The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ∂G/∂x on April 15, 2007, 03:37:54 PM
-
If the sun is 32km wide, it cannot have a fusion reaction at its core, as this would simply blow it apart. We know the Sun is made of hydrogen and helium by astronomical spectroscopy (falsified readings on thoroughly reproduced experiments? hundreds more astronomers to pay off...). So two big questions arise:
1. How does the Sun remain a coherent body, as it is made of gas? If it isn't made of gas what is it made of and how does it fool our spectrometers?
2. Where does the energy on the Earth come from? Solar energy is being considered and it already used on a small scale as a power source, and all plant and animal life depend on the suns radiation to survive either directly or indirectly. How could this be possible if the sun is not carrying out fusion?
The reason the sun does not blow apart in RE theory is that it's mass which REers know to cause gravitation is providing a counterbalancing force keep it from exploding while its fusion prevents its collapse. If it is only 32km across it would not have enough mass to produce this gravitation, and as you don't believe mass produces this effect anyway, what's going on?
Anyone?
-
I second second that question.
With avengence.
-
Just a reminder, as hardness of question goes up, fe answers go down.
-
"The difficulty of question is inversely proportional to the number of FEers willing to answer it"
Shall henceforth be known as the Sokarul Principle. Outstanding!
-
Which mathematically, can be phrased as:
D = K/Fe
Where D is difficulty of question, K is a yet unidentified constant and Fe is No. of Flat Eathers
-
lol you guys have to much time on your hands.
-
Hey, this is YOUR principle.
-
Still no FEers to answer my question? Can't you at least have a go at explaining it?
-
Give 'em time, they've got a lot of articles on wikipedia to sift through.
-
And when they do find 'proof' It will probably be vauge and have little to do with the topic, then they will insult you for not agreeing with their flawed understanding. Or they will 'prove' one of their theories as an answer. Or the classic; Conspiricy... Its nothing new...
-
Exactly. If I know Tom's style of post, it's going to be something on the lines of:
"It's powered by fusion"
*Inserts copy-pasted definition of fusion from a website*
-
Which mathematically, can be phrased as:
D = K/Fe
Where D is difficulty of question, K is a yet unidentified constant and Fe is No. of Flat Eathers
I thought Fe was Iron...I'm so confused.
-
Which mathematically, can be phrased as:
D = K/Fe
Where D is difficulty of question, K is a yet unidentified constant and Fe is No. of Flat Eathers
I thought Fe was Iron...I'm so confused.
It is a little known fact that those who believe in the FE theory are, in reality, entirely compromised of iron. So we are both right.
Hope this helps
-
Wow, that explains everything! Thanks, Mothergoose!
-
This is Ground Control to Major Dumbass... or Tom as many call him. (There is a David Bowie referance in here somewhere...)
-
ashes to ashes, funk to funky
we know major tom's a junkie...
- Ashes to Ashes, David Bowie
explains a lot, doesn't it...
-
*bump*
Still waiting for an FE reply...
-
I'd like to add to the Sun questions, if I may. How is the sun a spotlight? Spotlights do not occur in nature.
-
Which mathematically, can be phrased as:
D = K/Fe
Where D is difficulty of question, K is a yet unidentified constant and Fe is No. of Flat Eathers
K is equal to zero.
-
not by conventional wisdom...but i think to even consider this idea as vaguely plausible, you have to ignore what you were taught and restart purely from observations...what i'm trying to say is that, although i don't personally believe the sun to be a "spotlight", i should start with what i see, which is a bright round warm thing in the sky, and start from there. i've had to do that many many times to even consider certain ideas like the universal accelerator, the spotlight sun...they're sort of neat ideas, even if they're full of inconsistencies...
-
Whoever dares to argue, I will bring up Einstein's name again, like I have in my last 10 posts, which no one can argue about.
Owned.
Owned.
And simply, Owned.
-
not by conventional wisdom...but i think to even consider this idea as vaguely plausible, you have to ignore what you were taught and restart purely from observations...what i'm trying to say is that, although i don't personally believe the sun to be a "spotlight", i should start with what i see, which is a bright round warm thing in the sky, and start from there. i've had to do that many many times to even consider certain ideas like the universal accelerator, the spotlight sun...they're sort of neat ideas, even if they're full of inconsistencies...
The problem is I have never experienced a spotlight elsewhere that was not made by man. This leads me to the conclusion that the Sun is in fact a point, or area, light very far away.
-
I've watched a solar eclipse through a telescope (projected onto paper) and you can see the fuzzy edges of the sun compared to the hard edge of the moon over it. There are even sunspots that visibly rotate around it over a few days. THis is also not explained by flat earth.
And still I see we are devoid of Tom's infinite wisdom, TheEngineers 'unquestionable' relativity theories or Narcberry's inane ramblings. Even Dogplatter's incomplete but less arrogant theories would be welcome.
-
I like dogplatter. He's grown on me. You left out everyone's friend Franc T., Planar!
-
I like him too. But how could I forget Franc? Maybe it's because he's been gone so long.
Franc, if you're out there, we miss your logic-free posts and incessant flaming! It makes us feel good to be alive!
-
Where have all the FE'ers gone?
Long time passing...
Where have all the FE'ers gone?
Long time ago...
Where have all the FE'ers gone?
Ignoring our questions, every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
--Pete Seeger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Have_All_the_Flowers_Gone) (with a little editing)
-
Keeping bumped... waiting for an FE'er
-
Tom is still frantically searching through Wikipedia, conspiracy sites, and tabloids in search of more straws to grasp at.
-
Next he'll claim to be another professor somewhere. ::)
-
I am in ur forums... bumping your boards and awaiting an FE'er... or Tom...
-
I like him too. But how could I forget Franc? Maybe it's because he's been gone so long.
Franc, if you're out there, we miss your logic-free posts and incessant flaming! It makes us feel good to be alive!
He's not coming back, he told me :(
-
Dogplatter to the rescue!
It's important to consider that there ARE other natural light sources than fusion reactions, combustion, to name just a single example. Now, I'm not going to make the mistake of claiming that I know for sure what makes the sun shine, but the fact that a fusion reaction could not occur in a 32km sun is not, on its own, a proof against FET.
-
Dogplatter to the rescue!
It's important to consider that there ARE other natural light sources than fusion reactions, combustion, to name just a single example. Now, I'm not going to make the mistake of claiming that I know for sure what makes the sun shine, but the fact that a fusion reaction could not occur in a 32km sun is not, on its own, a proof against FET.
Was that an answer to my question or someone else's? My question is about natural SPOTLIGHT sources. Combustion would be an area/point light again.
-
To the OP I assume