The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: iwanttobelieve on April 16, 2010, 05:12:37 PM
-
I am really trying to believe in the flat earth theory, some things i have difficulty with.
The sun is one.
According to the FAQ
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."
A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.
I know the earth is accelerating upward, and the sun is accelerating at the same speed. Does the sun also speed up and then slow down? I live on a lake and get the awesome view of the sunrise most mornings (The sun doesnt always rise due east for a reason i dont iknow of yet).
So the Sun speeds up and slows down and it also moves back and forth over the earth and it also shuts off its beam of light a lot?
I really think we need to rethink this. There must be a better explanation for the sunrises. Every morning I can see it rise from the side of our disc planet.
Wouldnt the sun going underneath our disc be a better idea? And then going underneath and coming back the other side.
I know this dismissed the constant upward theory which i believe.
Really confused.
thank you
-
Wouldn't work. If the whole world was night at the same time, then yes, it would be hiding under the disk and even I would have to agree that the Earth was flat. But it doesn't. Specifically it lights half the planet at any given time. One half is ALWAYS lit.
-
I am really trying to believe in the flat earth theory, some things i have difficulty with.
Pray tell, why?
-
But it doesn't. Specifically it lights half the planet at any given time. One half is ALWAYS lit.
Especially since, being the way daylight work, a spotlight cannot explain days on a flat disc.
According to projection of RE days to a flat Earth, days would have to look sort of like:
(http://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/half_circle.jpg)
While not exactly like that, it would be similar.
But according to FE, the sun only does this:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:VzZrHWD2TM8REM:http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/7/7/0/6/2/7/webimg/184172191_tp.jpg)
-
And the only guy to try and make a 3D model of the sun projecting onto a flat disk has failed to do so. I'm not even sure he's still around.
-
Yes someone tell me how the sun is a spotlight. A lightbulb doesn't become a spotlight until there is something focusing the light. Unless I'm mistaking, I don't think its a FE position that the sun is in a giant housing that blocks light on the other side.
-
Yes someone tell me how the sun is a spotlight. A lightbulb doesn't become a spotlight until there is something focusing the light. Unless I'm mistaking, I don't think its a FE position that the sun is in a giant housing that blocks light on the other side.
Think of it as a laser pointer? Thats the first thing I thought of when I read about the sun in the Q&A....laser pointers are great at focusing light into a dot, or large circle if far enough away. Maybe the sun has the same focusing features going on....Please pardon my ignorance :-\
-
Yes someone tell me how the sun is a spotlight. A lightbulb doesn't become a spotlight until there is something focusing the light. Unless I'm mistaking, I don't think its a FE position that the sun is in a giant housing that blocks light on the other side.
Think of it as a laser pointer? Thats the first thing I thought of when I read about the sun in the Q&A....laser pointers are great at focusing light into a dot, or large circle if far enough away. Maybe the sun has the same focusing features going on....Please pardon my ignorance :-\
A laser pointer is just a highly focused beam of light. They still require lenses and reflectors, hence your example leaves us in the exact same position.
-
I knocked this one down in another thread. Their FAQ says the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is 3000 miles above the Earth. Well......
OK, 32 miles across and 3000 miles away. A ratio of 4/375. You could also as that the distance is 93.75 times greater than the size of the object. Let's apply this ratio to something else. Hmmm, I know! A frisbee. A regulation frisbee, used in sports, measures 10.75 inches across. Now, let's apply the ratio. 10.75x93.75=1007.8125 That means to observe the frisbee at roughly the same distance FE'ers say we observe the sun and moon, you would need to be 1007.8125 inches away, or 83.98 ft. Now 3000 miles equals 15,840,000 ft. So that means our scale is 83.98/15840000, or 188,617.337:1. Now, lets apply that to the surface area of the "flat Earth". Using A=3.14*r2, we can figure out that the area of the flat Earth is 65,563,985,000 square miles. We reduce that number with our ratio, and we get 347,603.174 square miles. That's a circle measuring 664 miles across.
Now, you mean to tell me a light the size of a frisbee could even think to illuminate even part of the state of Texas form only 83.98 feet away? Have fun with that one, guys.
I hope that puts their "spotlight theory" into some better perspective.
-
They'll just ignore you. Whenever we disprove part of the theory using hard science or mathematics they just act as if it never happened.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
You dodged my question. How exactly can an object the size of a frisbee illuminate roughly half the state of Texas from an altitude of less than 90 feet?
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
You dodged my question. How exactly can an object the size of a frisbee illuminate roughly half the state of Texas from an altitude of less than 90 feet?
Not to mention we'd all freeze to death.
How do you explain the odd shape that daylight makes on your FE map Tom?
-
I'm going to put this in a little better perspective. We're going to use a U.S. quarter for our sun. Changes are in red.
OK, 32 miles across and 3000 miles away. A ratio of 4/375. You could also as that the distance is 93.75 times greater than the size of the object. Let's apply this ratio to something else. Hmmm, I know! A quarter. A quarter measures .96875 inches across. Now, let's apply the ratio. .96875x93.75=90.8203125 That means to observe the quarter at roughly the same distance FE'ers say we observe the sun and moon, you would need to be 90.8203125 inches away, or 7.57 ft. Now 3000 miles equals 15,840,000 ft. So that means our scale is 7.57/15840000, or 2,092,470.28:1. Now, lets apply that to the surface area of the "flat Earth". Using A=3.14*r2, we can figure out that the area of the flat Earth is 65,563,985,000 square miles. We reduce that number with our ratio, and we get 31,333.293 square miles. That's a circle measuring 99.89 miles across.
