The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 12:11:29 PM

Title: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 12:11:29 PM
Ok, I'll keep this simple and non-scientific for now. If anyone wants to progress there ok, but I don't think it's necessary.

There are plenty of independent groups that study the Sun's energy levels on a constant basis. Many have done so for more than a decade. There are measurable patterns along these lines to provide hard data that I have seen many people in this forum request if you wish to google it.

How does the FE model explain the earth not being turned into cinders if the Sun is at the distance provided by the FAQ - or reference Earth Not A Globe?

Most all information regarding the sun is available online. If you really need to discuss it I'm happy to, but the question remains that if the Sun is only 700miles or so away, why do we even have an atmosphere left, much left a surviveable surface to our planet?

O.P.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 26, 2007, 12:17:34 PM
Yeah, I brought up the fact that the sun is too close to not fry people beneath it while heating the whole Earth a while ago. The RE sun is far enough away and powerful enough to make the effects of the radiation more ambient.... I'm still waiting for an answer.  :-\
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 26, 2007, 12:21:16 PM
The sun doesn't function the same way as believed by the round Earth model. It's not like we've got nuclear fusion happening fifty feet above our head. Pretty sure that was obvious.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 26, 2007, 12:35:33 PM
um... except fusion has been verified a multitude of ways. Spectrometers, spectroscopes, pyranometers, pyrheliometers, actinometers, etc.

Really, solar radiation is energy from the sun from a nuclear fusion reaction which creates electromagnetic energy. The spectrum of this radiation matches a black body with a temperature of about 5800 Kelvin. Half of the radiation is in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The other portion of energy is detected mostly in the near-infrared part, and some in the ultraviolet segment of the spectrum, confirming fusion.

But you are correct that the sun is not fifty feet high...  ;)
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 12:59:00 PM
I agree...
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: paradiselost on November 26, 2007, 09:51:12 PM
hmm all quiet on the (flat) western front
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on November 27, 2007, 05:03:14 AM
Hey! the posts made a pattern till I posted!  :o
Spoooky.
1
2
3
2
1
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on November 27, 2007, 05:12:58 AM
Err... you guys are forgetting the simple fact that the FE sun is powered by coal.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on November 27, 2007, 11:17:48 AM
Err... you guys are forgetting the simple fact that the FE sun is powered by coal.
Nuclear coal though.  8)
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 27, 2007, 02:36:18 PM
bump.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: SparteX on November 27, 2007, 02:38:05 PM
If the sun is only 3000 miles away why does it take 8 minutes for light to hit earth
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2007, 02:41:14 PM
Good one. I'm interested to read what the possibilities are of speeding up light. Seeing as how my small post caused such a disturbance about the speed of light earlier ;D
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 27, 2007, 02:41:17 PM
If the sun is only 3000 miles away why does it take 8 minutes for light to hit earth
How do you know it takes that long to get to Earth? Isn't that time derived from speed of light and distance? Distance varies in FE and RE.

Me out.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: SparteX on November 27, 2007, 03:11:41 PM
If the sun is only 3000 miles away why does it take 8 minutes for light to hit earth
How do you know it takes that long to get to Earth? Isn't that time derived from speed of light and distance? Distance varies in FE and RE.

Me out.
They fired radio waves at the sun, it took 16 minutes to get back, that's 8 each way.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2007, 04:35:59 PM
Quote
They fired radio waves at the sun, it took 16 minutes to get back, that's 8 each way.

No. That is not true. Stop making stuff up.

Radio waves cannot bounce off the sun because the sun emits all frequencies of radiation. Any such signal would be filtered out and indistinguishable from the background noise.

Show us a study of radio waves being bounced off the sun.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Dipshit on November 27, 2007, 05:04:55 PM
Quote
They fired radio waves at the sun, it took 16 minutes to get back, that's 8 each way.

No. That is not true. Stop making stuff up.

Radio waves cannot bounce off the sun because the sun emits all frequencies of radiation. Any such signal would be filtered out and indistinguishable from the background noise.

