Solar power source

  • 243 Replies
  • 3420 Views
Solar power source
« on: November 10, 2019, 07:46:42 AM »
We know that the Sun and planets have a similar age. Laboratory testing of both meteorite fragments and lunar rock samples puts the age of the solar system and hence the Sun at around 4.5 billion years.

FE theory proposes that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter. This is of course based on the assertion that the Sun is just 3000 miles away, and that in turn is based on the assertion that the Earths surface is flat.

If the Sun is just 32 miles in diameter, what then does FE Theory propose is the Suns power source.  It would have to be something capable of sustaining the Suns output energy for around 10 billion years in total.

*

Macarios

  • 1742
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2019, 09:36:14 AM »
You know that Bible won't allow Sun to be older than 6000 years.
Plus, FE won't allow the existence of Moon rocks and meteorites, they come from space and space doesn't exist.
So, te Sun's power source should have powered it for just 6000 years, not 10 billion. :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2019, 09:41:58 AM »
You haven't done your homework on the lunar rocks.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20090901162238%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Finfo.kopp-verlag.de%2Fnews%2Fsensation-mondgestein-in-amsterdamer-museum-stammt-von-der-erde.html&edit-text=

Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070208115542/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.



Von Braun at the South Pole on Jan. 7, 1967. Von Braun was at the South Pole collecting meteorites which would later become MOON ROCKS!!


Can you explain to your readers what the RE Sun's power source is?

Are you saying it is a nuclear furnace?

Then, you are wrong.

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

The Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis.


As for the 32 mile diameter Sun, you better sit down.

It is actually some 600 meters in diameter, in the shape of a disk:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765


The Sun is powered by laevorotatory subquarks emitted by the Black Sun.

Convince yourself that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse (Allais effect):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110 (boson strings/subquark waves)

« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 10:25:31 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2019, 11:21:46 AM »
Quote
You know that Bible won't allow Sun to be older than 6000 years.
Plus, FE won't allow the existence of Moon rocks and meteorites, they come from space and space doesn't exist.

Really...?  Well it doesn't really matter to me what the bible will or won't 'allow', nor particularly what FE will or won't allow. But I am always interested to ready what they believe. Sandokhan you can consider my wrists well and truly slapped for 'not doing my homework'!

It is fascinating to learn about what FE believe and their reasoning behind those beliefs.  Will it change how I think about the Earth or the Universe?  Not one bit but if anyone seriously thinks that a main sequence star can be 32 miles wide, or 600 metres in diameter then I'm afraid I'm not the only one who hasn't 'done my homework.  I agree that it is disk shaped.  A sphere as seen from one direction is always going to be disk shaped.

The CNO cycle by the way is more significant in stars with mass > 1 solar mass.  In the case of the Sun the prevailing energy source is the PP chain which releases neutrinos and photons as a by product of proton-proton collisions. The gamma ray photons take between 100,000 years and 1 million years to reach the photoshere, by which time they have lost energy through ion collisions and turned into photons of visible light.  i.e. the sunlight we see. 

That could not possibly be true if the Sun was only 32 miles wide.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 854
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2019, 11:30:01 AM »
Ooh! The Black Sun again! And this time, it not only takes the place of the Moon in solar eclipses, but now it powers the actual Sun! And of course, the Black Sun is completely invisible and undetectable by any means at all times except during the solar eclipse. Don't bother seeking evidence or hope to understand the enigma that is the Black Sun!


But I am curious what a laevorotary subquark is.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 11:31:42 AM by EvolvedMantisShrimp »
Nullius in Verba

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2019, 11:48:14 AM »
The CNO cycle by the way is more significant in stars with mass > 1 solar mass.  In the case of the Sun the prevailing energy source is the PP chain which releases neutrinos and photons as a by product of proton-proton collisions. The gamma ray photons take between 100,000 years and 1 million years to reach the photoshere, by which time they have lost energy through ion collisions and turned into photons of visible light.  i.e. the sunlight we see.

There is only one little problem with your reasoning:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf

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”."


And of course, the Black Sun is completely invisible and undetectable by any means at all times except during the solar eclipse.

You better then explain the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382


Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles by Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge), an extraordinary analysis of the discoveries listed in the Occult Chemistry:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.


