2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.Exactly.
So which one is it?
Finally, you have come to your senses.
I told you that I was going to make a flat earth believer out of you.
Here you are boasting of handing asses, yet you have left the ring on a stretcher each and every time. And it gets worse every time you have the misfortune to debate with me.
This time around you showed everyone here that you do not really care about science.
To dismiss the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "delusional" or "worthless crap" means that the authority you make an appeal to will perceive you not only as a loser, but also as a fraud.
Only a fraud derides the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
You have just stated that there are actually TWO CHOICES involved here: either the diameters of the sun and of the moon are the same, or else one is 400 times the size of the other.
No other choices are possible.
By having stated this, you admit that the formula I derived is correct, and that p = 1 is one of the options.
Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.
"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."
Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
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.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."
PRESSURE: 10
-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR
The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.
Completely unexplained by modern science.
Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.NO further recourse can be made for gravity.
Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.
Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.
At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.
That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.
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.
The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun,
it would be resolved within half an hour."
Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)
Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10
-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.
The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:
P(r) = 2πgr
2a
2ρ
2ce
-x2/3M
where a = (3
1/2M/2
1/24πρ
c)
1/3a = 106,165,932.3
x = r/a
M = 1.989 x 10
30 kg
central density = 1.62 x 10
5 kg/m
3G = gr
2/m(r)
m(r) = M(r/R)
3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)
Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10
-9 kg/m
2 value, we get:
g = 0,0000507 m/s
2RATIO
a
c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26
Accuracy of the Clayton model:
I have just proven to you, using the official data, that the shape of the sun cannot be spherical at all.
In your version of reality, the diameter of the sun is 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon.
Of course, you need to appeal to the official timeline regarding stellar evolution.
But your version of reality collapses immediately given the faint young sun paradox.
The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.
http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)
http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )
“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.
A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstracthttp://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.htmlhttp://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)
Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.
This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.
If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.
Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.
The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.
A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.
Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.
Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.
As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.
Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.
This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'
Your false belief that the diameter of the sun is some 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon relies also upon the hypothesis that sun is a nuclear furnace.
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.pdfhttps://web.archive.org/web/20080509075056/http://www.omatumr.com/papers.htmlhttp://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htmhttps://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htmIn 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)
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)
You are useless here jackblack.
Another huge victory for FE.