Mass/radius of the Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Mass/radius of the Sun

Unread postby Sandokhan » Wed May 22, 2019 12:54 am

There is a much greater problem with the official data regarding the mass/radius of the sun.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."

https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg

Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens

https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg

PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr^2a^2ρ^2ce^(-x2)/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρc)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10^30 kg
central density = 1.62 x 10^5 kg/m3

G = gr^2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)^3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s^2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg
Sandokhan
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Was Robitaille right about sun’s mass distribution?

Unread postby celeste » Wed May 22, 2019 6:00 pm

I can’t believe I’m going to argue with a geocentrist, ( and your arguments in the thread on that topic are fundamentally flawed; there is no reason that an aether theory of gravity requires Earth to be at center ), but you DO bring up points that need to be addressed.

What Robitaille stated was that the sun at it’s surface should have an oblate mass distribution (even if he worded it “more density in the equatorial regions”, that’s what it means). All I pointed out, is that this IS consistent with what we would then see for Oumuamua’s orbit. Also note, there is good evidence from mainstream solar seismology, that the Sun shows solid body rotation at some depth below the core. In other words, the sun does seem to show evidence of an oblate mass with solid body rotation.

Now, what you are addressing is the spherical, differentially rotating surface of the sun. And the low pressure surrounding same. This we can model, using Don Scott’s filament model. It says basically, that for an object traveling down the center of a filament, we should have zero rotation on axis, spiraling up to faster (more azimuthal) rotation as we begin to move off axis. In other words, the SURFACE of the sun, matches the filament that the the sun is CENTERED in.

But more, (and what some even in the EU miss), is that we can’t ignore simple fluid dynamics. If we want to say that the sun is formed at a pinch (a constriction in actual flow), then we may expect to find cavitation at work. And that means a low pressure area, where we get the formation of spherical bubbles. So yes, your point is well taken, that the volume around the sun’s surface is very low pressure.

This then leads us to a mechanism for supernova shockwaves. If the mainstream was right, that fusion occurs at the core of stars, their mechanism works: stars near the end of their life, are supported by the energy of internal fusion, and collapse under gravity. When they fuse the last material, they collapse and implode. That doesn’t work in Wal’s model of a shell like sun, nor does it work with the idea that fusion occurs at the solar surface. In short, the EU is getting rid of both the “massive core”, and the “outward pressure” from internal fusion.

But if the solar exterior (NOT the seemingly solid body rotating core with oblate mass distribution), is really no more than a bubble caused by cavitation, then we get both the implosion, and resulting expanding shockwaves seen in BOTH supernovae and cavitation in the lab.
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Was Robitaille right about sun’s mass distribution?

Unread postby celeste » Wed May 22, 2019 6:19 pm

And I will go on a bit. When we actually observe supernovae, we do have a problem. The mainstream idea, is that the expanding shock front, contains little of the mass, while most of the mass collapsed into the central black hole, or neutron star. Neither of these are accepted in the EU paradigm. We are stuck with observations that show that yes, there was a star there, and after the supernova event, it is gone. So where did the mass go? Again, when you look at what happens in cavitation, you see the dynamic. And yes, it means that in the end, Wal is right, and the sun may be viewed as a hollow bubble on that scale. Be careful of course, because as you know, a hollow bubble isn’t really hollow at all.

Now Sandokhan, if you want to start talking aether is pressure, we can pick it up in that thread.
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Mass/radius of the Sun

Unread postby Sandokhan » Wed May 22, 2019 11:05 pm

The electric universe is being generated by the potential universe (see the Aharonov-Bohm effect).

The biggest issue with the Sun is the temperature of the corona: the KORONIUM paradox.

That is, either the temperature of the corona is almost as hot as the core itself, or else there are lighter than hydrogen elements in the periodic table.

Here is the TRUE/ORIGINAL periodic table of the elements created by Mendeleev:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2045088

Now, here is how Dr. Stuart Bale (UC Berkeley) describes this paradox:

https://image.ibb.co/ncz5dT/comle2.jpg

"Either the corona is very hot, or we have some new lighter elements 'coronium'".

The existence of KORONIUM:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2064256

You will also discover the most important argument why magnetic reconnection cannot be true, something that not even Dr. Hannes Alfven considered in his investigations on the subject.

The existence of NEWTONIUM:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2064764

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/for ... msg2065771

The existence of elements which are lighter than hydrogen also constitutes a formidable proof of the existence of ether as well.
Sandokhan
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests