The Sun

Tell me about the Flat Earth sun.

I know it is supposed to trace circles every day illuminating different parts of the Earth - those circles are supposed to be segments of a slow spiral that take the sun closer to the edge in summer and back hubwards in winter, but that's about as far as heliophysics goes in the Flat Earth theory.

How high up is it?
What keeps it up there?
What is it made of?
Where does it get its energy?

Once we answer these fairly basic questions, we can start talking about what it does. Let's talk about what it is first.

Its ubiquitous and known to everyone on the planet and nobody has presented a Flat Earth explanation for it.

Any takers?

A spiral movement means smaller circles in summer and bigger circles in winter. So the sun needs to accelerate or brake somehow to make smaller or bigger circles in the same 24 hours. Because otherwise if the speed of the sun were contant allways, one day in summer would be much less than 24 hours.

It's height can be determined in a number of ways, which rely upon assumptions about Earth and the atmosphere and any dome/space.

Just using simple assumptions, then the height can be measured /calculated by measuring the angle to the sun at various points. (and this applies to other things like Polaris as well)

For example, on the equinox, take the equator, 45 degrees north and 45 degrees south (all on the same meridian, and at high noon or solar peak).
At the equator it is directly overhead.
At 45 degrees north (5000 km away from the equator) it is at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, and due south.
At 45 degrees south, it is the same but due north.

This establishes 2 right angle triangles (you only actually need one), it has an unknown height and a base of 5 000 km, with an angle of 45 degrees.
This makes it a right isosceles triangle, and thus the height is also 5000 km. You can also use trig, noting that tan(45 degrees)=1, thus the height is 5000 km.

The problem is when you try to use other locations.
For example, at the north pole, the angle of elevation is ~0. That requires a height of ~0.

It's height can be determined in a number of ways, which rely upon assumptions about Earth and the atmosphere and any dome/space.

Just using simple assumptions, then the height can be measured /calculated by measuring the angle to the sun at various points. (and this applies to other things like Polaris as well)

For example, on the equinox, take the equator, 45 degrees north and 45 degrees south (all on the same meridian, and at high noon or solar peak).
At the equator it is directly overhead.
At 45 degrees north (5000 km away from the equator) it is at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, and due south.
At 45 degrees south, it is the same but due north.

This establishes 2 right angle triangles (you only actually need one), it has an unknown height and a base of 5 000 km, with an angle of 45 degrees.
This makes it a right isosceles triangle, and thus the height is also 5000 km. You can also use trig, noting that tan(45 degrees)=1, thus the height is 5000 km.

The problem is when you try to use other locations.
For example, at the north pole, the angle of elevation is ~0. That requires a height of ~0.

so, observation:
solar peak at equator. So sun visible direct above with angle of 90 degrees.
5000 km north at the same time: sun visible with angle of 45 degrees.
5000 km further north at the same time (north pole):sun visible with angle of 0 degrees.

do the math:
5000 km north of equator sun is at 45 degrees ---> sun is at 5000km height
10.000km north of equator with sun at 5000km height sun should be visible at an agle of:
tan(5000/10000) = 0,546rad = 31,3 degrees.

conclusion:
FE Theory does not match with observations.

How high up is it?
What keeps it up there?
What is it made of?
Where does it get its energy?

I have answered these questions in great detail, many times. The solar model featured in the official FE FAQ is totally erroneous.


What keeps it up there?

I. Newton explains:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.


One of the rarest documents, the complete letter from Newton to Boyle dated 1679: On the Cosmic Ether of Space

http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm

It is of huge significance.


4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.



So this is what Newton meant by gravitational attraction: outside pressure brings the two bodies together ("adhere strongly to one another").