Now, you mean to tell me a light the size of a quarter could even think to illuminate even part of the state of South Carolina (which is still a little small at only 30,109.47 square miles) form only 7.57 feet away? Have fun with that one, guys.
With these new calculations something occurred to me. At a height of 7.57 ft, anyone can attempt this experiment. Go outside at night. Measure out a height of 7.57 feet. Now, hold the brightest god damn light you can find at that height and see just how much ground you can light up. Hell, I won't even make you use a spot light, use what ever light you want. You don't even have to make it the size of a quarter, which would really be needed for accurate testing, but oh well. Now, have your lab partner go until the light your holding no longer illuminates the ground. I bet he won't make it very far. But for your sun theory to even come close to holding water, he's need to make it almost 50 miles since roughly half the Earth is in daylight at any given time. Next time you want to try disproving something, Mr. Bishop, try doing it with more than a link to something I've already torn down.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
From the link referenced by the wiki:
I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.
I don't think that this is helping your argument much.
-
I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult to get a small light source so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.
I don't think that this is helping your argument much.
I totally missed that! HaHa! That's exactly my point. I love this game!
-
We should get together and modify that rendering/make a new one, of the actual FE and Sun.
-
We should get together and modify that rendering/make a new one, of the actual FE and Sun.
I'm no good with rendering programs. But could do some real world experiments.
-
I knocked this one down in another thread. Their FAQ says the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is 3000 miles above the Earth. Well......
OK, 32 miles across and 3000 miles away. A ratio of 4/375. You could also as that the distance is 93.75 times greater than the size of the object. Let's apply this ratio to something else. Hmmm, I know! A frisbee. A regulation frisbee, used in sports, measures 10.75 inches across. Now, let's apply the ratio. 10.75x93.75=1007.8125 That means to observe the frisbee at roughly the same distance FE'ers say we observe the sun and moon, you would need to be 1007.8125 inches away, or 83.98 ft. Now 3000 miles equals 15,840,000 ft. So that means our scale is 83.98/15840000, or 188,617.337:1. Now, lets apply that to the surface area of the "flat Earth". Using A=3.14*r2, we can figure out that the area of the flat Earth is 65,563,985,000 square miles. We reduce that number with our ratio, and we get 347,603.174 square miles. That's a circle measuring 664 miles across.
Now, you mean to tell me a light the size of a frisbee could even think to illuminate even part of the state of Texas form only 83.98 feet away? Have fun with that one, guys.
I hope that puts their "spotlight theory" into some better perspective.
This mathematics is wrong. You've applied a linear ratio to a measurement of area, which is incorrect. If you double the side length of a square, the area multiplies by four, not by two. You need to square the ratio you calculated for the distance from the Earth to the Sun before applying it to the surface area of the Earth.
-
I knocked this one down in another thread. Their FAQ says the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is 3000 miles above the Earth. Well......
OK, 32 miles across and 3000 miles away. A ratio of 4/375. You could also as that the distance is 93.75 times greater than the size of the object. Let's apply this ratio to something else. Hmmm, I know! A frisbee. A regulation frisbee, used in sports, measures 10.75 inches across. Now, let's apply the ratio. 10.75x93.75=1007.8125 That means to observe the frisbee at roughly the same distance FE'ers say we observe the sun and moon, you would need to be 1007.8125 inches away, or 83.98 ft. Now 3000 miles equals 15,840,000 ft. So that means our scale is 83.98/15840000, or 188,617.337:1. Now, lets apply that to the surface area of the "flat Earth". Using A=3.14*r2, we can figure out that the area of the flat Earth is 65,563,985,000 square miles. We reduce that number with our ratio, and we get 347,603.174 square miles. That's a circle measuring 664 miles across.
Now, you mean to tell me a light the size of a frisbee could even think to illuminate even part of the state of Texas form only 83.98 feet away? Have fun with that one, guys.
I hope that puts their "spotlight theory" into some better perspective.
This mathematics is wrong. You've applied a linear ratio to a measurement of area, which is incorrect. If you double the side length of a square, the area multiplies by four, not by two. You need to square the ratio you calculated for the distance from the Earth to the Sun before applying it to the surface area of the Earth.
Isn't that automatically compensated for by the distance between earth and sun doubling causing a squared drop off of light intensity? (inverse square law)
-
Isn't that automatically compensated for by the distance between earth and sun doubling causing a squared drop off of light intensity? (inverse square law)
No.
-
I knocked this one down in another thread. Their FAQ says the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is 3000 miles above the Earth. Well......
OK, 32 miles across and 3000 miles away. A ratio of 4/375. You could also as that the distance is 93.75 times greater than the size of the object. Let's apply this ratio to something else. Hmmm, I know! A frisbee. A regulation frisbee, used in sports, measures 10.75 inches across. Now, let's apply the ratio. 10.75x93.75=1007.8125 That means to observe the frisbee at roughly the same distance FE'ers say we observe the sun and moon, you would need to be 1007.8125 inches away, or 83.98 ft. Now 3000 miles equals 15,840,000 ft. So that means our scale is 83.98/15840000, or 188,617.337:1. Now, lets apply that to the surface area of the "flat Earth". Using A=3.14*r2, we can figure out that the area of the flat Earth is 65,563,985,000 square miles. We reduce that number with our ratio, and we get 347,603.174 square miles. That's a circle measuring 664 miles across.
Now, you mean to tell me a light the size of a frisbee could even think to illuminate even part of the state of Texas form only 83.98 feet away? Have fun with that one, guys.
I hope that puts their "spotlight theory" into some better perspective.
This mathematics is wrong. You've applied a linear ratio to a measurement of area, which is incorrect. If you double the side length of a square, the area multiplies by four, not by two. You need to square the ratio you calculated for the distance from the Earth to the Sun before applying it to the surface area of the Earth.
