Stellar Spectra?

When starlight is passed through a prism the spectrum of light isn't continuous, but rather has a series of dark lines superimposed on it which can be observed and documented with a spectroscope. Each dark line indicates a particular chemical element or molecule which is present in the reaction which is causing the light to be emitted. The line strength indicating the abundance of that element. The strengths of the different spectral lines vary mainly due to the temperatures of the emitting source.

Hot solid objects produce light with a continuous spectrum, hot gases emit light at specific wavelengths, and hot solid objects surrounded by cooler gases show a near-continuous spectrum with dark lines corresponding to the emission lines of the gases.

By observing the spectra of starlight it is seen that although there are many stars, there are only a small number of distinct patterns in their spectral lines. This leads to the Morgan-Keenan (MK) system classifications used by astronomers: O, B, A, F, G, K, and M, a sequence from the hottest (O type) to the coolest (M type) and is illustrated in the Hertzprung-Russell diagram which groups the spectral types of stars by magnitude, luminosity, and temperature.

Analysis of the spectra of sunlight demonstrates that it matches the characteristics of G type stars. The standard scientific explanation for this match is that the Sun is a star.

What is the Flatlander position on this? Is the Sun a star? If so, then why are all the other stars so small? If not, then why does sunlight share the same characteristics as starlight from G type stars?

Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

Thorium/Neodymium Ratio and Age of Universe

Mitchell Waldrop, a reporter for Science, interviewed Harvey Butcher who had discovered an interesting way to determine the age of the universe using essentially the same principles from radiometric dating. He measured the ratios of thorium (Th) and neodymium (Nd) in the sun and 20 nearby stars spectroscopically. Analyzing stars' spectral lines to determine the abundance of parent/daughter ratio is fairly simple. The stars have done the hard work of preparing the sample by vaporizing these isotopes and mixing them in their atmospheres. Each element has its own characteristic absorption lines: three for thorium and one for neodymium. Neodymium is a stable daughter product of thorium. Butcher says:

"What I expected to find was a change in the ratio of thorium to neodymium between the oldest and youngest stars."

"Virtually all the original thorium is still there, even in the oldest of the sampled stars," writes Waldrop.

Butcher expected that the ratio would be as much as two or three times smaller in the older stars, the white dwarfs, because the thorium would have had more time to decay. What he actually did find, however, was almost no variation in the thorium/neodymium ratio. Butcher suggested that, based upon the results of his measurements, the galaxy must be about five billion years younger than previously thought, possibly as young as 8 billion years. If "virtually all the original thorium is still there," the stars can't have aged much.

I looked at the data published in his 1987 report in Nature and compared the estimated age for each of the stars tested, including our sun, with the actual spectral data. The Th/Nd ratios of the sun and the other stars were essentially the same, although the age of some stars was supposed to be 600 million years and others 15-19 billion years.

After Butcher made this information available, Waldrop reports that Schramm was strongly skeptical of it, saying "it was a very uncertain kind of measurement and the results were grossly over-interpreted."

Schramm's assessment of Butcher's results pivoted on whether Butcher's instruments could read the faint spectral lines representing the concentrations of thorium and neodymium. Nuclear fusion reactions in supernova and other violent events produce thorium. To decide how much thorium and neodymium should be present in stars, one has to make assumptions about when and how much thorium was made during the life of the galaxy. Butcher had to keep his assumptions of thorium production consistent with the abundance of thorium in meteorites and moon rocks because they, too, coalesced from the supernovae products along with the sun and the rest of the solar system. He says that once a star is born, its outer atmosphere provides an unchanging sample of the general composition of the Galaxy at that time, modified only by the free decay of radioactive species.


X-rays from the Sun are not generated thermally, electromagnetic particles are being accelerated through the Sun's own ether field to create x-rays. The cause of the solar x-rays is electrical, not thermal.

Koronium

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

Spectroscopy methods errors:
Thorium/Neodymium Ratio and Age of Universe

This was asking about stars, not the age of the universe.
Try to stay on topic rather than bringing up a bunch of irrelevant stuff.

Why does the spectrum of the sun match so well to the spectra of other stars?

Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

Thorium/Neodymium Ratio and Age of Universe

Your answer wasn't responsive to the question posed. I wasn't asking about the age of the Sun or the universe, or about x-rays, I was asking why sunlight spectra is the same as many stars if it is not a star as astronomers say it is?

