1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Howcome we've never seen 'The Edge'?

« on: June 14, 2009, 06:01:08 AM »

Then shop around on the forums. Or is that too difficult?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Howcome we've never seen 'The Edge'?

« on: June 10, 2009, 12:44:38 PM »

hilarious.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Howcome we've never seen 'The Edge'?

« on: June 09, 2009, 02:04:36 PM »

Sorry to say this but really... just read the FAQ...

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Howcome we've never seen 'The Edge'?

« on: June 09, 2009, 07:50:20 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference around here.

Haha!

5

Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Photoelectric Suspension Theory

« on: June 08, 2009, 07:08:09 AM »

In order to keep the Sun and Moon ionized they require a continuous source of energy. If they were metal they would rapidly neutralize the electron field again.
There should be an electron flux between the sun moon and earth. Is there some evidence to support this existence?

What evidence supports the theory that at some point in history the sun and moon were massive metal discs? What observation led to that conclusion?
What wavelengths participate in the PES mechanism? We have the ability to replicate the EM spectrum and thus it should be possible to test the PES idea.
So the Sun, Moon and the Earth currently have a charge and this charge is maintained by the UA? What evidence is there for the flux that must be present to keep the sun and moon charged?

Chronological dating methods for the cosmos are not invalidated by the accelerated radioactive decay observed in recent literature. There is no evidence to support such a notion.

Stating that because quantum gravity doesn?t exist in FE theory and therefore RE theorem using gravitation is invalid is a logical fallacy.

Calling PES a theory is too generous. There is no evidence to support any of the notions and the idea itself is made to support a flat earth. A scientific theory should be made to describe observations and predict behaviour. This does nothing to aid understanding.

PES can be observed, the standard demonstration that almost all kids are shown at A-level when learning about the photoelectric effect is that when two strips of gold leaf are exposed to a UV light they repel each other. It also takes a considerable amount of time for them to regain electrons from passing atoms and stop repelling one another.

  Why would there be an electron flux between the sun, moon and the earth?  The metals are constantly being maintained in their ionised state by cosmic radiation. They are not gaining or losing large amounts of (net) charge.

The sun and moon still are massive metal discs. The observation that the sun and the moon have not yet crashed into the earth is a pretty good indicator that they must be suspended up there.  The observation that like charges repel led to this suitable conclusion.

The work function of the metals that the sun and the moon are constituted of would itself tell you what wavelengths participate in maintaining the ionised state of the discs.  I suggest that it is very likely to be an alloy of low electron affinity metals such as K, Li and Ce along with other elements with higher electron affinities such as C, Si and metals such as Ni and Ir requiring higher energy photons to be ionised.

The evidence to support the invalidation of cosmochronology is that radioactive decay of unstable elements can be and has been accelerated - thus yielding it unreliable as a dating mechanism.

The quantum equivalent of gravity has not been proven to exist yet.  Therefore "quantum gravity" only theoretically exists... so it would be logical to assume that in a flat earth it simply does not exist... as gravity is (as yet) unprovable.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 08, 2009, 06:27:02 AM »

Lol, no worries. Helped me to go over it a little bit actually, I have to write up a lab experiment next week on energy levels, IR and transition metals.  You helped me dust off the notes!

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight +chemiluminescence

« on: June 07, 2009, 06:33:27 AM »

You propose a chemical reaction for luminescence but what provides the energy for the return reaction? Thermodynamics won't allow the system to return to the original state without energy input. Le Chetaliers principle applies to closed systems in equilibrium. Also change must be applied for the system to respond. (ie adding or removing a product to change the concentration).
How are you applying this to the moon?

Also there is a possibility of the dye being oxidised via a complex system and mechanism (similar to the electron transfer chain but by catalysts, not enzymes) that would slow the products return to the reactants.  This would explain why the moon goes through phases, the dark parts of the moon are shifting back to the original reactants and the light parts of the moon would be undergoing luminescence.  Gradually as the month passes the dark part of the moon begins to glow again as the reactants are reformed.  Thus the cycle restarts.

Considering the moon is constantly being ionised, the moon itself would itself be the driving force for this re-equilibrium, stripping electrons from the degenerate dye, reforming the reactants.  So the backwards cycle would be thermodynamically and kinetically attainable.  PES supports this theory quite considerably.

You say the moon is constantly being ionised. I asked what is driving this? Why do you say it is constantly being ionised?

see PES theory.

No it isn't. Lunar Eclipses occur when the Antimoon moves between the Moon and the Earth. I think you have previously misunderstood the notion of the 'Shadow Object' (Antimoon).