You're right. It dawned on me earlier today, so here are the new calculations for everyone.
You claim the Sun is 32 miles across, and that the Earth is 24,900 miles across. That means the Earth is 778.125 times larger. Now, if we scale down the Sun to something a little more manageable for out little experiment, let's say, the size of a U.S. Quarter. The quarter measures 31/32 in across or .96875 inches across. Now, let's use our multiplier of 778.125 to figure out the size of our scale Earth. We get 753.809 inches, or for easier reference 62.817 ft. Now that we have our diameters properly scaled down, again, sorry for the mistake earlier, we can figure out our surface areas. The quarter's would be A=3.14*0.484375^2, which equals .7367 square inches, and the scaled down Earth would be A=3.14*31.4085^2, which equals 3097.59 square ft.
Now my math on the distance scale was correct, so we're keeping the 7.57 ft from an earlier post. So, for this experiment, you need a light source no bigger that a quarter to illuminate at least half of a circle measuring 62.817 ft across. Go try it and get back to me. Please be sure video tape it so you can prove it's possible.
-
Now my math on the distance scale was correct, so we're keeping the 7.57 ft from an earlier post. So, for this experiment, you need a light source no bigger that a quarter to illuminate at least half of a circle measuring 62.817 ft across. Go try it and get back to me. Please be sure video tape it so you can prove it's possible.
Not only that, it has to light it up so fucked-up retarded that it looks like the day / night cycle.
-
Now my math on the distance scale was correct, so we're keeping the 7.57 ft from an earlier post. So, for this experiment, you need a light source no bigger that a quarter to illuminate at least half of a circle measuring 62.817 ft across. Go try it and get back to me. Please be sure video tape it so you can prove it's possible.
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
-
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
You being a lazy ass doesn't discredit his statement.
If you require such spoon feeding:
Now my math on the distance scale was correct, so we're keeping the 2.31m from an earlier post. So, for this experiment, you need a light source no bigger that a quarter (0.243 m in diameter) to illuminate at least half of a circle measuring 19.15m across. Go try it and get back to me. Please be sure video tape it so you can prove it's possible.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
You dodged my question. How exactly can an object the size of a frisbee illuminate roughly half the state of Texas from an altitude of less than 90 feet?
If you can produce a frisbee in which nuclear fusion occurs, you can test that.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
You dodged my question. How exactly can an object the size of a frisbee illuminate roughly half the state of Texas from an altitude of less than 90 feet?
If you can produce a frisbee in which nuclear fusion occurs, you can test that.
Scientists can't artificially create nuclear fusion because it is so unstable and requires so much fuel to initiate. That fact alone discredits the FE sun.
-
Scientists can't artificially create nuclear fusion because it is so unstable and requires so much fuel to initiate. That fact alone discredits the FE sun.
Actually, it only discredits the RE sun, which is the only one (to my knowledge) which is claimed to operate through nuclear fusion.
-
Scientists can't artificially create nuclear fusion because it is so unstable and requires so much fuel to initiate. That fact alone discredits the FE sun.
Actually, it only discredits the RE sun, which is the only one (to my knowledge) which is claimed to operate through nuclear fusion.
How does it discredit the RE sun? The RE sun (Well, RE stars) are all hueg and have had massive explosions and energy start them all. Artificial nuclear fusion is so hard because it is so unstable and requires a lot of energy to start it. RE sun has both of these.
EDIT: Where have you seen that the sun is the only star to use fusion?
-
How does it discredit the RE sun?
Because the RE sun relies on a process that has never been experimentally validated.
-
How does it discredit the RE sun?
Because the RE sun relies on a process that has never been experimentally validated.
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.
-
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.
How does this change the fact that the process which supposedly powers the Sun in RET has never been experimentally shown to be viable?
-
With an understandable reason. It's hard to create a small scale version of something that requires itself to be large in the first place.
How does this change the fact that the process which supposedly powers the Sun in RET has never been experimentally shown to be viable?
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.
-
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.
Irrelevant. Until you can provide evidence that sustained nuclear fusion has been shown to be a viable source of energy, the RE sun - and hence the entire RE model - is based on pure speculation.
-
So, you want me to prove that a certain form of energy is viable, which will prove the sun works the way it is said to do? First of all, doing so won't prove the inner workings of the sun at all. I just told you why proving fusion on a small scale is difficult, while on a large scale it isn't.
Second, how does the RE rely entirely on the way the sun works? Last I checked, the earth would still be round whether then sun existed or not.
Explain yourself, stupid head.
-
So, you want me to prove that a certain form of energy is viable, which will prove the sun works the way it is said to do? First of all, doing so won't prove the inner workings of the sun at all. I just told you why proving fusion on a small scale is difficult, while on a large scale it isn't.
I don't want you to prove anything. I am simply making a statement about the validity (or lack thereof) of the RE model as it currently stands.
Second, how does the RE rely entirely on the way the sun works? Last I checked, the earth would still be round whether then sun existed or not.
The Sun quite obviously does exist, and the RE model has its own explanation for its workings. Making statements about what might be if the Sun did not exist is not only an invalid response to my point, but utterly inane.
Explain yourself, stupid head.
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
-
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
Just to make it clear, can I make personal attacks in the debate fauna?
-
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
Just to make it clear, can I make personal attacks in the debate fauna?
Yes, feel free to go out into the woods and insult all the critters that you want.
-
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response.
It's simple. Here you go.
1. By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2. By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.
3. Now, to reduce the scale of your model to something more manageable, we use a common household item, a quarter, as your sun. The quarter measures .96875 inches across (you can measure that is you want. You'll get 31/32, I just turned it into a decimal.)