Show us a study of radio waves being bounced off the sun.
If what your saying is true, knowing you it never is, then they measured the time it takes until the waves are lost. But then again, you believe nuclear coal.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2007, 05:10:23 PM
Sorry, I actually have to backup Tom here...

"Ideally, we would like to bounce radio waves off of the Sun, measure how long it takes
them to get there and back, and use the speed of light to find the distance to the Sun.
Since the Sun is a ball of gas and doesnít reflect radio waves well, this idea will not work.
However, we can bounce radio waves off of Venus, and then use Keplerís Third Law to
the Earth-Sun distance."

Straight out of the ol' HAM radio bible, and schools everywhere.

Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 27, 2007, 05:12:11 PM
Lies Tom Dipshit. The waves would be lost a long way before it got to the sun.

The actual method was done by bouncing waves off of mercury and venus, and using trigonometry to measure the distance between them (given that you can measure the angles, of course)
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on November 28, 2007, 08:05:58 AM
Good point. Venus crosses in front of the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus
It's not as close as FE theory requires.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 28, 2007, 12:46:20 PM
Ok, I'll keep this simple and non-scientific for now. If anyone wants to progress there ok, but I don't think it's necessary.

There are plenty of independent groups that study the Sun's energy levels on a constant basis. Many have done so for more than a decade. There are measurable patterns along these lines to provide hard data that I have seen many people in this forum request if you wish to google it.

How does the FE model explain the earth not being turned into cinders if the Sun is at the distance provided by the FAQ - or reference Earth Not A Globe?

Most all information regarding the sun is available online. If you really need to discuss it I'm happy to, but the question remains that if the Sun is only 700miles or so away, why do we even have an atmosphere left, much left a surviveable surface to our planet?

O.P.

Yeah, I brought up the fact that the sun is too close to not fry people beneath it while heating the whole Earth a while ago. The RE sun is far enough away and powerful enough to make the effects of the radiation more ambient.... I'm still waiting for an answer.  :-\

I'm still waiting for an answer.  :-\
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 01:21:00 PM
The DEF protects us from the suns harmful radiation.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: eric bloedow on November 28, 2007, 01:26:38 PM
WTF is the DEF?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 28, 2007, 01:33:44 PM
DEF = Dark Energy Field

TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...    ;)
(either that or the physics that made it work for FE, I forget)
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 08:17:39 PM
The Engineer came up with a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 08:21:34 PM
The DEF protects us from the suns harmful radiation.
DEF holds our atmosphere, while our ozone layer protects us from harmful UV radiation.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 08:24:04 PM
the ozone layer is part of the atmosphere =>
The DEF protects us from the suns harmful radiation.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 08:30:20 PM
TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...    ;)
Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 09:52:33 PM
the ozone layer is part of the atmosphere =>
The DEF protects us from the suns harmful radiation.
Right, but I was saying that DEF itself doesn't absorb UV radiation.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 10:00:29 PM
no, but indirectly it does.

Wait, are we agreeing here?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 10:06:25 PM
The DEF with the atmosphere together absorb UV radiation, because ozone layer is within them. However, I was saying DEF itself, without the atmosphere, doesn't absorb UV.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 10:10:32 PM
oh i see, we're arguing semantics again. Technically the DEF is directly responsible for the absorbtion of the radiation.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 10:24:34 PM
Well, how does the DEF to absorb UV radiation? What causes this?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 10:26:49 PM
Well, how does the DEF to absorb UV radiation? What causes this?

I am unable to answer the question "How does the DEF to absorb UV radiation?" because it makes no sense.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 10:30:56 PM
Uh, I'm asking how does the DEF absorb UV, which means I'm looking for an answer that explains its mechanism to do this.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 10:39:19 PM
the DEF contains the atmolayer which holds the Ozone. The Ozone is its mechanism.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 10:42:37 PM
Which is why I said this:

The DEF with the atmosphere together absorb UV radiation, because ozone layer is within them. However, I was saying DEF itself, without the atmosphere, doesn't absorb UV.

