You have no experience dealing with stellar astrophysics.
That is why you are picking at the straws here.
No. I'm questioning your basic premises and poor analysis.
The online centrifugal force website is not equipped to deal with such large numbers,
Really? Then why did you describe the process this way?
I have clearly indicated how the centrifugal forces computations were done.
I have provided each and every figure needed from the rotational speed of the Sun (a single page reference, very easy to spot the data) to the density of both the photosphere and the cromospheres (page 11 of the pdf reference).
Then, it is a very simple task to get the final results (I have even provided an online centrifugal force calculator):
[Emphasis added]
First you say you provided an online calculator. Later you say it doesn't work with these numbers. You really need to sanity check the things you say to see if they are at least close to right before saying them. It helps your "cred".
At any rate, just dumping your numbers for mass and radius (after removing the commas) and a rotation rate for the Sun in meters/second into the calculator worked for me. It returned numbers similar to yours.
The commas had to be removed from the numbers before submitting the data or it returns NaN (Not a Number, a.k.a. invalid result). Perhaps that was your problem? You should check this stuff before posting. Going through the bother of basic diligence helps you look like you know what you're doing, even, in some cases, if you don't.
everything had to be done by hand.
Oh, the humanity!
It is just a ballpark figure, not a precise, latitude by latitude calculation;
Didn't you say it
is simple?
Then, it is a very simple task to get the final results (I have even provided an online centrifugal force calculator):
Yeah... you did say it
is simple. Apparently this was before you realized it didn't work with your invalid input.
.
"Latitude by latitude calculation." You never mentioned this before. It sounds like the story is changing; you must have realized where you went wrong, once prodded!
Can we see calculations for, say, at least two or three latitudes? Please include the actual data you used (numbers and units) rather than make us guess what the actual values and your methodology are.
What are the final answers now?
the kind of estimate that suffices for this level of discussion.
That's a good approach and certainly enough for this sort of thing.
Centrifugal force but not gravity? Again, why not? Because you say so?
Do you have a basic understanding of stellar astrophysics?
Yes. You started out by stating as fact "You have no experience dealing with stellar astrophysics." Why are you asking now?
Could that be why you still don't get it?
Misunderstanding is always possible. This seems unlikely in this case.
Gravity has ALREADY been taken into full consideration.
Where?
NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Thanks for the edict. Can you justify it?
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
The pressure on the surface is
caused by gravity. What you said is nonsense.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
You're obviously mystified. Scientists, not so much.
It's unlikely that the gases are "just standing there", either. Evidence suggests that there is very violent motion going on.
As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.
Huge compared to what? The weight of the gases in question? Centrifugal force is tiny compared to that. Can you show otherwise?
Show, not handwave.
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.
No scientist at the present time can explain the defiance of newtonian mechanics by the gases in the solar photosphere.
Well, you obviously can't explain what's going on. That much is
very clear. Assuming your inability applies to everyone else is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
The acceleration of gravity (which you can't simply ignore even if you want to) is about 500 times the centrifugal acceleration according to my earlier calculations. Did you find an error in them? Actually, there are a couple of errors. Can you find them? I'll edit the post to add an erratum in a while.
I really don't see the problem with a nearly perfectly spherical sun when considering only gravity and rotation. The Sun rotates slowly and is quite massive so its gravity swamps centrifugal acceleration by orders of magnitude.
You don't have the most basic understanding of stellar astrophysics.
Why did you ask earlier?
It is a subject way beyond your level.
How can you tell? You're the one struggling with the basics.
Gravity has already been taken into consideration.
Where?
Yet, those gases are under a very low pressure.
OK. They have
very low density. So?
That is, no one can explain how the photosphere and the cromosphere can stay glued next to the surface of the sun, while they are also subjected to the full centrifugal force.
"Full centrifugal force" oh, my! Do we have only partial force of gravity here? Why? Where did the rest go?
It's really simple if you don't confuse yourself with your own obfuscation. The acceleration of gravity is much greater than the centrifugal acceleration. Period. The photosphere and the coronosphere "stick" to the Sun because they weigh more than the centrifugal force from rotation. By a very large margin.
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.
You keep mentioning "gravitational pressure". I presume that's essentially just the weight of the gases since the centrifugal force is negligible (even at the equator, where it's greatest) divided by the area they cover (i.e. the surface area of the Sun) since pressure is force per unit area. Do you mean something different? If so, what?
The barometric pressure paradox is a clear defiance of attractive gravity: it defies newtonian mechanics.
It takes a single counterexample to destroy a hypothesis.
Not exactly. First of all, the counterexample has to be both valid and relevant before it can disprove a hypothesis.
Moreover, if atmospheric tides have nothing to do with the influence of the gravity of the sun or that of the moon, it also means oceanic tides also cannot be explained using newtonian mechanics.
Who said they have
nothing to do with the influence of the gravity of the Moon or the Sun? I was asking
how much of a contribution should be expected from these sources. So far all I've heard on this is crickets.
Atmospheric tides sound like a very complex problem in fluid dynamics; expecting a model that's accurate, yet simple enough for a non-expert (like me and, most likely, you) to understand is probably unrealistic.
You have to explain the barometric pressure paradox, which no scientist can accomplish at the present time.
No I don't. First you must demonstrate there is something that needs to be explained. You haven't done so yet.
If you can show there is
no evidence for a lunar component to atmospheric tides that should realistically be expected, and explain why they should be expected (a link to a competent source would be fine), I'd be interested in hearing about that. Until then, you're just posturing.
No capture can be accomplished by the sun in the first place: we have to deal with the collision theory paradox.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1777336#msg1777336
Yet another "paradox"? Can you distill that tome into a succinct
and coherent synopsis? Think of the abstract of an actual technical paper; explain what it is about, the general approach taken in analysis, and highlights of the data and findings. If it seems sufficiently useful or even mildly interesting then your full wall of text can be perused.
The quote about the innate motion, in Newton's own formulation can be found here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776803#msg1776803
The unattributed quote in question is not in that post.
I did get a laugh out of this from it, though: "The Principia is notorious for its lack of numbers and variables." You continually complain and laud others who complain about things like this.
That's a reasonable complaint, so do better. Meanwhile, you steadfastly refuse to provide the data you purport use in computations and reply with a flippant "look it up" when asked what the number was. See the top of this post for an excellent example: "a single page reference, very easy to spot the data" containing several possible values, but no hint which one you actually used.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776706#msg1776706
Aha!! There's the source for the quote I was looking for.
"The orbiter must retain its innate motion throughout the orbit, no matter the shape of the orbit. If it did not, then its innate motion would dissipate. If it dissipated, the orbit would not be stable. Therefore, the orbiter always retains its innate motion over each and every differential. If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places."
From
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776706#msg1776706The orbiter must retain its innate motion throughout the orbit, no matter the shape of the orbit. If it did not, then its innate motion would dissipate. If it dissipated, the orbit would not be stable. Therefore, the orbiter always retains its innate motion over each and every differential. If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places.
Turns out, it's none other than our own sandokhan! Unless he's plagiarizing someone else. Note the quote marks in the first but not second blocks.
"Innate motion" is an archaic term that was replaced by
inertia in more recent writings.
[Edit] Fix embedded quote and complete last sentence.