Quasars, Pulsars and Gamma Ray Bursts

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.

Not having a 100% tried and tested theory on why the sun's atmosphere is so hot is nothing compared to having no clue at all about how sunrises happen on a flat earth or having no idea how flat earth gravity happens or whether there's a dome or an edge wall or whether there's an infinite plane or not or where the sun and moon are or having a map that's correct or what the stars are or knowing how some fundamental physics work.

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.

Nonsense.  Since when is knowledge an all or nothing proposition?  You can't explain everything about the FE sun, but does that mean that you can't explain anything about it?

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.

Do you, in any way, understand the logical significance of citing NASA as a source refuting astrophysical phenomena when it arrived at its dilemma using technologies and principles that you and the other "believers" dismiss as lies and/or wizardry?

Did anyone else catch that? 

Do you, in any way, understand the logical significance of citing NASA as a source refuting astrophysical phenomena when it arrived at its dilemma using technologies and principles that you and the other "believers" dismiss as lies and/or wizardry?

Did anyone else catch that?

Technically there isn't actually a problem.
The goal of it isn't to try and show that the sun is the way NASA claims, just that there is a problem with the RE position.
It is like using a fragment of a religious text to show a problem with the religion.

The goal of it isn't to try and show that the sun is the way NASA claims, just that there is a problem with the RE position.

Problem like this?

If the earth is the center of everything, we must explain why events happening here on earth affect the rest of the universe.
For example, Bradley discovered that the earth wobbles on its axis much like a spinning top wobbles as it revolves.
‘Nutations’ like this are explained by Newtonian theory to a high degree of accuracy,
but would be nothing more than arbitrary changes in the rotation of the cosmos under geocentrism.

And earthquakes, like the one that caused the massive tsunami that hit   Japan in 2009, are known to affect the rotation of the earth.
Scientists actually measured a change in the rate of rotation   of the earth after that event.
If geocentrism is true, nutations and earthquakes change the rotational speed of the universe instead.
Yet, strangely, even though there is no reason to believe all objects in the universe are connected,
they all change their rates of rotation at the same time.
And these objects are at vastly different distances to the earth.
Thus, there is a time delay that must be accounted for.

Do objects further out change earlier than objects closer in, and are all these   sequential changes timed to future events here on earth?

No.

We see everything in the universe changing at the same time because it is the earth itself that is changing its rotational speed.

(from: https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism#sunset)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2019, 08:49:05 PM

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.

Nonsense.  Since when is knowledge an all or nothing proposition?  You can't explain everything about the FE sun, but does that mean that you can't explain anything about it?

The layers are connected to each other. That's why. How is it that one layer is very cold and sandwiched between layers that are millions of degrees? If that can't be explained, it calls into question what is "known" about the physical properties and processes of the rest of the Sun.

Or, are you to claim that astronomers have direct physical evidence for the workings of those layers? 

Quote from: JackBlack on August 21, 2019, 12:25:02 AM

The goal of it isn't to try and show that the sun is the way NASA claims, just that there is a problem with the RE position.

Problem like this?

Quote

If the earth is the center of everything, we must explain why events happening here on earth affect the rest of the universe.
For example, Bradley discovered that the earth wobbles on its axis much like a spinning top wobbles as it revolves.
‘Nutations’ like this are explained by Newtonian theory to a high degree of accuracy,
but would be nothing more than arbitrary changes in the rotation of the cosmos under geocentrism.

And earthquakes, like the one that caused the massive tsunami that hit   Japan in 2009, are known to affect the rotation of the earth.
Scientists actually measured a change in the rate of rotation   of the earth after that event.
If geocentrism is true, nutations and earthquakes change the rotational speed of the universe instead.
Yet, strangely, even though there is no reason to believe all objects in the universe are connected,
they all change their rates of rotation at the same time.
And these objects are at vastly different distances to the earth.
Thus, there is a time delay that must be accounted for.

Do objects further out change earlier than objects closer in, and are all these   sequential changes timed to future events here on earth?

No.

We see everything in the universe changing at the same time because it is the earth itself that is changing its rotational speed.

(from: https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism#sunset)

No doubt that the laser gyroscopes which measure the earth's rotation is affected by earthquakes. They are seismometers. https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope_-_Seismology

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2019, 12:03:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2019, 08:49:05 PM

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.

Nonsense.  Since when is knowledge an all or nothing proposition?  You can't explain everything about the FE sun, but does that mean that you can't explain anything about it?

The layers are connected to each other. That's why. How is it that one layer is very cold and sandwiched between layers that are millions of degrees? If that can't be explained, it calls into question what is "known" about the physical properties of the rest of the Sun.

The processes in the sun's corona are not the same as the processes in the sun's core.  You can have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the core without necessarily knowing everything that's going on in the corona.

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2019, 12:03:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2019, 08:49:05 PM

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.

Nonsense.  Since when is knowledge an all or nothing proposition?  You can't explain everything about the FE sun, but does that mean that you can't explain anything about it?

The layers are connected to each other. That's why. How is it that one layer is very cold and sandwiched between layers that are millions of degrees? If that can't be explained, it calls into question what is "known" about the physical properties and processed of the rest of the Sun.

Or, are you to claim that astronomers have direct physical evidence for the workings of those layers? 

What are you basing the notion that one layer is very cold and sandwiched between layers that are millions of degrees on?

The layers are connected to each other. That's why.

No, that isn't why at all.
That is just repeating that we can't explain it all.
That doesn't explain why that should mean we can't know or be able to explain anything.