I shall set down one conjecture more, which came into my mind now as I was writing this letter; it is about the cause of gravity. For this end I will suppose aether to consist of parts differing from one another in subtilty by indefinite degrees; that in the pores of bodies there is less of the grosser aether, in proportion to the finer, than in open spaces; and consequently, that in the great body of the earth there is much less of the grosser aether, in proportion to the finer, than in the regions of the air; and that yet the grosser aether in the air affects the upper regions of the earth, and the finer aether in the earth the lower regions of the air, in such a manner, that from the top of the air to the surface of the earth, and again from the surface of the earth to the centre thereof, the aether is insensibly finer and finer. Imagine now any body suspended in the air, or lying on the earth, and the aether being by the hypothesis grosser in the pores, which are in the upper parts of the body, than in those which are in its lower parts, and that grosser aether being less apt to be lodged in those pores than the finer aether below, it will endeavour to get out and give way to the finer aether below, which cannot be, without the bodies descending to make room above for it to go out into.


What is it made of?

SOLID SURFACE OF THE SUN paradox.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/tsunami.htm?



The Sun emits quarks. Therefore it must have a constant supply of subquarks at its disposal. The source of energy for the Sun is the Black Sun, without which it could not function. The Black Sun is the source of subquarks necessary for the radiation emitted by the Sun.

The Allais effect proves the existence of the Black Sun.


There is no such thing as a functioning RE model of the sun.

The faint young sun paradox demolishes the currently accepted hypothesis that the Sun is some billions of years old.


The most direct proof that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace is the CNO cycle paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377

As for the shape of the solar orbit, here is an entire thread dedicated to this subject:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Newton accepted that Earth was round, and I think he also accepted planets orbiting the sun.

SOLID SURFACE OF THE SUN paradox.

And of course, no actual paradox just a claim of one.

The Sun emits quarks. Therefore it must have a constant supply of subquarks at its disposal. The source of energy for the Sun is the Black Sun, without which it could not function. The Black Sun is the source of subquarks necessary for the radiation emitted by the Sun.

No. It doesn't.
There is no black sun.

The Allais effect proves the existence of the Black Sun.

No. The Allais effect is a hypothesis which hasn't even been confirmed.

There is no such thing as a functioning RE model of the sun.

That is because the RE models Earth, not the sun, but there is a functioning accurate model of the solar system, with a round Earth.

The faint young sun paradox demolishes the currently accepted hypothesis that the Sun is some billions of years old.

No. Your ignorance doesn't demolish anything.

The most direct proof that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace is the CNO cycle paradox:

And of course, just more links to crap, not honest debate.


Also, did you notice one thing you didn't do at all?
Answer any of the questions.

No where in your post did you say how high up it is, what keeps it up there, what it is made of or where it gets its energy, except a brief mention of an imaginary black sun.

Do you have any answers, or just links to crap?

Of course Newton did accept that the earth was around and it was rotating around the sun. He used Kepler's data on motion of plants and used it to formulate the theory of gravity.

He knew that the earth was round and that all planets were orbiting the sun.

As for the shape of the solar orbit, here is an entire thread dedicated to this subject:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64997.0

Where you post piles of crap, get refuted, and then run.

sando's motto:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Unfortunately that doesn't work in this case...we can see through your bullshit...

Of course Newton did accept that the earth was around and it was rotating around the sun.

Did he now?

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?


Nobody can advocate the ether pressure theory like Newton can.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, II (Cambridge, 1960)
288-295, 295 (sent 28 Feb. 1679)

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

Westfall, note 10, 91.
R.Westfall, Never at Rest (Cambridge, 1980)

T.Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4 vols (London 1756-7; reprinted Brussels 1968), 3, 1756, 248-60.


Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive gravity.


Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.


Pressure gravity works only on a flat surface of the Earth.


He used Kepler's data on motion of plants and used it to formulate the theory of gravity.

You haven't done your homework on this one either.

Here is how Kepler FUDGED/FAKED/INVENTED/FALSIFIED his entire set of data in the Nova Astronomia:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680


This fakery led in turn to the three body problem paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

jackblack, you are most definitely illiterate when it comes to real science.

No. The Allais effect is a hypothesis which hasn't even been confirmed.