A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.

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.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115

Correct model of the atom:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


Re: Solar power source
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2019, 12:16:38 PM »
Are you saying it is a nuclear furnace?
Then, you are wrong.
The Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis.
How?
Don't just link to some random page with no real explanation, explain here in your own words just how the CNO cycle defies the fact that the core of the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion?

It is actually some 600 meters in diameter, in the shape of a disk:
If that was the case it would vary in size dramatically throughout the day, or it would have to circle around Earth. But at just 600 meters, in order to have an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees it would need to be 68 km above Earth.
But then at sunset, when it is above a point 10 000 km away, it would be closer to 10 000 km away and would be absolutely tiny.
It would also mean it appears to travel quite quickly when overhead and quite slowly at other times.

So that is clearly nonsense.

The Sun is powered by laevorotatory subquarks emitted by the Black Sun.
Just more empty words.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2019, 12:30:14 PM »
Sub-quarks eh... now that is a new one on me.  I have a friend who is professor in theoretical physics and particle physics so I will email him about that idea and see what he says. At the same time I will ask him about the idea of a 'black Sun' which apparently is never seen.  I guess it is only detectable due to its effect on visible matter then like black holes.

So we now have figures from the FE side of 32 miles and 600 metres in diameter for the Sun.  Amazing.  Why is it then that every book I have ever read and every website I have ever checked gives the same value for the diameter or the Sun as 1.39 million km?  Either all those sources are wrong or Sandokhan is wrong.

Here is another link Sandokhan which suggests I have been doing my homework.  This is not a self-link to some other post within in the flat Earth society but an independent source.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/CNO+cycle

Note particularly the last couple of sentences.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 12:39:50 PM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2019, 12:42:11 PM »
An allowance must be made for ether refraction.

The experiment carried out by Martin Ruderfer proved the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The density of ether increases greatly at higher altitudes.


Here is the most precise proof that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765


Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf

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”."


*

sokarul

  • 16124
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2019, 12:57:17 PM »
You haven’t done your homework.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2019, 01:13:23 PM »
How?
Don't just link to some random page with no real explanation, explain here in your own words just how the CNO cycle defies the fact that the core of the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion?

You are in no position to issue demands around here.

Not while you are the author of something like this:

You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes.

You are philosophically illiterate.

Since you are unable to face reality, you are forced, by default, to troll this forum: this is what you have been doing here for the past three years.

Rest assured, this is going to stop.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2019, 02:12:02 PM »
How?
Don't just link to some random page with no real explanation, explain here in your own words just how the CNO cycle defies the fact that the core of the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion?

You are in no position to issue demands around here.

Not while you are the author of something like this:

You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes.

You are philosophically illiterate.

Since you are unable to face reality, you are forced, by default, to troll this forum: this is what you have been doing here for the past three years.

Rest assured, this is going to stop.
wow you can use the quotes properly keep up the good work.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2019, 02:13:40 PM »
An allowance must be made for ether refraction.
Not until you show it exists, and that is quite irrelavent to the topic, unless you are saying ether refraction is magically powering the sun.

Here is the most precise proof that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical at all:
You mean here is even more spam that proves nothing.

Note: Attacking a particular claim about the sun doesn't magically mean it can't be a sphere.

I would say the FACT that it appears as a roughly circular shape, regardless of what direction it is viewed from demands that it is a sphere.

The only way to try to claim it is a circle is if you claim it is very far away (say some 150 000 000 km) and Earth is round.
Because that way, to everyone on Earth it is in roughly the same direction and thus we are only looking at it from a single direction.

But if Earth is flat, with the sun appearing in wildly different directions to 2 viewers simultaneously, and appearing as a circle for all such observers, it must be roughly spherical.

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle
Would mean an observation confirmation that the atoms in the sun undergo nuclear fusion.

You are philosophically illiterate.
If you weren't so philosophically illiterate, you would know just how invalid that claim of clickjamas is.

But, since you are unable to face reality, you are forced, by default, to troll this forum and insult those who show you are wrong: this is what you have been doing here for the past three years.

Rest assured, this is going to stop.
I take it that means you are reporting me for hurting your feelings and not just accepting your unsubstantiated claims?

Or is it a threat that you will try to kill me?