4. Now, knowing that your Earth is 778.125 times larger than your sun, we simply multiply the quarter's diameter, .96875 by 778.125 and we come up with 753.809 inches, or 62.817 ft.
5. Now to calculate the altitude of our sun. In your model, the altitude is 93.75 times the diameter of the object, so we can take the diameter of the quarter, .96875, and multiply by the 93.75, and we get 90.8203125 inches, or 7.57 ft.
6. Now you can build your scaled down model, if you're not too lazy.
7. Go somewhere flat, I recommend a large parking lot, and measure out a circle with a diameter of 62.817 ft..
8. Obtain a spotlight like your site claims the sun is. I'll even allow you to go bigger than a quarter. Hold your light source at a height of 7.57 ft.
9. Try to illuminate at least half of the circle you measured out.
10. Post your results.
-
Scientists can't artificially create nuclear fusion because it is so unstable and requires so much fuel to initiate. That fact alone discredits the FE sun.
Actually, it only discredits the RE sun, which is the only one (to my knowledge) which is claimed to operate through nuclear fusion.
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?
-
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response.
It's simple. Here you go.
1. By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2. By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.
Actually, at this point you should have told him that once the ratios have been established, then he can use whatever unit of measure he prefers (in his case, metric).
-
I would, but I don't feel the need to convert to standard, manageable units if you can't present the data in such a format. I'm also not going to bother trying to confirm your numerical manipulations, given the unnecessary complexity introduced by your choice of unit system.
The, you proved me wrong, but I'm just going to ignore it and change the subject, response.
It's simple. Here you go.
1. By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2. By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.
Actually, at this point you should have told him that once the ratios have been established, then he can use whatever unit of measure he prefers (in his case, metric).
Good point.
Go for it Parifal. Use your metric measurements. Here are your formulas
S-Sun's Diameter
E-Earth's Diameter
A-Sun's Altitude Above Earth.
E=S*778.125
A=S*93.75
So, use whatever you want for your sun's diameter, it will give you the other measurement, and then you can try it out for yourself.
-
They're trying, damnit. Give them a chance.
Irrelevant. Until you can provide evidence that sustained nuclear fusion has been shown to be a viable source of energy, the RE sun - and hence the entire RE model - is based on pure speculation.
The principle of sustained nuclear fusion has indeed been experimentally validated in atomic bomb tests, in which it is theoretically possible to produce an uncontrolled fusion reacton of any size, although in all tests it was limited for practical purposes. I think you're confusing "sustained" with "controlled". Once the fusion fuel is all used, the reaction will end. The Sun is using up fuel at a vast rate. It is an uncontrolled reaction going as fast as it can.
-
I also want to make mention that, whatever powers the Sun, would have to be extremely dense to produce the measure of energy we get hit with every year. For 5,000 years of power, the mass would be enough to pull the Earth into the sun due to gravity. And that's assuming a perfect energy to matter conversion.
Of course, you know what the sun is made of because you've done spectrum analysis on the incoming light...
Right?
-
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?
Who said anything about the FE Sun? We're talking about the RE Sun.
The principle of sustained nuclear fusion has indeed been experimentally validated in atomic bomb tests, in which it is theoretically possible to produce an uncontrolled fusion reacton of any size, although in all tests it was limited for practical purposes.
Atomic bombs explode once, and then the fusion ends. Applying these results to the Sun, it should have blown up as soon as it was formed. Since the Sun obviously still exists, we conclude that the atomic bomb is not evidence for the plausibility of the RE Sun.
I also want to make mention that, whatever powers the Sun, would have to be extremely dense to produce the measure of energy we get hit with every year. For 5,000 years of power, the mass would be enough to pull the Earth into the sun due to gravity. And that's assuming a perfect energy to matter conversion.
Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.
-
Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.
Sure. It'll take me a day or two but I will.
-
So what, exactly gives credit to the FE sun?
Who said anything about the FE Sun? We're talking about the RE Sun.
This whole thread has been about the FE sun. My posts where about how your model won't work. You changed the subject and instead of attempting the experiment I gave you, you took shots at currently scientifically accepted model for the sun. So try answering the question, instead of dodging it. What gives credit to your sun's model?
Please provide a source and/or calculations for this data.
Please try the experiment I gave you.
-
This whole thread has been about the FE sun. My posts where about how your model won't work. You changed the subject and instead of attempting the experiment I gave you, you took shots at currently scientifically accepted model for the sun. So try answering the question, instead of dodging it. What gives credit to your sun's model?
Which do you mean by my Sun's model? I haven't advocated a specific model of the Sun.
Please try the experiment I gave you.
I don't see why I should. Experiments should be attempting to falsify existing science, not confirm it. Since you are attempting to falsify accepted physics, which predicts that the size of a light source is irrelevant to the area it can light up, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
-
Which do you mean by my Sun's model? I haven't advocated a specific model of the Sun.
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ. Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.
Please try the experiment I gave you.
I don't see why I should. Experiments should be attempting to falsify existing science, not confirm it. Since you are attempting to falsify accepted physics, which predicts that the size of a light source is irrelevant to the area it can light up, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics. I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong. It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface. I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.
-
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ. Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics.
I have bolded the part where you are trying to discredit accepted physics:
I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong. It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface. I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.
-
Parsifal admits that it is impossible to do because of his wonderful dodging and moving the goalpost.
Great work, have a gold star Parsifal.
You should play a sport and be the goalie.
-
Perhaps I should have said, your community's model of the sun, since I got the information from the FAQ. Judging from your response, I take it you do not believe that the sun is 32 miles wide and floats 3000 miles above the Earth like your, I mean, the FAQ says.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
I'm not trying to discredit any accepted physics.
