Back to TOP

How does the Sun work?

Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.

In commencing a study of the universe, it is probably wise to start close to home; namely, with the Sun. If we don't know much about this, then it follows that all knowledge of the universe is mere guesswork and speculation.

The presently-accepted, nuclear-fusion-based solar theory, which assumes that the Sun is of the order of five milliard years old, predicts that a sizeable flux of neutrinos ought to be constantly issuing from the Sun. That was why many neutrino detectors were built around the World, at huge public expense, at the bottom of disused mine shafts and so on.

Is the neutrino flux commensurate with what was predicted? Answer: Absolutely not even close to it. In fact, there were so few neutrinos coming from the Sun that detector designs were being seriously questioned. Then came Supernova 1987A and all the detectors (including those on the other side of the World, because these sub-atomic particles are rarely stopped by matter) suddenly began registering hundreds of neutrinos per hour.

Before Supernova 1987A there were three possibilities (and, of course, any combination of them) being considered:

  1. The detectors were faulty in some way;
  2. The theory was wrong;
  3. The Sun was nowhere near 5,000,000,000 years old.

Only number 1 was deemed allowable.

After Supernova 1987A there were again three possibilities:

  1. The theory was wrong;
  2. The Sun was nowhere near 5,000,000,000 years old;
  3. Solar neutrinos are somehow 'transmuted' such that they are not detectable.
Only number 3 is deemed allowable.

Logically possible conclusions are thus rejected out-of-hand because they do not fit the overall paradigm. Such an approach is unscientific, but it is very widespread.

Supernova 1987A demonstrated that the detectors were not faulty, nor of poor design or build quality. Hence, when we return to the first list of possibilities, we see immediately that, from the options considered worthy of investigation, we are left with only two: either the theory was and is wrong, or the Sun was and is much younger than claimed, or both. The paradigm-driven solution may have been to 'amend' the theory, rather than to throw it out, but it was actually not an option, since the very paradigm that is defended with invented nonsense dictated that either the nuclear fusion theory of the Sun was wrong, or that the Sun was much, much younger than assumed, or both.

Making the Sun the physical centre of the universe runs contrary to both our senses and our astronomical observations. For example, consider the following quote from Y.P. Varshni's 1976 paper, "The red shift hypothesis for quasars: Is the Earth the center of the Universe?", Astrophysics and Space Science, 43(1), 3-8: "[If quasar redshift is due to velocity, then] the Earth is indeed the centre of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."

(N.B., like the quasar redshift studied by Varshni, the Flower Pattern introduced on this site by Steven Jones can also only be obtained in a geocentric universe.)

Although it is almost universally accepted that the World orbits the Sun, this has never been proven by any physics experiment; on the contrary, famous experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale series, prove the opposite. With this in mind, consider how the heavens look on a starry night, with or without binoculars or a telescope. Forget the textbooks. How do they look?

Now, there are only three ways to explain what we see:

  1. The World is actually positioned at the very centre of the universe;
  2. The World only appears to be at the centre of the universe; or
  3. The universe is geobounded.

Number 2 is the secular view and accounts for what we see with our eyes by teaching that the centre of the universe can be assumed to be both anywhere and nowhere. This is the acentric (no actual centre) cosmology. It is a mutation of the 'Big Bang' fairy tale, where the universe is said to be expanding into space (or rather, space-time) that is being created immediately ahead of it (this always reminds me of Grommit laying the railway track near the end of The Wrong Trousers animation film). Flat Earth cosmology also resides under heading number 2.



The nuclear fusion theory of solar operation is seriously flawed. Science must search for another explanation and not be restricted by politically-motivated paradigms.