If you need me to justify it more, here:

It is quite simple, your claims about the CNO cycle in no way show that the sun is not a nuclear furnace. Instead, it shows quite the opposite, that nuclear reactions occur in the sun.
But the "reasoning" there is so disconnected from reality it isn't funny.
It is like saying because nuclear fission occurs on Earth, nuclear fusion cannot occur in the core of the sun.
There is no logical connection.

If taken as true, all it shows is that nuclear reactions occur in the sun, and more specifically, a specific family of nuclear reactions occur in specific regions near the sun's surface.

You would need to show that the entire power output of the sun comes from these nuclear reactions (or other reactions/sources of power) occurring at/near the surface to show that nuclear reactions aren't occurring in the core.
But you have made no attempt to.

Likewise for your claims that the sun can't possible be a sphere, you can't just attack a particular model and say that because that model is wrong the sun can't be a sphere.
For example, proving that the sun isn't a sphere of jelly doesn't show that the sun isn't a sphere. All it shows is that it isn't a sphere of jelly.
The same applies to your argument. Even if all the "facts" of that argument were accepted as true, it still doesn't show the sun isn't a sphere. All it shows is that the sun doesn't match the model you are arguing against.
It especially in no way shows the sun is flat.

It is quite easy to disprove a highly specific claim (such as ALL nuclear reactions on the sun occur in the core, or that the sun is explained by this exact model, or that it is a perfect sphere), it is much harder to disprove more general claims (such as nuclear reactions occur in the core of the sun, or that the sun is roughly spherical), not impossible, but harder. You cannot disprove the general claims by attacking much more specific claims which feature those general claims.

You have no actual basis for any of your claims.

So do you have any actual argument to show that nuclear fusion isn't occurring in the core of the sun, or not on the sun at all?
Do you have any actual argument to show the sun is flat?

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2019, 02:19:42 PM »
Quote
Here is the most precise proof that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical at all:

Never heard anything more ridiculous. Of course the Sun is spherical. Hydrostatic equilibrium is the main mechanism behind why the Sun neither expands (due to thermal gas pressure trying to push outwards) or contracts (under its own gravity). This is only possible if the same forces are acting in all directions with the same magnitude.  Under those conditions nature creates a spherical body.  These images of the Sun (taken with my own solar telescope by one of its previous owners) rather convincingly suggest that the Sun is indeed spherical. They also rather convincing suggest that the Sun is larger than 600 metres across given that even the smaller sunspots visible are larger than the Earth itself.

http://astropixel.org/astropixel_systeme-solaire.htm

If what you say is true then everything I have been learning in my university modules in solar astrophysics over the last five years is wrong. And I seriously doubt that is the case.  If you are right then why are your claims not more widely encountered either in books or across the Internet.  The only place that seems to mention what you say are your own posts in your own 'advanced' flat Earth theory.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 02:29:39 PM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2019, 02:34:59 PM »
You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes.

You are philosophically illiterate.

Only someone who has inherited the IQ of an ape, such as yourself, could make such a statement.

Since you have no arguments to make, you are trolling this forum. Everything you said has been debunked.

You are not here to debate, but only to sabotage: it takes less than ten seconds to prove you are wrong, since you cannot accept defeat, you are forced to resort to basic trolling.


You are also scientifically illiterate: you are denying Stokes' theorem.

According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.

Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

Formula:



Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:




The R/L factor is easily proved.

LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

If the interferometer would not be rotating around its axis, but only would be orbiting the Sun, it will be subjected to BOTH the Coriolis effect of rotation and the orbital Sagnac effect.

For an interferometer which has regular geometry (square, rectangle, equilateral triangle) the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect coincide and are equal; for the first case, the interferometer can be stationary (not rotating around its own axis) while for the second case, the interferometer must be rotating.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


Re: Solar power source
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2019, 03:44:38 PM »
Great...fascinating...  now can you summarise (just a few sentences in plain English will be quite enough - and please no more equations or links to your own flat Earth posts elsewhere) for the benefit of lesser mortals such as myself  who don't have a PhD in Sandokhanian physics what relevance all that has to my original question?  What is the energy source of the Sun if it only has a diameter of 32 miles (according to FE Wiki) or 600 metres according to you?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 03:49:44 PM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

Stash

  • 3136
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2019, 03:49:14 PM »
Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf

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”."