The admittedly handwavey answer would probably just be "Those are the elements that exist." Working under the basis of stars being hot, solid objects (under most FE models anyway, non-Euclidean might be able to get away with gaseous balls but it's hard to get a gas to stay together at the smaller scales of most others) whether that object is the dome reflecting or a separate mass in itself, the dark lines on the spectrum would originate from whatever gases the light passes through on its journey to Earth. So our assumption here is that somehow those gases exist up there. If that's taken, then the properties of stars isn't actually a property of the stars themselves, but rather of the environment between us and them, namely that there are patches of gas of varying quantities and compositions that fill the sky. The Sun's spectrum being the same as other G-type stars just means that the gas in front of the Sun is the same as the gas in front of those stars. A random distribution of gas would net something comparable, the only noteworthy coincidence here is that the Sun is entirely covered by a certain composition rather than half reading as one gas and half reading as another, but there are plenty of ways to speculate upon a resolution to that from just luck to the solid mass itself somehow 'capturing' this gas or holding it close. (One easy example would be to suppose the Sun is concave, tying to the spotlight Sun notion, and the gas is kept inside by the same force that keeps the Sun aloft).
Other stars also exist in space, so it seems pretty logical that the same gases that exist in the Sun's vicinity will exist around them too.

There are models, like DET, which do basically posit the Sun is the same type of entity as a star, just in another location, so it's worth acknowledging that. But generally, you could get a workable answer from just what you'd expect to be present. The biggest question mark I can see on the topic presented is whether the spectra of other stars might change over the course of decades if the gas-clouds shift. That could be a potential test (although equally some shifts are expected anyway, even if on a slower scale), or we could posit those clouds captured in a similar way to the one around the Sun; after all, two objects do not need to be the same for similar forces to hold sway, an upwards force 'pinning' elements to them is an easy inclusion in FE models that requires them to stay aloft.

If that's taken, then the properties of stars isn't actually a property of the stars themselves, but rather of the environment between us and them, namely that there are patches of gas of varying quantities and compositions that fill the sky. The Sun's spectrum being the same as other G-type stars just means that the gas in front of the Sun is the same as the gas in front of those stars. A random distribution of gas would net something comparable, the only noteworthy coincidence here is that the Sun is entirely covered by a certain composition rather than half reading as one gas and half reading as another

No, there are more.
Not only does the sun only read as one, but it continues to do so for the entire time it is visible, as does every other star tested, while different stars then appear as different systems (i.e. having different gas).
You then have the issue of what spectral lines there are, including highly ionised metals, which should only exist in environments like a star in reality.

If it was just some gas sitting between Earth and the sun (and other stars), you would expect the gas to be fairly uniform and thus all stars to have the same spectra, or you would expect regions of gas, with some blending between them and have the same star report vastly different results form different locations at different times.

So the only way for that explanation to make sense is to have the gas held to star in some way, which then raises the question of how so much gas can be held to it. (A tiny amount of gas on a tiny object will not make a very large absorption contribution).

Quote from: Jane on March 13, 2019, 08:32:16 AM

If that's taken, then the properties of stars isn't actually a property of the stars themselves, but rather of the environment between us and them, namely that there are patches of gas of varying quantities and compositions that fill the sky. The Sun's spectrum being the same as other G-type stars just means that the gas in front of the Sun is the same as the gas in front of those stars. A random distribution of gas would net something comparable, the only noteworthy coincidence here is that the Sun is entirely covered by a certain composition rather than half reading as one gas and half reading as another

No, there are more.
Not only does the sun only read as one, but it continues to do so for the entire time it is visible, as does every other star tested, while different stars then appear as different systems (i.e. having different gas).
You then have the issue of what spectral lines there are, including highly ionised metals, which should only exist in environments like a star in reality.

If it was just some gas sitting between Earth and the sun (and other stars), you would expect the gas to be fairly uniform and thus all stars to have the same spectra, or you would expect regions of gas, with some blending between them and have the same star report vastly different results form different locations at different times.

So the only way for that explanation to make sense is to have the gas held to star in some way, which then raises the question of how so much gas can be held to it. (A tiny amount of gas on a tiny object will not make a very large absorption contribution).

Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move. With the celestial gears model for example, and the basic fact that distances between stars don't vary, that much wouldn't be at odds with what is already observed. Whether what is already observed is justifiable is a whole other matter, but even so we would expect it to stay lined up, at least approximately. Patches of gases or just general clouds of specks of elements, if present, would work.
Again, the Sun's the only question mark there, and that's large enough for the 'pinned' response to function better. The common thread between the Sun and stars just comes from what gases are present.

Yes, it's handwavey, but there's no way a few people on a lay-forum are going to be able to put together a in-depth scientific article on any topic, it's just a gist for what form an answer might take. Details as to where the elements come from merit a whole topic in of themselves, because generally there are no stars as RET describes them in FE models (with certain exceptions) so where any denser elements come from is a question.

Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move.

Which if it applies to the gas in general then it would allow the gas to mix and we end up with the 1 type of star. It needs to apply to the small localised region around the star and hold a lot of gas there.

Details as to where the elements come from merit a whole topic in of themselves

It isn't the elements origin in general. It is metals existing in highly ionised states in a gas, especially with plenty of other gas around.
That can only happen in quite extreme environments, like in the plasma of a real star.

Quote from: Jane on March 13, 2019, 01:59:42 PM

Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move.

Which if it applies to the gas in general then it would allow the gas to mix and we end up with the 1 type of star. It needs to apply to the small localised region around the star and hold a lot of gas there.

Again, not given the fixed distances between the stars. Whether you think that's reasonable or not, that's what happens, there's no possibility of mixing when the distances between each point stays constant. Please don't start arguing for the sake of arguing in this thread too, I was actually interested in this one, it's a variation I haven't seen before on this site.

Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move. With the celestial gears model for example, and the basic fact that distances between stars don't vary, that much wouldn't be at odds with what is already observed. Whether what is already observed is justifiable is a whole other matter, but even so we would expect it to stay lined up, at least approximately.

Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?

Rather than derail this thread I started a new one: What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?

Again, not given the fixed distances between the stars.

Only if it is applying to the gas as discrete molecules.
If the gas is acting as a gas, it will mix.
The random motion of the gas will result in it mixing.

Stop just insulting me by claiming I am just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I am arguing for the sake of having a working model rather than just a case of "well this might work but I haven't really thought about it to see"

Quote from: Jane on March 13, 2019, 02:36:04 PM

Again, not given the fixed distances between the stars.

Only if it is applying to the gas as discrete molecules.
If the gas is acting as a gas, it will mix.
The random motion of the gas will result in it mixing.

Stop just insulting me by claiming I am just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I am arguing for the sake of having a working model rather than just a case of "well this might work but I haven't really thought about it to see"

No, you're just not contributing anything, you're giving no indication as to why what you're saying is any better than what I'm saying, the same as ever, so all this is going to turn into is us repeating each other and I have no desire to see you get in the way of another thread. 'If the gas is acting as a gas' is in this case equivalent to 'if the stars are acting as disparate masses,' it's not happening and I'm not interested in constantly repeating that to you only for it to go ignored as ever, so this is the end of it. Please don't derail another thread, this one is a rare new subject for the forum.

No, you're just not contributing anything, you're giving no indication as to why what you're saying is any better than what I'm saying

Are you capable of responding in any sane rational way or just resorting to the same pathetic insults?
You ignoring the explanation doesn't mean it isn't there.

Either you have tiny amounts of gas allowing them to act as discrete particles meaning there will be far too little to cause the absorption bands seen, or you have so much that it should act as a gas and mix.
What is the justification/mechanism for loads to exist with just the right composition, following the stars, without the gas mixing?

Also, while the majority of the stars do have their angular position fixed, the sun (which would be grouped with the stars for this due to same spectrum) is observed to move around relative to the stars.

And that still ignores the problem of how the exotic gasses required got there in the first place.

Me pointing out issues doesn't mean I am not contributing. Me not just gobbling up whatever BS you say doesn't mean I am not contributing. You not liking what I'm contributing doesn't mean I am not contributing.

And no, this isn't a brand new topic. The spectra of stars has been brought up before, several times, including the observed redshift, which you put down to elements we just don't know about or a magical mixture of elements just perfectly matching the red-shift.

...there are plenty of ways to speculate upon a resolution to that from just luck to the solid mass itself somehow 'capturing' this gas or holding it close. (One easy example would be to suppose the Sun is concave, tying to the spotlight Sun notion, and the gas is kept inside by the same force that keeps the Sun aloft).
...
or we could posit those clouds captured in a similar way to the one around the Sun; after all, two objects do not need to be the same for similar forces to hold sway, an upwards force 'pinning' elements to them is an easy inclusion in FE models that requires them to stay aloft.

Thanks for your response, Jane. Your response does show that you are thinking creatively and exploring ways to make FE conform with reality - and not just trying to avoid reality entirely by denial or resorting to conspiracy theories.

During a solar eclipse stars can be seen in the area near the Sun in the sky. (The displacement of starlight from other stars passing near the Sun matched Einstein's predictions about Gravity, BTW.) If the spectra of stars is influenced by passing through the gaseous clouds you proposed then the same effect should occur on the spectra of starlight from different types of stars which passes through the gaseous cloud surrounding the Sun. Such changes in spectra indicating the presence of that cloud and causing that effect have not been observed, as far as I know.