What pseudoscience BS.  There's nothing moving between earth and the moon during an eclipse, I watch them closely with my scope all the friggen time.  If there were some "antimoon" between the two of us then we should see severe abberations in the timing of the eclipse as viewed by different observers due to parallax.  Debunked.

Surely the extent of the parallax depends upon how close the antimoon passes to the moon?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 07, 2009, 06:27:28 AM »

No, I'm saying that heat is a form of energy. My comment was about material absorbing that light and effecting a vibrational/rotational change which would result in temperature change of the absorbent body.

The comment I was replying to was one of light emission without heat. I interpreted that as "light which will not effect a heat change". I've no problem with the emission body not undergoing a temp change but my point was those emitted photons can still cause a heat change in a second body.

Only if they are of the correct wavelength for that molecule (see i.r spectroscopy). If the photon was of different energy then it would not interact with the body.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 06, 2009, 12:10:18 PM »

There are 3 mechanisms of heat transfer. Radiation, conduction and convection. Convection requires a fluid.
Anyway, you are saying energy is emitted by light not heat. That's called radiation sir. If a material absorbs that light and results in a vibrational or rotational change(of the atom/molecule) then there is a corresponding temperature change which will be quantified by the specific heat of the material.

As for the collision of atoms, I assume you are probably talking about ions and yes, collision is required for reaction. I'm not sure if you are talking about friction induced temperature change or temperature change resulting in higher collisions. All fluids are viscous(ignoring superfluids) and induced convection will results in some kind of temperature increase due to viscous effects.

Light is emitted by radiation, yes well done.  Unfortunately you fail to realise that it is released via the dropping of electrons to a lower energy state, releasing a quantum of energy corresponding to that energy gap.  Thus there is not a change in temperature, even if the energy of the system has decreased.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight +chemiluminescence

« on: June 06, 2009, 12:03:36 PM »

You propose a chemical reaction for luminescence but what provides the energy for the return reaction? Thermodynamics won't allow the system to return to the original state without energy input. Le Chetaliers principle applies to closed systems in equilibrium. Also change must be applied for the system to respond. (ie adding or removing a product to change the concentration).
How are you applying this to the moon?

Also there is a possibility of the dye being oxidised via a complex system and mechanism (similar to the electron transfer chain but by catalysts, not enzymes) that would slow the products return to the reactants.  This would explain why the moon goes through phases, the dark parts of the moon are shifting back to the original reactants and the light parts of the moon would be undergoing luminescence.  Gradually as the month passes the dark part of the moon begins to glow again as the reactants are reformed.  Thus the cycle restarts.

Considering the moon is constantly being ionised, the moon itself would itself be the driving force for this re-equilibrium, stripping electrons from the degenerate dye, reforming the reactants.  So the backwards cycle would be thermodynamically and kinetically attainable.  PES supports this theory quite considerably.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight +chemiluminescence

« on: June 05, 2009, 06:49:54 AM »

Can you really? That's interesting, and irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant in that whatever chemical reaction you devise needs to have a mechanism for explaining lunar phases.

 The chemical reaction would be in an equilibrium or cycle. There is no reason to say that once the reaction has occurred and the light energy from the dye has been released that it does not stay in the degenerate state for a long time before being oxidised back to it's original reactants via the cheteliers principle (the amount of products increases so the equilibrium shifts to the left to reproduce the reactants).  Also there is a possibility of the dye being oxidised via a complex system and mechanism (similar to the electron transfer chain but by catalysts, not enzymes) that would slow the products return to the reactants.  This would explain why the moon goes through phases, the dark parts of the moon are shifting back to the original reactants and the light parts of the moon would be undergoing luminescence.  Gradually as the month passes the dark part of the moon begins to glow again as the reactants are reformed.  Thus the cycle restarts.

Can you really? That's interesting, and irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant in that whatever chemical reaction you devise needs to have a mechanism for explaining lunar phases.

And lunar eclipses.

Lunar eclipses have been explained numerous times on other threads concerning the shadow object.

i.e http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28448.0

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 05, 2009, 06:34:37 AM »

Maybe you should go to school instead of copying some nonsence from the internets..

Haha! Pure, pure ignorance.

If you can find anywhere on the internet where I copied that from then be my guest, hook me up on it. But that came from my own knowledge on transition metals . You are in absolutely no place to accuse me of such things when you have absolutely none at all in the matter.