You do realize that your are citing data obtained by a NASA satellite, the RHESSI spacecraft:

"Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) was a NASA solar flare observatory...RHESSI was decommissioned on 16 August 2018, and remains in a stable low-Earth orbit.

Launch date:    5 February 2002, 20:58 UTC[3]
Rocket:            Pegasus XL
Perigee altitude: 490.3 km (304.7 mi)
Apogee altitude: 505.3 km (314.0 mi)
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Ramaty_High_Energy_Solar_Spectroscopic_Imager

So your data source that images the sun, this NASA spacecraft, is orbiting the earth at a height of 500 km yet your sun is 600 meters in diameter and at a height above earth of 15-20 km?

*

rabinoz

  • 22636
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2019, 04:32:57 PM »
You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes.

You are philosophically illiterate.

Only someone who has inherited the IQ of an ape, such as yourself, could make such a statement.

Since you have no arguments to make, you are trolling this forum. Everything you said has been debunked.

You are not here to debate, but only to sabotage: it takes less than ten seconds to prove you are wrong, since you cannot accept defeat, you are forced to resort to basic trolling.

You are also scientifically illiterate: you are denying Stokes' theorem.

What us the relevance of any of that to the topic, "Solar power source", might I suggest none?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2019, 10:38:45 PM »
Stokes' theorem has everything to do with each and every subject being discussed here.

It is one of the fundamental results of advanced calculus.

I have clearly spelled out the description of the source of energy for the FE Sun; since you are still arguing about this, I must bring to your attention the facts concerning the application of Stokes' theorem to light interferometers. This way, I can immediately prove that the Earth is stationary.

According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.





That is, for each interferometer, there will always be TWO FORMULAS to deal with: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity of the light beams (v = radius of rotation x angular velocity, at the equator it is some 465 meters/s).



Here is Stokes' theorem applied to this kind of interferometer (MGX/RLGs):

Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:




The R/L factor is easily proved.

LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

If the interferometer would not be rotating around its axis, but only would be orbiting the Sun, it will be subjected to BOTH the Coriolis effect of rotation and the orbital Sagnac effect.

For an interferometer which has regular geometry (square, rectangle, equilateral triangle) the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect coincide and are equal; for the first case, the interferometer can be stationary (not rotating around its own axis) while for the second case, the interferometer must be rotating.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.

*

mak3m

  • 331
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2019, 10:48:09 PM »
Sandy what Z value are you applying for the interferometer for Stokes?
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


Re: Solar power source
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2019, 10:56:09 PM »
You are philosophically illiterate.
That is from a different thread, which you had plenty of opportunity to chime in and object/refute it.
If you wish to discuss it more (such as trying to show I am wrong), go back to that thread. Stop insulting me here.

it takes less than ten seconds to prove you are wrong
Yet instead of spending those 10 seconds to prove I am wrong, you spend far more on insulting me and spamming and derailing the thread.

Now it seems you are spamming with you already refuted Sagnac BS.

How about you stop trolling this forum and substantiate your claims.


You claim the CNO cycle observed in the sun proves that the sun is not a nuclear furnace.
Ignoring the fact that the CNO cycle being observed in the sun shows that the nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, and thus the sun is a nuclear furnace, how does observing the CNO cycle at the edge of the sun show that nuclear fusion cannot happen in its core, like you are trying to claim?

How does it occurring in one location mean it can't occur in another?
If you find an injured person, and see that they are bleeding on their outside, does that mean they can't also be bleeding on the inside?


For your other claim, you are claiming the sun cannot be spherical. But all you do to try and back that up is attack a particular model, not it being it spherical in general.

Does Earth not being a disk made out of jelly mean it isn't a disk? Does Earth not being a sphere made out of jell mean it isn't a sphere?

I assume this is why you feel such need to repeatedly insult me and try and derail threads? Because you know you cannot back up your claims? You know you cannot defend against my refutation of your claims?

