts, here is a single photograph:




Not a single centimeter of curvature across the strait of Gibraltar.

And a single video, taken from the same spot:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barbarians - The End of The World

Between 38:28 and 38:35, no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar (on a round earth, the curvature would measure some 3.35 meters, with a visual obstacle of some 5 meters on the other side of the strait), no ascending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water.


ps - by the way can you precisely point to us where does it say that a weak pressure accounts only for 2% of the sun? HOW did they come to understand that the rest of the sun's photosphere is under high pressure? Based on attractive gravity, a concept which in 1924 was (and still is) a poorly conceived hypothesis?

I logged in just to post this

LD, you are assuming, of course, that gravitation is attractive; you might find it surprising that this is an unproven hypothesis, which is contradicted easily.

In order not to be accused of posting large portions of texts, here is a separate thread with the barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UFxNgbLiaUM

You ignore simple science here.  Even in a static setting gases are not static.  Gasses move around all the time, they don't require wind. 
Further more a person just needs to climb a small mountain to know that your statement "though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights." is not true.

Can you explain to us ld how is it possible for the next, say, 400 km of the photosphere/atmosphere to obey an attractive gravity law, given the perfect demonstration (see the link) that the our own atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravity law, and that  the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with their specific gravities?

Once again, it is not a property of gases to arrange themselves by density like some liquids will do.  But even then, liquids are not static. See diffusion.

If the gases in the Earth's atmosphere simply defy gravity, how would the gases in the Sun's photosphere obey such a nonexistent law of gravitational attraction?

Applying a false argument to show your point doesn't work.

You have chosen, again, to ignore the faint young sun paradox.


Have you ever thought carefully about stellar evolution ld?

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551

Whether the big bang happened or not is an argument all by itself.  No need to introduce it here. 

There is no possible way the elements of the periodic table could have formed in the big bang scenario; have you ever heard of the helium gap 5 and helium flash paradoxes?

The big bang did not forum the elements of the periodic table, you are correct.  The big bang did not form elements at all. Looking it up to make sure I am right, it took around 377,000 years after the big bang for atoms to form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Recombination  

And yet, you find yourself arguing about the first 400 km or so of the Sun's photosphere...


Let us follow now your line of thought.

Can you explain to us how those gases in the first 400 km of the sun's atmosphere stay in place, given the centrifugal force of rotation?

I have just demonstrated to you that those gases DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law.

No you didn't. 

Are you saying that gravity starts only after the first 400 km? How could that be ld? As you have seen, the pressure of light cannot be used as a supportive argument; so, at the present time, you cannot explain what is going on with those first 400 km.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, how do you explain the presence of gases for the next thousands of km (we are talking here  of course, about the official model of the sun) all the way to the core of the sun?

Still going on about this.  Feel free to climb mount Everest.  I'm sure there is plenty of oxygen at the top. 

For those who do not like walls of texts, here is a single photograph:




Not a single centimeter of curvature across the strait of Gibraltar.

And a single video, taken from the same spot:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barbarians - The End of The World

Between 38:28 and 38:35, no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar (on a round earth, the curvature would measure some 3.35 meters, with a visual obstacle of some 5 meters on the other side of the strait), no ascending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water.

What does this have to do with anything? This is a different argument.  It shouldn't be in this thread.

ps - by the way can you precisely point to us where does it say that a weak pressure accounts only for 2% of the sun? HOW did they come to understand that the rest of the sun's photosphere is under high pressure? Based on attractive gravity, a concept which in 1924 was (and still is) a poorly conceived hypothesis?

You are so ignorant it's unbelievable. 

You fool!  You fell into his trap!