As for gaseous clouds clinging to the Sun and the stars, the attractive force drawing those clouds in and keeping them would obviously be gravity in the RE model. In the FE model where gravity doesn't exist but is actually due to the Earth's acceleration, then how is it that the gases of the Earth's atmosphere press downwards - making the air more dense near the surface of the Earth and thinner at higher altitudes -  but somehow those same gases press upwards in the opposite direction around the Sun and stars which are also accelerating? Also, gases being pushed into an open concave container wouldn't stay there without gravity to hold them there.

Increases of temperature increases the motion of gas molecules, according to the science of Brownian motion, kinetic theory of gases,  the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, and etc. With the extreme high temperatures of the Sun the gas cloud would dissipate itself into space unless held either by a closed container or by gravity. A concave-shaped accelerating hot Sun against which an accelerating cloud of hot gas would be held without gravity just doesn't work, at least in my admittedly limited and non-expert understanding of the subject.

NASA's Parker Solar Probe recently dove deeper into the sun's atmosphere than any spacecraft before and will be approaching and analyzing the Sun's atmosphere even closer as it continues its mission. It hasn't detected the clouds of gas such as you proposed to influence stellar spectra. Scientific instruments haven't detected it either. Since Flatlanders reject all such evidence from NASA and astronomers then what contrary evidence do they have to substantiate their claims about the existence of those clouds of gas that travel in synchronous motions with the Sun and stars?

It seems to me that one the one hand we have a large body of scientific principles and theory - including gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, astronomy - and also a huge amount of observational and experimental data which together unite to provide a cohesive self-consistent explanation of what the Sun and stars actually are and how they work. And on the other hand we have numerous tangential FE speculations unsupported by actual observational or experimental evidence.

Thanks for your response, Jane. Your response does show that you are thinking creatively and exploring ways to make FE conform with reality - and not just trying to avoid reality entirely by denial or resorting to conspiracy theories.

That's the easiest way to actually have fun on this site.

During a solar eclipse stars can be seen in the area near the Sun in the sky. (The displacement of starlight from other stars passing near the Sun matched Einstein's predictions about Gravity, BTW.) If the spectra of stars is influenced by passing through the gaseous clouds you proposed then the same effect should occur on the spectra of starlight from different types of stars which passes through the gaseous cloud surrounding the Sun. Such changes in spectra indicating the presence of that cloud and causing that effect have not been observed, as far as I know.

As for gaseous clouds clinging to the Sun and the stars, the attractive force drawing those clouds in and keeping them would obviously be gravity in the RE model. In the FE model where gravity doesn't exist but is actually due to the Earth's acceleration, then how is it that the gases of the Earth's atmosphere press downwards - making the air more dense near the surface of the Earth and thinner at higher altitudes -  but somehow those same gases press upwards in the opposite direction around the Sun and stars which are also accelerating? Also, gases being pushed into an open concave container wouldn't stay there without gravity to hold them there.

The Sun, if posited as a special case due to its size for example, wouldn't have a cloud extending off to the sides, it's be concentrated against the front. As for what the source is, if you want to look at the UA model the Sun is held aloft by the force exerted by that current pushing it up at the same rate as the Earth; anything underneath it would similarly be pushed upwards into the Sun. The force isn't like gravity, holding things close from all directions, it acts specifically vertically.
Air's denser near the Earth's surface because the Earth is pushed upwards and gathers them, in the exclusion zone of the accelerator (where it's blocked by the Earth). Higher up, where the force exerted by the accelerator again dominates, we'd expect it to act. Given the distance between the Earth and Sun isn't shrinking, we know there would need to be an upwards force exerted on the Sun under FET.

Since Flatlanders reject all such evidence from NASA and astronomers then what contrary evidence do they have to substantiate their claims about the existence of those clouds of gas that travel in synchronous motions with the Sun and stars?

Just speculating here. Everything has to start out with hypotheses, and these would be the experimental observations required for a theory. Just a matter of whether it could make a prediction. Given you're talking to a REer, it's not really up to me to come up with evidence, it's just interesting to see how certain questions can be addressed.

After an eternity of being accelerated at one gee by the UA we're now doing a fair old percentage of the speed of light (more than 99.99%, of course we'll never make it to 100%) so the spectrum of all stars in front of us (ie, "up") should be very blue shifted by now.

Given you're talking to a REer, it's not really up to me to come up with evidence, it's just interesting to see how certain questions can be addressed.

Oh. I wondered why you were being so rational and reasonable.  That would explain it. 

After an eternity of being accelerated at one gee by the UA we're now doing a fair old percentage of the speed of light (more than 99.99%, of course we'll never make it to 100%) so the spectrum of all stars in front of us (ie, "up") should be very blue shifted by now.