Maybe you should go to university and study a real subject...
[/quote]
Metals? Lolz. Whatever man.
[/quote]

You never heard of transition metals? oh dear...

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons

« on: June 05, 2009, 06:30:21 AM »

Are you expecting him to post a list of every single piece of published FE text? If so then it's already been done by Tom Bishop. Look it up and do your own reading.

First of all, what makes you think that Tom's sig contains every single piece of published FE text?

Second, many of the off line resources in Tom's sig are only available in the special collections of a few major libraries.  Not readily accessible to most people.

Third, I have personally looked up some of the resources in Tom's sig and there are several sources listed that may contain the words flat and earth but have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.  I even found one source in Tom's link where the author was a former secretary of the Zetetic Society who was planning on exposing Rowbotham as a fraud.

How is this relevant relevant? It does not give reasons why you shouldn't read up.

"several sources listed that may contain the words flat and earth but have nothing to do with the shape of the earth" There are plenty of other works on that list that do.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons

« on: June 05, 2009, 05:36:56 AM »

Are you expecting him to post a list of every single piece of published FE text? If so then it's already been done by Tom Bishop. Look it up and do your own reading.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 05, 2009, 05:33:42 AM »

[/quote]
Maybe you should go to school instead of copying some nonsence from the internets..
[/quote]

Haha! Pure, pure ignorance.

If you can find anywhere on the internet where I copied that from then be my guest, hook me up on it. But that came from my own knowledge on transition metals . You are in absolutely no place to accuse me of such things when you have absolutely none at all in the matter.

Maybe you should go to university and study a real subject...

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight +chemiluminescence

« on: June 05, 2009, 05:29:36 AM »

Can you really? That's interesting, and irrelevant.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Dinosuars?

« on: June 05, 2009, 05:27:27 AM »

Most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.

That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!

That debunks his theory through and through. Please stop ignoring my posts.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Moonlight +chemiluminescence

« on: June 04, 2009, 02:15:23 PM »

I don't find the explanation (or lack of it) for the "cold light" of the moon to be valid or explainable therefore...

I've conducted a search throughout the whole of this site and have only found weak references to this, so I'm going to put it forward as a serious and comprehensive theory.

Why couldn't the moons light be chemiluminescence?

My previous post on the matter in "The notsoflat earth" brought this to my attention.

The wavelength of light emmited from the radiation would be towards the high energy end of the visible spectrum (giving the moon its bluey grey colour) as is emitted by the luminescent dye 9,10-Diphenylanthracene; and therefore would not contain any infra red... thus no heat. The light emitted also does not extend into the UV range of spectra. This wavelength will probably be in the region 425-450nm as is shown by the emission spectra of
9,10-Diphenylanthracene here:     http://macromolecules.case.edu/images/Upconversion.jpg
 
(9,10-Diphenylanthracene is the highly conjugated structure on the left)

I'm not necessarily saying that 9,10-Diphenylanthracene would have to be the dye under question, it could be any number of them, let alone ones that have not been discovered yet!

I'm open to discussion here, so give me and ideas/queries you can think of and I'll see what I can do!

Rogherio

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: MOON shines by her own LIGHT.

« on: June 04, 2009, 11:28:41 AM »

I've conducted a search throughout the whole of this site and have only found weak references to this, so I'm going to put it forward as a serious and comprehensive theory.

Why couldn't the moons light be chemiluminescence?

My previous post on the matter in "The notsoflat earth" brought this to my attention.

The wavelength of light emmited from the radiation would be towards the high energy end of the visible spectrum (giving the moon its bluey grey colour) as is emitted by the luminescent dye 9,10-Diphenylanthracene; and therefore would not contain any infra red... thus no heat. The light emitted also does not extend into the UV range of spectra. This wavelength will probably be in the region 425-450nm as is shown by the emission spectra of
9,10-Diphenylanthracene here:     http://macromolecules.case.edu/images/Upconversion.jpg
 
(9,10-Diphenylanthracene is the highly conjugated structure on the left)

I'm not necessarily saying that 9,10-Diphenylanthracene would have to be the dye under question, it could be any number of them, let alone ones that have not been discovered yet!

I'm open to discussion here, so give me and ideas/queries you can think of and I'll see what I can do!

Rogherio

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The notsoflat earth

« on: June 04, 2009, 10:51:46 AM »

 

Ball and Baal are different renderings of phonetically identical utterances.

Yet crucially spelt different.

Well observed.

Light without heat:

Reactions that produce light without heat are called chemiluminescent reactions. Perhaps the most familiar chemiluminescent reactions are those that occur in living organisms. Fireflies produce light without heat by a chemiluminescent reaction. Chemiluminescent reactions that occur in living organisms are called bioluminescent reactions.