They together absorb UV, but DEF itself doesn't.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 10:50:57 PM
It is directly responsible however. Which is what I said.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 29, 2007, 04:46:08 AM
TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...    ;)
Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.
True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on November 29, 2007, 05:35:01 AM
Quote
They fired radio waves at the sun, it took 16 minutes to get back, that's 8 each way.

No. That is not true. Stop making stuff up.

Radio waves cannot bounce off the sun because the sun emits all frequencies of radiation. Any such signal would be filtered out and indistinguishable from the background noise.

Show us a study of radio waves being bounced off the sun.
We can't, because the radio waves just get sucked into your hole, before being blasted out along with all the other light of day.
The eight-minute travel time is based on RE science, observation and evidence. Obviously it must be wrong.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: John Davis on November 29, 2007, 06:05:23 AM
TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...    ;)
Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.
True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.
So did Einstein's iirc.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 29, 2007, 06:37:36 AM
TheEngineer already admitted he made it up...    ;)
Einstein admitted he made up Relativity.
True.
But your phrasing made it obvious that you were just speculating and most likely thought it was improbable yourself.
So did Einstein's iirc.
iirc?
My point is his work wasn't blind random speculation. (No offense but it's more credible)
The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 29, 2007, 06:38:34 AM
What am I talking about?! FES is the only place I have seen so much creativity.  ::)
This is the perfect place for it.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 29, 2007, 07:17:17 AM
lol... I wondered if you were thinking straight there! ;D

Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 09:34:11 AM
Quote
The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.

Did Einstein conduct controlled experiments on the universe to confirm his theory of relativity over the theory of the graviton? Nope.

Did Stephen Hawking conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with the theory of the metric expansion of space? Nope.

Did Newton conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of gravity as a force? Nope.

Therefore, since no controlled experiments were ever conducted, we can safely say that theories are nothing more than fantasy and conjecture - based on observations - which only seemingly explains events. Any contradictory model could be created. After all, there is no Grand Unified Theory in physics. Whether the currently accepted dogma is true is entirely unknown. Any existing theory is only waiting for a better one to take its place.

Einstein didn't discover relativity. It's nothing more a model he made up to explain events. Other theories, such as Quantum Mechanics, explains events just as well without the necessity of bending space.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Moon squirter on November 29, 2007, 09:47:15 AM
Quote
The term "made up" doesn't fit Einstein as well because he more or less discovered it. "Made up" tends to imply pulling it out of nowhere. Scientific creation vs Creative science ...so to speak. Being creative is good but not here.

Did Einstein conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of relativity? Nope.

Did Stephen Hawking conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with the theory of the metric expansion of space? Nope.

Did Copernicus conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos before coming up with his theory of the earth rotating around the sun? Nope.

Did Newton conduct controlled experiments on the universe before coming up with his theory of gravity as a force? Nope.

Therefore, since no controlled experiments were ever conducted, we can safely say that theories are nothing more than fantasy and conjecture which only seemingly explains events. Any contradictory model could be created. After all, there is no Grand Unified Theory in physics. Whether the currently accepted dogma is true is entirely unknown.

It depends if you want to separate "control experiments" from "measured observations".

At the end of the day, you start out by suggesting "X causes Y" (as a hypothesis).   Then you see if the hypothosis:  (a) agrees with current observations and (b) predicts future observations.  This can either be through experiments or observations. Lastly you have to persuade others that the hypothesis holds true.   That's all science is.

If we *always* had to conduct "controlled experiments" before hand, we would not be as advanced as we are now.

As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).  In the case hawking, don't know/understand, in the case of the rest, of course!
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 09:53:10 AM
Quote
As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).  In the case hawking, don't know/understand,

The results of each of those tests and observations in that link are also what is precisely predicted by the theory of the Graviton.

If Relativity is so 'tested and confirmed', why is there no Grand Unified Theory?

Quote
in the case of the rest, of course!

What controlled experiments did Newton conduct to confirm his theory of Gravity as a force?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 29, 2007, 10:00:52 AM
They are waiting for a quantum gravity theory that will unite GR and quantum Mechanics.

