Quasars, Pulsars and Gamma Ray Bursts

What is a flat earth friendly explanation for these highly energetic astronomical phenomenon?

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

Maybe you should read more modern science books.

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 07:29:00 PM

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Sounds like complete speculation.

Quote from: Macarios on August 15, 2019, 08:09:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 07:29:00 PM

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Sounds like complete speculation.

Yep, sounds like flat earth...

You cannot bring quasars into the debate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937556#msg1937556 (quasars redshift anomaly, eight consecutive messages)

There is no quasar time dilation:

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html


You cannot bring pulsars into the debate.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=9lJjCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=dark+mission+hoagland+pulsars&source=bl&ots=cl1-8LB3_o&sig=ACfU3U12C8pW1kpMxXvGvEqVsJPKEaTbUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwistJmD9IbkAhWms4sKHfw2DkAQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=dark%20mission%20hoagland%20pulsars&f=false


You cannot bring gamma ray bursts into the debate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956494#msg1956494 (geocentric gamma rays)

Quote from: Macarios on August 15, 2019, 08:09:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 07:29:00 PM

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Sounds like complete speculation.

So what is the energy source your Sun?

Quote from: Macarios on August 15, 2019, 08:09:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 07:29:00 PM

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Sounds like complete speculation.

No, it sounds like scientific research.

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

How would you even go about fitting a star in a lab?

You cannot bring quasars into the debate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937556#msg1937556 (quasars redshift anomaly, eight consecutive messages)

There is no quasar time dilation:

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html


You cannot bring pulsars into the debate.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=9lJjCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=dark+mission+hoagland+pulsars&source=bl&ots=cl1-8LB3_o&sig=ACfU3U12C8pW1kpMxXvGvEqVsJPKEaTbUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwistJmD9IbkAhWms4sKHfw2DkAQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=dark%20mission%20hoagland%20pulsars&f=false


You cannot bring gamma ray bursts into the debate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956494#msg1956494 (geocentric gamma rays)

Apparently, I can.

Quote from: Macarios on August 15, 2019, 08:09:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 07:29:00 PM

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

You can't put 2 x 10^30 kilograms of mostly hydrogen into a lab, but you can calculate what would be the pressure inside the ball of it
and you can do spectral analysis of the ball of hydrogen shining at some 150 million kilometers from here.

You can also send Parker probe in 2018 to have a closer look.

Sounds like complete speculation.

There's plenty of maths behind it that you don't understand.

Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean someone else hasn't got a good idea what's happening.

Seeing as stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab--only other types of fusion and for brief moments---and that the nuclear processes in the stars are entirely hypothetical and without demonstration, the question is why haven't we been able to find the answer for the workings of the stars despite billions of dollars in funding?

What you state is of course totally false. The workings of stars, their formation, their inner processes , life spans, and classification are all very clearly understood.
Try again.

What is a flat earth friendly explanation for these highly energetic astronomical phenomenon?

What is a spherical earth friendly explanation for these highly energetic astronomical phenomenon?

Not links to things you don't understand.
In your own words.

What is a flat earth friendly explanation for these highly energetic astronomical phenomenon?

I think the flat earth community would have little or nothing to say on these astronomical phenomena, having never seen them, as to have any meaningful contrary view one would require astronomical resources way beyond what they have access to. To really observe and study such phenomena one requires specialised low/high energy x-ray telescopes that need to be clear of earth's atmosphere, like the Chandra X-ray Observatory.


 

Not links to things you don't understand.

Now Bully -- that's not nice to try and restrict the conversations in a way that excludes flat earthers.

There's plenty of maths behind it that you don't understand.

Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean someone else hasn't got a good idea what's happening.

A good grasp on what's happening in the Sun like modern astronomers?

Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics.

"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!"
—Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University

You have a situation happening, as if flames were coming out of an ice cube and it "doesn't make any sense!"

Please tell us more about the superior star models in RE astronomy.

Quote from: turtles on August 16, 2019, 09:56:02 AM

There's plenty of maths behind it that you don't understand.

Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean someone else hasn't got a good idea what's happening.

A good grasp on what's happening in the Sun like modern astronomers?

Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

Quote

The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics.

"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!"
—Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University

You have a situation happening, as if flames were coming out of an ice cube and it "doesn't make any sense!"

Please tell us more about the superior star models in RE astronomy.

Interesting that you quote something funded by NASA:

"The study, published in Nature Communications and funded by the NASA Hinode program"

How do you intellectually square that?