If you think it only takes 10 seconds, then go ahead and take those 10 seconds and prove me wrong.
I will even be nice and accept your claim that the CNO cycle occurs at or near the surface of the sun, and that that particular model of the sun is wrong. They don't prove that nuclear fusion isn't occurring in the core of the sun, nor that the sun isn't roughly spherical.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2019, 10:57:04 PM »
A good teacher (assuming you see yourself in the role of teacher here) is someone who can put information into a form that all their students can understand. Have you considered that not everyone reading these posts might be as familiar and conversant with advanced calculus so to them your posts are meaningless. Just a load of symbols which anyone can hide behind and appear to know what they are talking about.  Checking back through your posts, I notice that many seem to be almost exact duplicates of each other. 

So for the benefit of those who don't know such advanced maths, how about a plain English version of what you think the energy source is that can power something which is just 600 metres across yet can be sustainable for 10 billion years. It is easy to describe the PP chain and the CNO cycle without laying out all the math that goes with it.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 10:59:19 PM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2019, 11:16:40 PM »
Fair enough.

Professor P.M. Robitaille (Ohio State University) has put the information into a form that all the students can understand.

He is not FE/GE, in fact he is one of the top heliocentrists in the world.

RADIUS OF THE SOLID SURFACE SUN





Within the context of modern solar theory, the Sun cannot have a distinct surface. Gases are incapable of supporting such structures. Modern theory maintains the absence of this vital structural element. Conversely, experimental evidence firmly supports that the Sun does indeed possess a surface. For nearly 150 years, astronomy has chosen to disregard direct observational evidence in favor of theoretical models.

Dr. P.M. Robitaille

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-26-08.PDF

On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye



Spectacular images of the solar surface have been acquired in recent years, all of which manifest phenomenal structural elements on or near the solar surface. High resolution images acquired by the Swedish Solar Telescope reveal a solar surface in three dimensions filled with structural elements.

Beyond the evidence provided by the Swedish Solar Telescope and countless other observations, there was clear Doppler confirmation that the photosphere of the Sun was behaving as a distinct surface. In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”. In these images, the “optical illusion” was now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state.


http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0159v1.pdf

Commentary on the Radius of the Sun:
Optical Illusion or Manifestation of a Real Surface?

Observational astronomy continues to report increasingly precise measures of solar radius and diameter. Even the smallest temporal variations in these parameters would have profound implications relative to modeling the Sun and understanding climate fluctuations on Earth. A review of the literature convincingly demonstrates that the solar body does indeed possess a measurable radius which provides, along with previous discussions (Robitaille P.M. On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 75–78.), the twenty-first line of evidence that the Sun is comprised of condensed-matter.





On the Temperature of the Photosphere: Energy Partition in the Sun

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0140v1.pdf

If the  local thermal equilibrium and its extension of Kirchhoff’s formulation fails to guarantee that a blackbody spectrum is produced at the center of the Sun, then the gaseous models have no mechanism to generate its continuous emission. In part, this forms the basis of the solar opacity problem.

Stellar Opacity: The Achilles’ Heel of the Gaseous Sun

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0139v1.pdf

Given the problems which surround solar opacity, it remains difficult to understand how the gaseous models of the Sun have survived over much of the twentieth century. Local
thermal equilibrium does not exist at the center of the Sun. Both Kirchhoff and Planck require rigid enclosure which is not found in the Sun. Planck has also warned that the Sun fails to meet the requirements for being treated as a blackbody.

On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1265348/

https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/04/04/kirchhoffs-law-proven-invalid-the-implications-are-enormous/

Further, all blackbodies are limited to solids, since only they can be perfect absorbers, and unlike liquids, they cannot sustain convection.  Prof. Robitaille also explains why gases do not follow these laws because they do not emit radiation in a continuous manner, further discrediting the standard model of stars.  The emissivity of a real gas drops with temperature. Planck’s equation remains the only fundamental equation that has yet to be linked to physical reality, which is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s error.

Prof. Robitaille notes that the standard gaseous Sun model uses equations of radiative transfer, and those equations all have, at their source, KLTE.  The invalidity of KLTE means there cannot be blackbody radiation at the center of the Sun, which means the entire standard model of the gaseous Sun is invalid.

https://principia-scientific.org/new-study-invalidates-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160211150839/http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

“The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited:
A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission
and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality

"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



http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0134v1.pdf

Commentary Relative to the Distribution of Gamma-Ray Flares on the Sun:
Further Evidence for a Distinct Solar Surface

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0108v1.pdf

The Solar Photosphere: Evidence for Condensed Matter

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0110v1.pdf

Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun


*

mak3m

  • 331
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2019, 11:33:18 PM »
Fair enough.