A result of this would be a Grand Unified Theory.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Moon squirter on November 29, 2007, 10:08:03 AM
Quote
As for observations/experiments afterwards:  In the case relativity, yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).  In the case hawking, don't know/understand,

1. The results of those tests and observations are also what is predicted by the theory of the Graviton.

2. If Relativity is so tested and confirmed, why is there no Grand Unified Theory?

Quote
in the case of the rest, of course!

3. What controlled experiments did Newton conduct to confirm his theory of Gravity as a force?

1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.


-
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
Quote
1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

What are you talking about? Newton never came up with the theory of the Graviton. That's a completely separate theory made by Quantum Mechanics. The Graviton theory is every bit as predictive as Einstein's Relativity. The Graviton also bends light. There is no current experiment which can tell us the mechanism for gravitation, whether it be a bending of space-time or a subatomic particle.

Quote
2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

But you just told me that Relativity was the true, tested and confirmed, theory. If Relaitivity is so true, why isn't Relativity the Grand Unified Theory?

Quote
3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.

If Newton based his theory of Gravity as a force on pure observation, as you say, don't you think it's safe to say that his 'theory' was nothing more than pure speculation based on fantasy? If the entire scientific world could, between the 1600's and 1900's, base their belief system on a fantasy; why couldn't it happen now?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 29, 2007, 10:20:48 AM
You can't really "prove" the shape of the Earth unless you were to acually go into space and see for yourself (Tom Bishop excluding, as obviously Round Earths look like Flat Earths).

The truth is that RE makes a whole lot more sense as:
1) We don't have any crazy refraction.
2) Besides the fact that it supports life, the Earth is not special.
3) We don't have to alter the laws of perspective.
4) We don't have to include a conspiracy.
5) No Shadow Objects.
6) No confusing sun/moon relationships.
7) There is no order, order being an organization to the Universe, which is not natural.  Things develop into chaos naturally.
8)No explanation needed for Great Circle Routes/travel times.
9) No "celestial gears" needed.
etc

PROBLEMS WITH RE:
1) We don't yet have an explanation for how gravity works.

Basically just gravity.

TOM BISHOP, don't give that stupid list, because 90% of the stuff on there deals with RE and FE, such as WIMPS, MACHOS, dark matter, etc.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Jack on November 29, 2007, 10:47:57 AM
If graviton turns out not to exist, all attempts for an unifed theory will be destroyed.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gulliver on November 29, 2007, 11:55:00 AM
You can't really "prove" the shape of the Earth unless you were to acually go into space and see for yourself (Tom Bishop excluding, as obviously Round Earths look like Flat Earths).

The truth is that RE makes a whole lot more sense as:
1) We don't have any crazy refraction.
2) Besides the fact that it supports life, the Earth is not special.
3) We don't have to alter the laws of perspective.
4) We don't have to include a conspiracy.
5) No Shadow Objects.
6) No confusing sun/moon relationships.
7) There is no order, order being an organization to the Universe, which is not natural.  Things develop into chaos naturally.
8)No explanation needed for Great Circle Routes/travel times.
9) No "celestial gears" needed.
etc

PROBLEMS WITH RE:
1) We don't yet have an explanation for how gravity works.

Basically just gravity.

TOM BISHOP, don't give that stupid list, because 90% of the stuff on there deals with RE and FE, such as WIMPS, MACHOS, dark matter, etc.

Worthy goal, still reaks of bias however.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Moon squirter on November 29, 2007, 11:59:20 AM
Quote
1. No they are not - the devil's in the detail (as ever) - Newton's light does not bend as much as predicted by GR, and this has need verified.

What are you talking about? Newton never came up with the theory of the Graviton. That's a completely separate theory made by Quantum Mechanics. The Graviton theory is every bit as predictive as Einstein's Relativity. The Graviton also bends light. There is no current experiment which can tell us the mechanism for gravitation, whether it be a bending of space-time or a subatomic particle.

Quote
2. No GUT because science has not yet managed to produce such a theory.  Science does not pretend to have all the answers.  -Quite the opposite, actually.   And it's also self-correcting.