And wow, there's this thing in the cosmos that astrophysics hasn't been able to figure out yet? Shocking. I guess that means all of astrophysics and RE astronomy modeling is worthless in your eyes.
What are the FE star models? Any peer reviewed published superior FE astronomical models you would like to share? Any funded by NASA?

Pretty simple. If it was possible for astronomers to explain it using existing physics then they would have done so by now. The fact that the quote was uttered on behalf of astronomers means that the physics of the Sun are beyond the realm of known physics. Those who claim that astronomers have it figured out are mistaken.

Amusingly, astronomers also say that some stars have a surface with the temperature of a cup of coffee -- Equally clueless on the physics behind that, assuredly.

Probably should have left it as "Unknown" if they don't really know how it works. It just makes them look incompetent and unreliable, speaking words and spreading knowledge about the workings of the Sun without basis. Without really knowing how it works it reaches the level of a lie to indoctrinate children with such teachings.

'Unknown' is the superior model. Lies are not. Flat Earth is victorious once again.

Pretty simple. If it was possible for astronomers to explain it using existing physics then they would have done so by now. The fact that the quote was uttered on behalf of astronomers means that the physics of the Sun are beyond the realm of known physics. Those who claim that astronomers have it figured out are mistaken.

Amusingly, astronomers also say that some stars have a surface with the temperature of a cup of coffee -- Equally clueless on the physics behind that, assuredly.

Probably should have left it as "Unknown" if they don't really know how it works. It just makes them look incompetent and unreliable, speaking words and spreading knowledge about the workings of the Sun without basis. Without really knowing how it works it reaches the level of a lie to indoctrinate children with such teachings.

'Unknown' is the superior model. Lies are not. Flat Earth is victorious once again.

It's called science. Why is the sun's atmosphere hotter than it's surface? Let's try and figure it out. Your suggestion would be that we know nothing about the sun based upon this 'mystery'. Science kicks in and does research on the matter. Can astrophysics explain all the mysteries of the cosmos? No. And no one has ever said otherwise. But we do know a lot, a lot more than we did 10 years ago and a lot more than 100 or 1000 years ago. Are you anti-progress as well as anti-science?

The paper you cited was funded by the NASA Hinode program. How do you think they figured out the discrepancy in temperature to the accuracy of study they required? With this:



It's commonly referred to as a satellite, put in orbit, around the globe, in this case, to help with research regarding the Sun. Does FE have an explanation as to how a satellite can orbit the earth and gather such readings that you cite as proof that astrophysics knows zero about the cosmos? Or is such technology just simply "unknown" to FE?

When you say, "'Unknown' is the superior model. Lies are not," is that like when you said, "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown"? Or was that actually the lie?

Changing topics when you lose again? How NASA does whatever is immaterial.

Astronomers don't know how the Sun works and have no clue. If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

"That's called science" -- Very funny.

Changing topics when you lose again? How NASA does whatever is immaterial.

Astronomers don't know how the Sun works and have no clue. If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

"That's called science" -- Very funny.

What's on the other side of the Flat Earth?

Checkmate.

Changing topics when you lose again? How NASA does whatever is immaterial.

Astronomers don't know how the Sun works and have no clue. If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

"That's called science" -- Very funny.

I'm not changing the topic. You cited data gathered by NASA who used a satellite to do so when your FE position is that NASA are liars and satellites don't exist. Pretty thick with irony.

As for astronomers not knowing how the sun works because they can't explain the facet we are discussing means they know nothing is an interesting position, that's like me saying that since the size and distances of celestial bodies are unknown to FE then all of the workings of the cosmos are unknown to FE. How does that sit?

It's called science. Why is the sun's atmosphere hotter than it's surface? Let's try and figure it out.

It can't be science, not even guessing.

A 2 million degree temperature of the Sun's corona was invented ad-hoc in order to avoid having to admit the existence of an element lighter than hydrogen.



Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley

Within the context of a gaseous solar model, it is not surprising that extreme temperatures must be invoked. A gaseous Sun has no other means of producing highly ionized species.

"Since the corona must be excessively hot to produce such
ions in a gaseous context, the continuous spectrum of the K-corona
has been dismissed as a strange artifact, produced
by electronic scattering of photospheric light. Otherwise,
the coronal continuous spectrum would be indicating
that apparent coronal temperatures are no warmer than those
of the photosphere. It would be impossible for the gaseous
models to account for the presence of highly ionized
species within the outer solar atmosphere.