I'm amazed that Tom didn't know about this, considering his enormous intellect.

Actually, I was looking for a clever Steve Vai reference (Light Without Heat is sort of a Vai theme), but I couldn't find a decent one so I posted that instead.

Sorry to inform you, but... If there is light, there is heat. It's because there are 2 ways to create light. First, electrons. Well, those give heat ofcourse. Second. Chemical reactions. Ever heard of Collision Of Atoms? That's what happens if you want to do some chemistry. If atoms collide they will keep going faster and produce heat.

Conclusion: Your theory is WRONG

HAHA. Sorry but where did you learn about flourescance?! This occurs when a decomposition (or reaction) emits its energy via light not heat. The energy of the reaction is "stored" in one of the products as it is created in a high energy state.  The light energy is then released when the electrons drop to the more stable energy state.  This is the same type of idea of transition metal complex colours, except this is when the complex absorbs certain light energies depending upon its do or dt (depends upon the type of complex) and whether it is possible for the metal to attain a high spin configuration from its low spin configuration due to electron spin pairing rules (complex type rules and ligand type also come into this quite significantly but is quite complex (yeah you got the pun...)). Thus giving us the reason why they are coloured and how strongly they are coloured.

Light is therefore possible without the expulsion of heat (especially in bioluminescence  as these reactions are carried out by enzymes and occur MUCH more easily than the harsh conditions occuring in a conical flask).

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Dinosuars?

« on: June 04, 2009, 10:29:22 AM »

The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?

Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.

Here's more about Hopson:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html

Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.

I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.

Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?


Other good links:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurbasics/a/dinosmarts.htm

I know this might be pushing it a bit, most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.

That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!

What do you think?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hardest questions for FE

« on: June 04, 2009, 05:31:26 AM »

It's gonna be the magnetic striping on the sea floor. I've done a bit of research over the past few days but havn't had much time to get too far into it.  I mean theres got to be some reasonable explanation for it other than major continental driftage, because thats just absurd.

Anyone got any ideas that I might have missed in plain sight?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: answer this one then! :)

« on: June 04, 2009, 04:32:05 AM »

Haha. Then my point is proven.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 04, 2009, 04:31:34 AM »

But from aeroplanes it looks flat, too!

No. The horizon still looks flat. But bizarrely, the higher up you go the further away the (flat) horizon is.

So what? When you go up a tall building, you can see further than if you were on the ground.  How is this relevant? This is extensively explained in other threads. Look them up.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Dinosuars?

« on: June 04, 2009, 03:52:27 AM »

The schools, universities and educational sites given in that link speak of it as fact. Use it well young padawan.

I'm afraid you appear to be dealing with a Jedi here...

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons

« on: June 04, 2009, 03:48:33 AM »

Well apparently it wouldn't be worth yours even if you bothered to read it. You wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: answer this one then! :)

« on: June 04, 2009, 03:44:39 AM »

If you don't get it this time, then I'm afraid I'm going to give up on my faith in you being human.

Instead of just quoting things at random, why don't you type what you're trying to say. Ie make a point.

Obviously you haven't heard of the concept of "being facetious". So I will explain it to you.

Whenever you seem to feel that you have won a debate by an apparent slip up from someone else you post,

It also disproves the flat earth theory. Thanks for contributing!

or

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Thankyou for your time.

So I did it to you. Although that time by saying it it proved that the post at the time was actually relevant and proved your contradictions.

This gives proof that your EQ is not high enough to comprehend this, let alone how buoyancy works.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 04, 2009, 03:27:41 AM »

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Thankyou for your time.
[/quote]

How is that even an argument?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Dinosuars?

« on: June 04, 2009, 03:26:32 AM »

And what does EQ have to do with the ability to build and sail boats?

Use your common sense. What do you think it has to do with it? Unless you have an EQ lower than that of the Deinonychus and are unable to comprehend how a boat floats and sails?

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: answer this one then! :)

« on: June 03, 2009, 02:25:16 PM »

If you don't get it this time, then I'm afraid I'm going to give up on my faith in you being human.

It is from a website that claims you can see the curvature of the Earth. Since this picture is posted there, their credibility is shattered. This just goes to show that pictures are not valid evidence.

Give me a quote from that site stating that photo accurately shows the curvature of the Earth viewable from that altitude.

What altitude?

Exactly.

It also disproves the flat round earth theory. Thanks for contributing!