But you just told me that Relativity was the true, tested and confirmed, theory. If Relaitivity is so true, why isn't Relativity the Grand Unified Theory?

Quote
3. Newton - Erm - Apply falling out of a tree?   -Purely observational I'm afraid.  Newton reasonably precisely modelled the way masses would interact where there are no extremes of mass or acceleration, and other astronomers accepted it because it agreed with their observations.  It was up to others to disprove him later.

If Newton based his theory of Gravity as a force on pure observation, as you say, don't you think it's safe to say that his 'theory' was nothing more than pure speculation based on fantasy? If the entire scientific world could, between the 1600's and 1900's, base their belief system on a fantasy; why couldn't it happen now?

I never mentioned newton and "gravitation".  You made the point that every test in the link would apply to newton (?!?)

I countered by saying the Newton model does predict the bending of starlight, but by a different amount.  Look for "Soldner" in the link I gave you.   Also look at Dark Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star)s for Newton's theoretical light bending properties.   Newton cannot explain Mercury's orbit, which it another easy test for GR (in the link).

On GR being true.  I don't quite understand.  GR has a defined scope within which it is shown and accepted to be a solid model.  Beyond this is breaks down.   That's it.

-Any hypothesis could be viewed as "fantasy" until is has been tested under scrutiny.  I don't understand the point you are making.  A hypothesis may become a theory, once it has been tested and accepted by others.



Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 01:21:06 PM
Quote
I never mentioned newton and "gravitation".  You made the point that every test in the link would apply to newton (?!?)

Nope. Learn to read. I said that every test in that link would apply to the Graviton theory of gravity. I never said that the tests applied to the Newtonian theory of gravity as a force.

Quote
I countered by saying the Newton model does predict the bending of starlight, but by a different amount.  Look for "Soldner" in the link I gave you.   Also look at Dark Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star)s for Newton's theoretical light bending properties.   Newton cannot explain Mercury's orbit, which it another easy test for GR (in the link).

Newton didn't invent the Graviton. Newton's theory of the gravity as a force, and Quantum Mechanic's theory of gravity as a sub atomic particle are mutually exclusive. Read a book.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on November 29, 2007, 02:03:50 PM
Geez-aloo Tom,
We can test relativity.  ::)

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/tests-of-relativity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 02:08:37 PM
Geez-aloo Tom,
We can test relativity.  ::)

But how many of those tests provide predictions that Quantum Mechanics does not also predict?

If General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics makes the same predictions, but have a different mechanism, how can we tell which of the two mechanisms is true?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on November 29, 2007, 02:10:47 PM
 / \
  |
  |
  |
Read RE literature.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2007, 02:12:25 PM
/ \
  |
  |
  |
Read RE literature.

I have. And, unfortunately, there is no Grand Unified Theory.

GR and QM are directly contradictory, provide equal predictions for the same phenomena, and are utterly and entirely unproven. Why should we believe in something which makes no controlled experiments, and continues to consist of unproven conjecture?

How can we prove that space is bending rather than a particle interaction at a sub-atomic level?  If a test cannot tell us that, well, then it's not really a test at all.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Riles on November 29, 2007, 02:14:47 PM

I have. And, unfortunately, there is no Grand Unified Theory.


True , but your alternative has "selective " gravitational attraction.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Moon squirter on November 29, 2007, 02:30:44 PM
Nope. Learn to read. I said that every test in that link would apply to the Graviton theory of gravity.

OK, I need glasses, foureyes  Graviton<->graviton.  I think I know there is a difference between Newton and QM thanks.

However...

If General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics makes the same predictions, but have a different mechanism, how can we tell which of the two mechanisms is true?

You cannot prove that anything in the real world is absolutely true.  You can only make a judgment based on the evidence and its reliability.

For example.  I cannot prove that when light passes near to the sun, an invisible alien with a mirror pops up and deflects it slightly.  However, I can make a judgment that, base on what we know, it is highly unlikely.

If you are looking for science for the absolute truth then you need Religion instead.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Riles on November 29, 2007, 02:32:36 PM


I have. And, unfortunately, there is no Grand Unified Theory.