Professor P.M. Robitaille (Ohio State University) has put the information into a form that all the students can understand.

He is not FE/GE, in fact he is one of the top heliocentrists in the world.

RADIUS OF THE SOLID SURFACE SUN





Within the context of modern solar theory, the Sun cannot have a distinct surface. Gases are incapable of supporting such structures. Modern theory maintains the absence of this vital structural element. Conversely, experimental evidence firmly supports that the Sun does indeed possess a surface. For nearly 150 years, astronomy has chosen to disregard direct observational evidence in favor of theoretical models.

Dr. P.M. Robitaille

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-26-08.PDF

On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye



Spectacular images of the solar surface have been acquired in recent years, all of which manifest phenomenal structural elements on or near the solar surface. High resolution images acquired by the Swedish Solar Telescope reveal a solar surface in three dimensions filled with structural elements.

Beyond the evidence provided by the Swedish Solar Telescope and countless other observations, there was clear Doppler confirmation that the photosphere of the Sun was behaving as a distinct surface. In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”. In these images, the “optical illusion” was now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state.


http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0159v1.pdf

Commentary on the Radius of the Sun:
Optical Illusion or Manifestation of a Real Surface?

Observational astronomy continues to report increasingly precise measures of solar radius and diameter. Even the smallest temporal variations in these parameters would have profound implications relative to modeling the Sun and understanding climate fluctuations on Earth. A review of the literature convincingly demonstrates that the solar body does indeed possess a measurable radius which provides, along with previous discussions (Robitaille P.M. On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 75–78.), the twenty-first line of evidence that the Sun is comprised of condensed-matter.





On the Temperature of the Photosphere: Energy Partition in the Sun

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0140v1.pdf

If the  local thermal equilibrium and its extension of Kirchhoff’s formulation fails to guarantee that a blackbody spectrum is produced at the center of the Sun, then the gaseous models have no mechanism to generate its continuous emission. In part, this forms the basis of the solar opacity problem.

Stellar Opacity: The Achilles’ Heel of the Gaseous Sun

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0139v1.pdf

Given the problems which surround solar opacity, it remains difficult to understand how the gaseous models of the Sun have survived over much of the twentieth century. Local
thermal equilibrium does not exist at the center of the Sun. Both Kirchhoff and Planck require rigid enclosure which is not found in the Sun. Planck has also warned that the Sun fails to meet the requirements for being treated as a blackbody.

On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1265348/

https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/04/04/kirchhoffs-law-proven-invalid-the-implications-are-enormous/

Further, all blackbodies are limited to solids, since only they can be perfect absorbers, and unlike liquids, they cannot sustain convection.  Prof. Robitaille also explains why gases do not follow these laws because they do not emit radiation in a continuous manner, further discrediting the standard model of stars.  The emissivity of a real gas drops with temperature. Planck’s equation remains the only fundamental equation that has yet to be linked to physical reality, which is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s error.

Prof. Robitaille notes that the standard gaseous Sun model uses equations of radiative transfer, and those equations all have, at their source, KLTE.  The invalidity of KLTE means there cannot be blackbody radiation at the center of the Sun, which means the entire standard model of the gaseous Sun is invalid.

https://principia-scientific.org/new-study-invalidates-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160211150839/http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

“The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited:
A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission
and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality

"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



http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0134v1.pdf

Commentary Relative to the Distribution of Gamma-Ray Flares on the Sun:
Further Evidence for a Distinct Solar Surface

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0108v1.pdf

The Solar Photosphere: Evidence for Condensed Matter

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0110v1.pdf

Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter — The Sun

Lol Robatille is neither a physicist, cosmologist or an astrophysicist, but claims to be and is represented as by others

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ultracrepidarianism

Hes basically a crank discredited over a decade ago
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2019, 11:45:38 PM »
Dr. P.M. Robitaille is a Professor at Ohio State University.

His detailed explanations are very well spelled out.