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.


The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation: for the same masses of the Sun, Moon, Earth, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.



Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



Perhaps it would be helpful to show you the data pertaining to the Allais effect, as recorded in 1970.

Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"





Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).

I didn't bother reading sandokhan's reply because it always contains nonsense but I am going to use Jake's reply as the starting point

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Tycho Brahe had collected astronomical data. He had information about paths of the planets. Johannes Kepler used this data and drew some conclusions. These are today known as Kepler's laws. These laws are empirical (obtained from data; theory hasn't proved it).

It was Newton who worked on the data again and developed the theory of gravity. All three of them knew that the planets including earth was orbiting around the sun. They also knew that the moon was orbiting around the earth.

SOLID SURFACE OF THE SUN paradox.

What the hell is this? can you provide a link or some rerference?

The Sun emits quarks. Therefore it must have a constant supply of subquarks at its disposal. The source of energy for the Sun is the Black Sun, without which it could not function. The Black Sun is the source of subquarks necessary for the radiation emitted by the Sun.

The sun emits quarks. You are accidently correct. I am pretty sure you did not know what you were talking about.

The sun emits electromagnetic radiation, protons, neutrinos, muons, electrons and everything else. The protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. However, it does not emit isolated quarks. The reason is beyond the scope of this discussion (I am not sure if you even understood what's already written).

The Allais effect proves the existence of the Black Sun.

I am hearing the Allais effect for the first time. I need to do some research about it.

But the SUN IS NOT BLACK. We approximate it to a black body but black body has nothing to do with the color black (or just a little that it aborbs all wavelengths).

There is no such thing as a functioning RE model of the sun.

What the hell is "functioning RE model of the sun"?

The faint young sun paradox demolishes the currently accepted hypothesis that the Sun is some billions of years old.

Work in progress. Scientists are working on it and many solutions have been proposed. Go read some of the several research papers on it.

The most direct proof that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace is the CNO cycle paradox:

CNO cycle has nothing to do with the sun. The sun gets most of its energy from the proton-proton cycle and so do most of the big stars. The CNO cycle predominates in stars with very high core temperatures.

Tycho Brahe had collected astronomical data. He had information about paths of the planets. Johannes Kepler used this data and drew some conclusions. These are today known as Kepler's laws. These laws are empirical (obtained from data; theory hasn't proved it).

Consider yourself fortunate enough to be able to read my messages.

You see, Kepler DID NOT use Brahe's data.

In fact, Kepler invented his entire data, he simply faked it, totally, 100%.

Here is the proof:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680


The sun emits electromagnetic radiation, protons, neutrinos, muons, electrons and everything else. The protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. However, it does not emit isolated quarks.

So, what is a neutrino?

Have you ever actually asked yourself that question?

Is the neutrino an electrically neutral particle/vortex?

The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as ‘an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick’.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.


A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.


As for the quarks themselves, the Sun does emit them, modern science has not the proper tools to detect this fact yet.


But the SUN IS NOT BLACK.

Of course it is not.

I am talking about the Black Sun:







http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html



Work in progress. Scientists are working on it and many solutions have been proposed. Go read some of the several research papers on it.

No progress, none whatsoever.

I always do my homework: I have taken into account each and very proposed solution in my message on the faint young sun paradox, they amount to nothing at all, in fact they have been thoroughly debunked.

The faint young sun paradox is currently totally unresolved.


CNO cycle has nothing to do with the sun.

But it does.

CNO CYCLE DEFIES THE SOLAR NUCLEAR FURNACE HYPOTHESIS

An extraordinary look at the CNO cycle:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf (a must read)

This paper provides the latest proofs which show the following:

Measurements on gamma-rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops.

"But the nuclear furnace theory assumes that these nuclear events are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”."

A clear debunking of the currently accepted solar model.