Current temperature estimates are
flirting with violations of both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics: it is difficult to conceive that localized temperatures
within flares and the corona could greatly exceed
the temperature of the solar core."

P.M. Robitaille

Now scientists think that the temperature of the solar corona can exceed even the temperature of the core itself.

If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

Seriously?
That isn't how anything works.
That would mean that because we cannot explain every detail of reality that we can't explain any of it.
It is pure nonsense.

Not being able to explain one facet doesn't mean you can't explain any of it.

Changing topics when you lose again? How NASA does whatever is immaterial.

Astronomers don't know how the Sun works and have no clue. If they can't explain one interconnected layer then they can't explain any of it.

"That's called science" -- Very funny.

I’m wondering on what basis you are making all your claims Tom? Flat earthers have no solar research facilities that I’m aware of, so how you are able to comment on a subject that requires dedicated observatories?

A simple search of data gathered from any one of the solar research facilities/ universities will show all of your claims to be false.

We have a position to either believe in the views of a man, Tom Bishop, who i imagine knows nothing about the sun, through any personal research, or for that mater any other astronomical body, for how could you? or believe in the work carried out by the many thousands of professional astronomers who work on a daily basis gathering data about the workings of the Cosmos using state of the art facilities.

I have to therefore assume given your lack of any solar observatory  that all your views on the sun and the Cosmos at large have all just been made up, based on nothing more than guesswork.

However to give you the benefit of the doubt, could you please describe the research you have carried out on our nearest star along with the facility you used as I could conceivably be wrong.

Please tell us more about the superior star models in RE astronomy.

As opposed to the complete lack of star models in FE astronomy?

Changing topics when you lose again?

Speaking of changing the topic...

This thread is about quasars, pulsars and gamma ray bursts.  Our sun is none of those, therefore off topic.

Arguing that astronomers can explain the workings of the sun, but that they are clueless of why one layer is significantly cooler than the rest, "like an ice cube", is monumentally in error. If they can't explain that, they can't explain anything.

Its as if you are telling me that you know how ice forms in your freezer and give us an example of an ice cube with a piece of molten lava in the center, insisting that we take your explanation for how it formed, but to ignore the lava in the middle. "That part is a mystery, but that's science!" Totally rediculous and shows the claimant to be a fraudulent teacher.

The Sun and stars need to be sufficiently explained to claim that they are explained.

Pretty simple. If it was possible for astronomers to explain it using existing physics then they would have done so by now. The fact that the quote was uttered on behalf of astronomers means that the physics of the Sun are beyond the realm of known physics. Those who claim that astronomers have it figured out are mistaken.

Why would you claim that "If it was possible for astronomers to explain it using existing physics then they would have done so by now"?
The sun is some 140,000,000 km away so cabbie be examined in a lab.
But you can't talk!
You can't explain why the Sun, Moon, Planets and stars are supported above the earth without unsupported hypotheses.
Nor have you the slightest idea why the follow their individuals orbits with the sun on a curious spiral taking a year to complete.
the moon taking a similar path but over a period of very roughly 28 days, etc.

Amusingly, astronomers also say that some stars have a surface with the temperature of a cup of coffee -- Equally clueless on the physics behind that, assuredly.

What's the problem with the coolest brown dwarf having a surface temperature of 97 degrees C?
It is only about six times the mass of Jupiter and so has very little nuclear fusion. A mass of about 75 that of Jupiter is needed to become a "real" star.

You might be "Equally clueless on the physics behind that" but I fail to see the slightest problem.

Probably should have left it as "Unknown" if they don't really know how it works. It just makes them look incompetent and unreliable, speaking words and spreading knowledge about the workings of the Sun without basis.

Who claim to know "everything" about the Sun?  Certainly no physicists or astronomers.
Sometimes there is a problem in the way the media or even the public relations section of research organizations release information.
There is always the tendency to over-dramatise both findings and problems.

Without really knowing how it works it reaches the level of a lie to indoctrinate children with such teachings.

But the basics of "how things work" is not in doubt but no one since the late 1800s has suggested that science "knows all that is worth knowing".

'Unknown' is the superior model. Lies are not. Flat Earth is victorious once again.

But Flat Earthers claim to know that the earth is flat with little real evidence other than "it looks flat" and despite massive evidence that it cannot be flat.

Then,  of course, those same Flat Earthers claim that there is a massive conspiracy that had to start millennia ago to "cover up the true shape of the earth".