I have bolded the part where you are trying to discredit accepted physics:
I'm proving the model in the FAQ wrong. It says that a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, can effectively illuminate half of that surface. I say it can't and have given your community a wonderful experiment with witch to prove the claim made in the FAQ.
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model. I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work.
Since you are the FE'er, I'd say your beliefs have a lot to do with this thread. Especially since you keep trying to defend FET. This tells me you believe it.
-
Well, it looks like the sun will never crash into the FE Earth.
Well, the FE earth doesn't have gravity (except the oceans for some reason) so there isn't any gravitational attraction.
Secondly, the sun's age can't be determined so the use of fuel doesn't seem to apply unless we want to say it has enough fuel for 1 million years.
Then you have the problem of solar energy the sun actually produces. Does all of it go to the Earth? Or only some of it?
But I'm going back to my first point:
The Earth doesn't have gravity even though it's made of matter thus the sun will never crash into it no matter HOW much mass it has. And you can also apply the same gravity canceling factor to the sun so it could actually have the mass of a black hole and not even bend light.
Conclusion:
FE science is is inconsistent. The FE universe is a chaotic system and can never be proven. This means that everything anyone says on this site in favor of FE is a guess and can never be proven to be factual.
-
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model. I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work.
Your claim that "a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, [cannot] effectively illuminate half of that surface" is in contradiction to accepted physics. Ergo, you are trying to discredit accepted physics.
Since you are the FE'er
What gave you that impression?
the mass of a black hole
What mass does a black hole have?
FE science is is inconsistent.
No, only your understanding of it.
-
That is not trying to discredit physics, only your model. I'm trying to tell you that the model in your FAQ will not work.
Your claim that "a light source 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles from a surface 778.125 times it's size, [cannot] effectively illuminate half of that surface" is in contradiction to accepted physics. Ergo, you are trying to discredit accepted physics.
Since you are the FE'er
What gave you that impression?
the mass of a black hole
What mass does a black hole have?
FE science is is inconsistent.
No, only your understanding of it.
Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area? Please, show me. As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.
-
Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area? Please, show me.
If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.
As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.
I don't follow your reasoning.
-
And the only guy to try and make a 3D model of the sun projecting onto a flat disk has failed to do so. I'm not even sure he's still around.
well then, its tobad im with the Re, because i know a bit about blender( 3D program) to make a small video of how the Fe would/wouldn't work.
-
the mass of a black hole
What mass does a black hole have?
Does it matter? the FE Earth has no gravitational field and thus can't be attracted by gravity.
FE science is is inconsistent.
No, only your understanding of it.
Oh I understand it just fine.
The UA applies to all bodies not on the Earth and not within it's atmosphere but it does apply to the bottom of the Earth. It also fails to apply to any body that exists the Earth's atmosphere that was once on the Earth. (otherwise sustained space flight would be possible.)
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own and is completely reliant on the UA for it's "gravity". No other bodies in the universe have this requirement.
Water is manipulated by the moon, signifying that water has gravity.
Light will bend based on factors that allow a spotlight sun to seem to not change shape when it moves into the distance or comes from a distance.
All stellar bodies orbit above the plane of the Earth.
Have I missed anything?
-
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own
This is where your understanding falls short.
-
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own
This is where your understanding falls short.
So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?
-
Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area? Please, show me.
If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.
As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.
I don't follow your reasoning.
While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves. To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it. This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play. The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit. The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger. You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb. Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship. See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't. That must mean something is obstructing the light source. Something like, I don't know, the planet?
-
The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own
This is where your understanding falls short.
Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?
-
So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?
Unknown. Different models have different hypotheses on this.
While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves. To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it. This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play. The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit. The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger. You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb. Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship. See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't. That must mean something is obstructing the light source. Something like, I don't know, the planet?
There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.
Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?
Different models say different things. You are correct that some FEers believe the Earth does not exhibit gravitation; however, it is generally accepted that some form of gravitation does indeed exist. Some models, including John Davis's infinite plane model, reject the UA entirely.
-
If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.
Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.
Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.
bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.
Making light bendy up and away in a asymptote fashion (as your diagrams suggest) to the ground would make the light travel further out and make them visible from further away.
Are you contradicting your own theory? Or have you since changed how Bendylightlol works?
-
There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.
Show me where "Bendy Light" is accepted physics. And while you're at it, acknowledge the rest of my post.
-
If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.
Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.
Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.
Bingo. This an easy one to test. Have a buddy walk across a field, say 100m away, and shine a flashlight on you. You will be able to see the flashlight, but you will not bee illuminated.
-
If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.
Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.
Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.
Bingo. This an easy one to test. Have a buddy walk across a field, say 100m away, and shine a flashlight on you. You will be able to see the flashlight, but you will not bee illuminated.
Unless, it's a flashlight with the power of a million candles.
-
Precisely.
Question:
How does the FE Sun, act as a spotlight if it is a sphere?
According to Parsifal, it should illuminate the entire surface lolol
inb4 bendylightlolol
-
Atomic bombs explode once, and then the fusion ends. Applying these results to the Sun, it should have blown up as soon as it was formed. Since the Sun obviously still exists, we conclude that the atomic bomb is not evidence for the plausibility of the RE Sun.
Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun? Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun. You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.
-
Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.
Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.
If a light ray strikes a surface, it will illuminate it. That is what "illumination" means.
Making light bendy up and away in a asymptote fashion (as your diagrams suggest) to the ground would make the light travel further out and make them visible from further away.
Are you contradicting your own theory? Or have you since changed how Bendylightlol works?