Only if they aren't accelerating with us.

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2019, 10:33:22 AM

Given you're talking to a REer, it's not really up to me to come up with evidence, it's just interesting to see how certain questions can be addressed.

Oh. I wondered why you were being so rational and reasonable.  That would explain it. 

You can have plenty of good conversation with FEers, you just need to be worth talking to. A lot of users take pride in making sure they're absolutely not, and then use the fact no one bothered with them to justify their pre-existing behaviour. Free tips, if you want to have fun, be fun.

Quote from: Pi31415 on March 16, 2019, 08:46:01 AM

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2019, 10:33:22 AM

Given you're talking to a REer, it's not really up to me to come up with evidence, it's just interesting to see how certain questions can be addressed.

Oh. I wondered why you were being so rational and reasonable.  That would explain it. 

You can have plenty of good conversation with FEers, you just need to be worth talking to. A lot of users take pride in making sure they're absolutely not, and then use the fact no one bothered with them to justify their pre-existing behaviour. Free tips, if you want to have fun, be fun.

Good conversations about what exactly? The price of eggs possibly, but nothing deeper or more cosmological than that.

I constantly wonder how, when discussing all things cosmological, you can take the thoughts from some random lone wolf with no access to any research facilities and place them on the same level as cutting edge work produced by full time scientists from any of the research facilities in the world! How do you imagine knowledge of the Cosmos is gained?
How did Hubble or any of the other famous names of astronomy arrive at their discoveries?

Why have none of what you take to be ‘interesting ideas’ made it beyond your compendium?

Now I love fantasy and science fiction, I have a pretty big collection of both and am sitting here patiently for the release of the final part of the King Killer trilogy.....as are thousands of others. I like they can tell the difference between great fictional fantasy and the real world.
I find the magical and mystical exploits of Kvothe' really entertaining, but it’s not real, just like DET, though vastly more entertaining.

It’s not that I’m trying to use the ‘authority’ angle to strengthen my case, it’s just many of those ideas you find interesting have no scientific or factual basis at all. None of them have come from a result of exhaustive research, rather they are a result of random speculation, or out of desperation in an effort to put together something that fits with other beliefs. I really fail to see how that’s interesting. DET, being the classic case.

If you really want to have an interesting conversation and learn something meaningful about the Cosmos, go have a conversation with a cosmologist or read this...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/tag/cosmology/

......now some of the stuff in here is interesting.

I constantly wonder how, when discussing all things cosmological, you can take the thoughts from some random lone wolf with no access to any research facilities and place them on the same level as cutting edge work produced by full time scientists from any of the research facilities in the world!

No one's doing that, you're just either ridiculously thin-skinned or absurdly insecure. Back to AR with you!

Quote from: Lonegranger on March 17, 2019, 02:57:28 AM

I constantly wonder how, when discussing all things cosmological, you can take the thoughts from some random lone wolf with no access to any research facilities and place them on the same level as cutting edge work produced by full time scientists from any of the research facilities in the world!

No one's doing that, you're just either ridiculously thin-skinned or absurdly insecure. Back to AR with you!

May I remind you of your previous quote.......

"You can have plenty of good conversation with FEers"

Where are these conversations and how would you consider them to be 'good'?

[quote author=Lonegranger link=topic=80054.msg2156880#msg2156880 date=1552836067
May I remind you of your previous quote.......

"You can have plenty of good conversation with FEers"

Where are these conversations and how would you consider them to be 'good'?
[/quote]
Because they're actually enjoyable and interesting, unlike talking to you. Why aren't you back in AR?

Quote from: Pi31415 on March 16, 2019, 08:46:01 AM

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2019, 10:33:22 AM

Given you're talking to a REer, it's not really up to me to come up with evidence, it's just interesting to see how certain questions can be addressed.

Oh. I wondered why you were being so rational and reasonable.  That would explain it. 

... if you want to have fun, be fun.

That's good advice for everyone, I think. I don't really expect to see any minds changed here by anyone, but it's fun watching the gears spin to see where they go.

Quote from: turtles on March 16, 2019, 05:56:25 AM

After an eternity of being accelerated at one gee by the UA we're now doing a fair old percentage of the speed of light (more than 99.99%, of course we'll never make it to 100%) so the spectrum of all stars in front of us (ie, "up") should be very blue shifted by now.

Only if they aren't accelerating with us.

This is true, but everything accelerating at the same rate in the same direction....that would take some organising! I wouldn't want to run into the expanding gas shell from a supernova ahead of us doing 0.1c less than us.