Here is the proof that the information contained in his paper is correct:



Dr. P.M. Robitaille

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-26-08.PDF

On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye

Spectacular images of the solar surface have been acquired in recent years, all of which manifest phenomenal structural elements on or near the solar surface. High resolution images acquired by the Swedish Solar Telescope reveal a solar surface in three dimensions filled with structural elements.

Beyond the evidence provided by the Swedish Solar Telescope and countless other observations, there was clear Doppler confirmation that the photosphere of the Sun was behaving as a distinct surface. In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”. In these images, the “optical illusion” was now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state.



*

mak3m

  • 331
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2019, 12:17:01 AM »
Dr. P.M. Robitaille is a Professor at Ohio State University.

His detailed explanations are very well spelled out.

Here is the proof that the information contained in his paper is correct:



Dr. P.M. Robitaille

http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-26-08.PDF

On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Herve Faye

Spectacular images of the solar surface have been acquired in recent years, all of which manifest phenomenal structural elements on or near the solar surface. High resolution images acquired by the Swedish Solar Telescope reveal a solar surface in three dimensions filled with structural elements.

Beyond the evidence provided by the Swedish Solar Telescope and countless other observations, there was clear Doppler confirmation that the photosphere of the Sun was behaving as a distinct surface. In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”. In these images, the “optical illusion” was now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state.



Ohio State Department of Medicine

He was involved in developing MRI equipment, but was asked to step down from his position in that department in 2000.

He is not the leading authority on the sun or make up of stars you made that bit up.

You take about a third of his argument, as in your mind you can twist it to your own ends.

He is not a physicist, a cosmologist or an astrophysicist at all.

Sorry try some more copy and paste.
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


*

mak3m

  • 331
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2019, 12:21:47 AM »
If Ohio state is a reputable source I wonder what other Proffessors from that learned institution think of him


https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/us/ripples-in-ohio-from-ad-on-the-big-bang.html
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4540
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2019, 12:45:50 AM »


This is from NASA.

Spectacular images of the solar surface have been acquired in recent years, all of which manifest phenomenal structural elements on or near the solar surface. High resolution images acquired by the Swedish Solar Telescope reveal a solar surface in three dimensions filled with structural elements.

Beyond the evidence provided by the Swedish Solar Telescope and countless other observations, there was clear Doppler confirmation that the photosphere of the Sun was behaving as a distinct surface. In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”. In these images, the “optical illusion” was now acting as a real surface. The ripples were clearly transverse in nature, a phenomenon difficult to explain using a gaseous solar model. Ripples on a pond are characteristic of the liquid or solid state.


No one else has been able to debunk this clearly defined description:

In 1998, Kosovichev and Zharkova published their Nature paper X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Doppler imaging revealed transverse waves on the surface of the Sun, as reproduced in Figure 2: “We have also detected flare ripples, circular wave packets propagating from the flare and resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond”.


Now, corroborate this information with Clayton's equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

These are the facts concering the Sun: the pressure in the chromosphere is extremely low, contrary to every theoretical prediction made by modern heliocentrism.



Plug the numbers into the Clayton model (the most accurate equation) and see the results for yourself.

*

mak3m

  • 331
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2019, 01:14:22 AM »
Plasma

Got interrupted at work.

So in this instance nasa/ESA data from an orbiting satellite is admissable,  noted.

Image is from 1996, I assume your expert looked at it and thought that looks like liquid how does that work with a gaseous body?

He may or may not be aware of the properties of plasma but jumped to the wrong conclusions and was dismissed.

Taking your experts view forward the sun is predominantly iron? Can you show me the strong FE lines in the suns spectrum?

« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 02:31:14 AM by mak3m »
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


Re: Solar power source
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2019, 02:26:44 AM »
Your link describing the chromosphere is interesting.  I agree with it.  Including the bit where it says the thickness of the chromosphere is about 10,000km

That is a bit different from your earlier claim about the actual diameter of the Sun compared to the FE claim of 32 miles...

Quote
It is actually some 600 meters in diameter, in the shape of a disk:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

The chromosphere is just one layer of the Suns atmosphere. If it has a thickness of 10,000km then your claim that the Suns diameter is just 600 meters seems a bit wrong?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 02:40:07 AM by Nucleosynthesis »