Bendy light has not changed, although I'm guessing your understanding of it is flawed because your conclusion is wrong. It's hard to tell exactly what you mean when you use phrases like "a asymptote fashion to the ground", though.
Show me where "Bendy Light" is accepted physics. And while you're at it, acknowledge the rest of my post.
I never claimed bendy light to be accepted physics, only that it provides an explanation for a point you raised. Also, I responded to your entire post, since most of it hinged on your misconception of what a light wave is.
How does the FE Sun, act as a spotlight if it is a sphere?
The spherical Sun model with bendy light is an alternative to the spotlight Sun model. In the model I am discussing, the Sun does not act as a spotlight.
Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun?
Unless you can prove that providing a fusion bomb with a continuous supply of hydrogen would cause the reaction to be sustained, this is still not evidence of a sustainable fusion reaction.
Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun.
Then, by your own admission, it is not a valid representation of the mechanism which powers the RE Sun. As such, it is not evidence to support the model.
You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.
Chemical reactions are very different to nuclear ones. For instance, the rate at which chemical reactions occur is often dependent on the exposed surface area to volume ratio of the reactants, which explains why larger quantities of substances typically react slower. There is no analogue to surface area in the context of nuclear reactions.
-
Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.
Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.
If a light ray strikes a surface, it will illuminate it. That is what "illumination" means.
You ignored the little flashlight test I suggested. See, when you turn on a light source, light waves head out in every direction. The stronger the source, the more waves it produces. Now, the further from the source, the farther apart these waves get. That is why a light bulb only illuminates so much space. You can see this every night when you switch on a light. Now, you can still see the light source from a greater distance that it will illuminate, but that does not mean you are being illuminated. Try it.
See, my experiment does not attempt to falsify the accepted laws of physics, but your bendy light theory, does.
-
The stronger the source, the more waves it produces.
No.
-
The stronger the source, the more waves it produces.
No.
Excuse me, photons.
I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.
-
I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.
Actually, the entire premise makes no sense at all. Here is the definition of "illuminate":
to illuminate (third-person singular simple present illuminates, present participle illuminating, simple past and past participle illuminated)
1. (transitive) to shine light on something
2. (transitive) to decorate something with lights
3. (transitive) to clarify or make something understandable
4. (transitive) to decorate the page of a manuscript book with ornamental designs
5. (intransitive) to glow
6. (intransitive) to be exposed to light
Since apparently the state of being exposed to light is insufficient to meet your definition of "illuminate", would you care to define your usage of the word? Then perhaps we can move forward.
-
Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun?
Unless you can prove that providing a fusion bomb with a continuous supply of hydrogen would cause the reaction to be sustained, this is still not evidence of a sustainable fusion reaction.
Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun.
Then, by your own admission, it is not a valid representation of the mechanism which powers the RE Sun. As such, it is not evidence to support the model.
You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.
Chemical reactions are very different to nuclear ones. For instance, the rate at which chemical reactions occur is often dependent on the exposed surface area to volume ratio of the reactants, which explains why larger quantities of substances typically react slower. There is no analogue to surface area in the context of nuclear reactions.
1. It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
2. The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
3. Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.
-
So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?
Unknown. Different models have different hypotheses on this.
While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves. To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it. This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play. The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit. The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger. You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb. Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship. See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't. That must mean something is obstructing the light source. Something like, I don't know, the planet?
There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.
Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?
Different models say different things. You are correct that some FEers believe the Earth does not exhibit gravitation; however, it is generally accepted that some form of gravitation does indeed exist. Some models, including John Davis's infinite plane model, reject the UA entirely.
Well then can you point me to where it says how much mass the Earth has so I can do the calculations? Or should I use the mass of the RE because it's gravitational force comes out to the 9.8m/s^2?
-
I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.
Actually, the entire premise makes no sense at all. Here is the definition of "illuminate":
to illuminate (third-person singular simple present illuminates, present participle illuminating, simple past and past participle illuminated)
1. (transitive) to shine light on something
2. (transitive) to decorate something with lights
3. (transitive) to clarify or make something understandable
4. (transitive) to decorate the page of a manuscript book with ornamental designs
5. (intransitive) to glow
6. (intransitive) to be exposed to light
Since apparently the state of being exposed to light is insufficient to meet your definition of "illuminate", would you care to define your usage of the word? Then perhaps we can move forward.
To shine light on something. But I'll elaborate. We'll add the word effectively. That would mean that the light source evenly and equally lights the surface you are shining it on. Let's use your computer monitor for example. Turn off all the lights in the room your in. Now, you'll notice that your room is somewhat lit, but not effectively, by the monitor. The area right in front of the screen is fairly well lit, but the wall across the room, not so much. Now, by definition, the room is "illuminated", but not effectively. That help you out?
-
It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible.
Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.
So you admit that the example you used did not resemble the RE Sun in any way, and therefore was not evidence of its plausibility. Gotcha.
Well then can you point me to where it says how much mass the Earth has so I can do the calculations? Or should I use the mass of the RE because it's gravitational force comes out to the 9.8m/s^2?
Different models make different statements about the mass of the Earth. In Davis's infinite plane model, the mass is of course infinite. Also, the mass of the RE only has a gravitational field of 9.8 m s-2 if the mass is arranged into a sphere; this result cannot be applied to a FE model.
To shine light on something. But I'll elaborate. We'll add the word effectively. That would mean that the light source evenly and equally lights the surface you are shining it on. Let's use your computer monitor for example. Turn off all the lights in the room your in. Now, you'll notice that your room is somewhat lit, but not effectively, by the monitor. The area right in front of the screen is fairly well lit, but the wall across the room, not so much. Now, by definition, the room is "illuminated", but not effectively. That help you out?