"To confirm these surface events Iron Sun proponents point to the telltale signatures of the “CNO cycle” first set forth in the work of Hans Bethe. In 1939 Bethe proposed that the stable mass-12 isotope of Carbon catalyzes a series of atomic reactions in the core of the Sun, resulting in the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This nucleosynthesis, according to Bethe, occurs through a “Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle,” as helium is constructed from the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—protons—at temperatures ranging from 14 million K to 20 million K.

For some time now, solar scientists have observed the products expected from the CNO cycle, but now they see a relationship of these products’ abundances to sunspot activity. This finding is crucial because the nuclear events that standard theory envisions are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”. From this vantage point, a connection between the hidden nuclear furnace and sunspot activity is inconceivable."

Proponents of the Iron Sun, therefore, have posed an issue that could be fatal to the standard model.


http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20080509075056/http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htm


In his autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” Sir Fred Hoyle documents the abrupt, and seemingly inexplicable U-Turn in astronomy, astrophysics, solar physics immediately after “nuclear fires” ended the Second World War:

[Referring to Hoyle’s meeting with Sir Arthur Eddington one spring day in 1940]: “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one part of hydrogen, more or less. The spectrum of sunlight, chock-a-block with lines of iron, had made this belief seem natural to astronomers for more than fifty years.” . . . (page 153)

“The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme in the interim (at any rate, in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War,” . . .

“when I was able to show, to my surprise, that the high-hydrogen, low iron solution was to be preferred for the interiors as well as for the atmospheres.” (page 153-154)

“My paper on the matter confounded a doctrine of (Raymond) Lyttleton, who used to say there are three stages in the acceptance by the world of a new idea.

1. The idea is nonsense.

2. Somebody thought of it before you did.

3. We believed it all the time.
This matter of the high-hydrogen solution was the only occasion, in my experience, when the first and second of these stages were missing.“ (page 154)

Two other recent papers confirm that the Sun’s energy spectrum varies in the manner expected from a pulsar core that is shielded by turbulent layers of ordinary atomic matter:

_ a.) Judith L. Lean and Matthew T. DeLand, “How Does the Sun’s Spectrum Vary?” Journal of Climate, 25, 2555–2560 (April 2012)


_ b.) C. Martin-Puertas, K. Matthes, A. Brauer, R. Muscheler, F. Hansen, C. Petrick, A. Aldahan, G. Possnert, B. Van Geel, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Nature Geoscience 5 , 397-401 (June 2012)

Of course Newton did accept that the earth was around and it was rotating around the sun.

Did he now?

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

Which has nothing to do with the shape of Earth.

[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”

No pressure there.

'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.

Yes, other words, completely different words which don't mean the same thing as the quote.

Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

No denial here.

His denial was to the action at a distant without any mediation. Space time is that mediation.

Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive gravity.

No.

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

No. Noting like pressure gravity.
This is still gravity which accelerates regardless of mass or area.
If it was pressure gravity it would be a force proportional to area.

This is simply making it an inverse square law.

Pressure gravity works only on a flat surface of the Earth.

No. It doesn't work anywhere. If it did, it would work anywhere. Also note that if Earth was flat it wouldn't follow this inverse square law.
It does because the area shrinks as it gets closer to the centre.

Here is how Kepler FUDGED/FAKED/INVENTED/FALSIFIED his entire set of data in the Nova Astronomia:

And just more bullshit links.

And you STILL haven't answered the questions.

Are you planning on doing that, or just posting mountains and mountains of bullshit?

jackblack, you are most definitely illiterate when it comes to real science.

Nope, that would be you.
I have shown time and time again I am quite literate when it comes to science, while all you are capable of doing is repeating the same refuted bullshit.

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

And like always, you just link to whatever you think supports you.
If you noticed, the second one indicates the exact opposite, that there isn't an effect.
They have 2 pendulums, which have opposite effects during the eclipse.
So clearly it isn't the Allais effect.


Regardless, this isn't the thread to discuss the alleged Allais effect.

Do you have any answers to the questions at hand?
If not, shut up rather than spouting mountains of bullshit based upon your ignorance.