If your definition of "effective illumination" is that the surface is illuminated "evenly and equally", then the Earth is not effectively illuminated according to RET either; nor is the actual illumination, given available data, effective.
-
If your definition of "effective illumination" is that the surface is illuminated "evenly and equally", then the Earth is not effectively illuminated according to RET either; nor is the actual illumination, given available data, effective.
Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway. That other side of the Earth isn't getting too much light right now. Now, before you start in on, "What about the edges!?!?!" I'll just point to your post, that light will continue to travel until something gets in it's way. As the round Earth rotates, it blocks the suns light from hitting part of the Earth. We call this transitional time "dusk". Once the light is completely blocked, we call it night.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion.
-
Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway.
No it isn't. The power of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface per unit area decreases smoothly from the part of the Earth where the Sun is directly overhead to the parts of the Earth which are experiencing twilight.
I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion.
There are two fallacies here:
- Your prediction was based on blind speculation, not science.
- I haven't drawn any conclusions about your prediction.
-
Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway.
No it isn't. The power of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface per unit area decreases smoothly from the part of the Earth where the Sun is directly overhead to the parts of the Earth which are experiencing twilight.
I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion.
There are two fallacies here:
- Your prediction was based on blind speculation, not science.
- I haven't drawn any conclusions about your prediction.
Read the rest of my post, especially that part about dusk. My prediction was based on simple math, and a little common sense. If you haven't drawn any conclusions about my predictions, than why are you saying they're wrong? Also, why are you refusing to try it? You're not acknowledging the simple tests I've provided for you to test the FE sun model. Why is that?
-
Read the rest of my post, especially that part about dusk.
I read the whole thing, and it doesn't change what I said.
My prediction was based on simple math, and a little common sense.
Then why does it make no sense, and have no maths to back it up?
If you haven't drawn any conclusions about my predictions, than why are you saying they're wrong?
I'm not; I'm saying they contradict accepted science.
Also, why are you refusing to try it? You're not acknowledging the simple tests I've provided for you to test the FE sun model. Why is that?
Because it's your responsibility to test it, as the party challenging the accepted theory.
-
Because it's your responsibility to test it, as the party challenging the accepted theory.
The FE model of the sun and Earth relationship is what I'm questioning, and that is a far cry from accepted theory.
The math is in the post. All I did was provide a few formulas for creating a scale model with which a FE'er could attempt to create an experiment and prove that their model works. Even though it won't. This does not contradict accepted science an any way, it contradicts the FE sun/Earth model.
-
The FE model of the sun and Earth relationship is what I'm questioning, and that is a far cry from accepted theory.
You're also questioning the field of optics.
The math is in the post. All I did was provide a few formulas for creating a scale model with which a FE'er could attempt to create an experiment and prove that their model works. Even though it won't. This does not contradict accepted science an any way, it contradicts the FE sun/Earth model.
Your mathematics simply provides a scale model; it does nothing to support your argument. I have already stated numerous times why your claims contradict accepted physics; the fact that they also contradict the FE model does not change this. In this particular area, FET is entirely compatible with accepted physics, and it is your claims which are not.
-
It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible.
Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.
So you admit that the example you used did not resemble the RE Sun in any way, and therefore was not evidence of its plausibility. Gotcha.
1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.
2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.
3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.
-
1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.
Source?
2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.
And how does this relate to my earlier statement, that the process of nuclear fusion as a sustainable source of energy has never been experimentally validated?
-
1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.
Source?
2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.
Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.
3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.
And how does this relate to my earlier statement, that the process of nuclear fusion as a sustainable source of energy has never been experimentally validated?
The first statement is not a personal attack, but rather a statement of fact.
In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.
-
In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.
I never claimed it had been.
-
In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.
I never claimed it had been.
Ah, you admit irrelevant low content posting? Do you want to report yourself to a moderator or should one of us do it?
-
In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.
I never claimed it had been.
Then why do you use it to describe phenomena if it cannot be validated? You're just guessing at that point.
-
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
-
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
It's already been done.
-
Parsifal and others in this thread have obviously had no education in physics, astronomy, geology or mathematics by the looks of it. I can't say for sure, but my observations have led me to this conclusion. I can't test my theory, but I will make a whole website that is totally based on that assumption and argue with people in my forums.
-
Ah, you admit irrelevant low content posting? Do you want to report yourself to a moderator or should one of us do it?
When did I admit to that?
Then why do you use it to describe phenomena if it cannot be validated? You're just guessing at that point.
For the same reason that REers use a process that hasn't been validated to describe the way the sun shines, I imagine.
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
Then you can disprove bendy light theory. I'm really not sure what else you want me to say here.
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
It's already been done.
No it hasn't.
-
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
Then you can disprove bendy light theory. I'm really not sure what else you want me to say here.
Ok. Then, may you have a look in here and post your opinions about my experiment? (as I asked you earlyer via PM but you ignored me)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37353.0
-
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?
It's already been done.
No it hasn't.
Umm, until you post your explanation of why my disproof is wrong, then yes it has. You said you'd give us a diagram to explain your point which none of us can understand, but for the second time you've just clammed up on further enlightening us. When you present your case against my disproof in a clear and understandable fashion, then we'll see. Until then, my disproof stands, as there is no counter explanation.
-
OK, so I'm going to see if any FE'ers want to try and prove this (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1264.0) model of how the Earth, Sun, and Moon relate to each other. In the quote below, you will find a few formulas you can use to scale down the model I linked. Then try them at home. In order to prove that the model linked is even possible, you will need to get the light source to effectively illuminate half of the surface area of the circle in a pattern consistent with current know sunlight patterns. If you can't do it, than it disproves this model. If you can, than it proves this model would can work. That's pretty easy for you. So, instead of being lazy and just posting reasons why you won't try the experiment (Parsifal), give it a shot and see if you can score one for the FET team!
It's simple. Here you go.
1. By knowing in your model that the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away than we can calculate that the objects distance is 93.75 times it's diameter.
2. By comparing the diameters of the two objects, 32 miles for the sun, and 24,900 miles for the Earth, we can calculate that the Earth in your model is 778.125 times larger than your sun.
Using this data, here are your variables.
S-Sun's Diameter
E-Earth's Diameter
A-Sun's Altitude Above Earth.
And here are your formulas.
E=S*778.125
A=S*93.75
So, use whatever you want for your sun's diameter, it will give you the other measurement, and then you can try it out for yourself.
Don't forget, guys. The model you use for the sun MUST be a spot light! See the quote below.
Q: "What about time zones?"
A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
-
It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible."
Look, retard. You are disproving the FE theory right there. You guys haven't proven the Earth as flat, the sun as 32 miles long, or that it's 3000 miles away. I don't think it's so hard for only ONE FE'er to get a job at NASA, take his/her own digital camera, and take pictures of the so-called "flat" Earth. And 3,000 miles isn't far away. Why doesn't this "flat Earth spy" take a trip to the Sun and take pictures of this FE Sun? And you always bring the conversation off-topic by your CRAP pleas about "refraining from personal attacks". No one is personally attacking you, they're just saying the facts, douche. So explain to me how these FE'ers (not you, because you sometimes say that you aren't to get off topic) think that the Earth is flat, the Sun being 32 miles long and shit without proving it. And please, do answer without getting off topic.
-
It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible."
Look, retard. You are disproving the FE theory right there. You guys haven't proven the Earth as flat, the sun as 32 miles long, or that it's 3000 miles away. I don't think it's so hard for only ONE FE'er to get a job at NASA, take his/her own digital camera, and take pictures of the so-called "flat" Earth. And 3,000 miles isn't far away. Why doesn't this "flat Earth spy" take a trip to the Sun and take pictures of this FE Sun? And you always bring the conversation off-topic by your CRAP pleas about "refraining from personal attacks". No one is personally attacking you, they're just saying the facts, douche. So explain to me how these FE'ers (not you, because you sometimes say that you aren't to get off topic) think that the Earth is flat, the Sun being 32 miles long and shit without proving it. And please, do answer without getting off topic.
Fixed your post for you.
-
It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.
Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.
The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.
"I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible."
Look, retard. You are disproving the FE theory right there. You guys haven't proven the Earth as flat, the sun as 32 miles long, or that it's 3000 miles away. I don't think it's so hard for only ONE FE'er to get a job at NASA, take his/her own digital camera, and take pictures of the so-called "flat" Earth. And 3,000 miles isn't far away. Why doesn't this "flat Earth spy" take a trip to the Sun and take pictures of this FE Sun? And you always bring the conversation off-topic by your CRAP pleas about "refraining from personal attacks". No one is personally attacking you, they're just saying the facts, douche. So explain to me how these FE'ers (not you, because you sometimes say that you aren't to get off topic) think that the Earth is flat, the Sun being 32 miles long and shit without proving it. And please, do answer without getting off topic.
Fixed your post for you.
Thanks, brah. I'm new here, you see.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that NASA would hire someone who believed the Earth was flat?
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
Then..... lie. Problem solved.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
Then..... lie. Problem solved.
THANK YOU! These idiots just don't get it!
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
Mhmm... get someone else that is a FE'er to apply. Repeat until some educated FE'er gets the job. Cause one person has a low chance of getting the job. A lot... well you get the picture.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that NASA would hire someone who believed the Earth was flat?
As a government agency, NASA is not allowed to discriminate against one's personal beliefs.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that NASA would hire someone who believed the Earth was flat?
As a government agency, NASA is not allowed to discriminate against one's personal beliefs.
But it's all a conspiracy, remember? LOL
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that NASA would hire someone who believed the Earth was flat?
As a government agency, NASA is not allowed to discriminate against one's personal beliefs.
But it's all a conspiracy, remember? LOL
I don't think that they would risk the publicity of a job discrimination law suit.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
And you would know this... how? Have you actually tried applying? And if you did, why don't you give us a little overview of what they do.
Come on, are you seriously suggesting that NASA would hire someone who believed the Earth was flat?
As a government agency, NASA is not allowed to discriminate against one's personal beliefs.
But it's all a conspiracy, remember? LOL
I don't think that they would risk the publicity of a job discrimination law suit.
Yep. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm is exactly why I love alaska.net now. It explains everything about the FET.
-
It is actually incredibly hard for an FE'er to get a job at NASA. They screen for that kind of thing.
Please explain this quote then -->
Yes. There are an alarming number of people in on this conspiracy:
-All astronomers/geologists.
-All pilots.
-Anyone who has claimed to have travelled around the world or made it to the South Pole.
-All NASA employees.
-All people who claim to live on the fake continent Australia.
-All the Ice Wall guards.
Most experts estimate their ranks to be in the millions.
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
from their POV the lot of you are mentally unstable...
to be an astronaut you need to be good at science, they don't want some guy blabering on about the dangerous moon.
If you were to hide your eccentricity, even then, there a certain level of mental and physical superiority that they need
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
Do you have any cowboy experience? They tend to look for at least five years of cowboy experience when they hire astronauts.
-
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/
Do you have any cowboy experience? They tend to look for at least five years of cowboy experience when they hire astronauts.
Who cares of being astronaut. To be an astronaut you have to be incredibly strong mentally and phisically, and very determined. It s not simple as drink a glass of water