Tom in your reading of GUT's , did you understand the Math involved or the reasons why some are not widely accepted?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: eric bloedow on November 30, 2007, 04:50:28 PM
test: weigh objects at poles and again at equator.
result: objects weigh less at the equator.
RE conclusion: earth rotates.
FE conclusion: ?

test: compare clocks at high altitude to clocks at low altitude.
result: clocks at high altitude run slightly faster.
RE conclusion: einstein's theorems.
FE conclusion: ?

now let's se Tom answer these without babbling "conspiracy".
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 30, 2007, 05:03:48 PM
Well, the equator thing could be because of the Sun and moon, but it would have to be directly above you, and you always weight the least at the Equator, which in FE theory, the position where you weigh the least would change.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on December 01, 2007, 09:47:34 AM
Everything inconsistent in FE is explainable.

Always.

If not, the question will be dodged and avoided.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 01, 2007, 06:11:22 PM
Ok, I'll keep this simple and non-scientific for now. If anyone wants to progress there ok, but I don't think it's necessary.

There are plenty of independent groups that study the Sun's energy levels on a constant basis. Many have done so for more than a decade. There are measurable patterns along these lines to provide hard data that I have seen many people in this forum request if you wish to google it.

How does the FE model explain the earth not being turned into cinders if the Sun is at the distance provided by the FAQ - or reference Earth Not A Globe?

Most all information regarding the sun is available online. If you really need to discuss it I'm happy to, but the question remains that if the Sun is only 700miles or so away, why do we even have an atmosphere left, much left a surviveable surface to our planet?

O.P.

Yeah, I brought up the fact that the sun is too close to not fry people beneath it while heating the whole Earth a while ago. The RE sun is far enough away and powerful enough to make the effects of the radiation more ambient.... I'm still waiting for an answer.  :-\

Fusion has been verified a multitude of ways. Spectrometers, spectroscopes, pyranometers, pyrheliometers, actinometers, etc.

Really, solar radiation is energy from the sun from a nuclear fusion reaction which creates electromagnetic energy. The spectrum of this radiation matches a black body with a temperature of about 5800 Kelvin. Half of the radiation is in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The other portion of energy is detected mostly in the near-infrared part, and some in the ultraviolet segment of the spectrum, confirming fusion.

Bump
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on December 01, 2007, 06:40:32 PM
who the hell, are you>?
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 01, 2007, 06:56:33 PM
My previous name was l0gic. I changed my avatar, name, and signature all relatively close together making my previous identity unclear.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on December 01, 2007, 06:58:10 PM
oh right.

I was freaked out by the fact that you had 500 posts and i knew nothing about it
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2007, 10:09:56 AM
Ok, I'll keep this simple and non-scientific for now. If anyone wants to progress there ok, but I don't think it's necessary.

There are plenty of independent groups that study the Sun's energy levels on a constant basis. Many have done so for more than a decade. There are measurable patterns along these lines to provide hard data that I have seen many people in this forum request if you wish to google it.

How does the FE model explain the earth not being turned into cinders if the Sun is at the distance provided by the FAQ - or reference Earth Not A Globe?

Most all information regarding the sun is available online. If you really need to discuss it I'm happy to, but the question remains that if the Sun is only 700miles or so away, why do we even have an atmosphere left, much left a surviveable surface to our planet?

O.P.

Yeah, I brought up the fact that the sun is too close to not fry people beneath it while heating the whole Earth a while ago. The RE sun is far enough away and powerful enough to make the effects of the radiation more ambient.... I'm still waiting for an answer.  :-\

Fusion has been verified a multitude of ways. Spectrometers, spectroscopes, pyranometers, pyrheliometers, actinometers, etc.

Really, solar radiation is energy from the sun from a nuclear fusion reaction which creates electromagnetic energy. The spectrum of this radiation matches a black body with a temperature of about 5800 Kelvin. Half of the radiation is in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The other portion of energy is detected mostly in the near-infrared part, and some in the ultraviolet segment of the spectrum, confirming fusion.

Bump
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 07, 2007, 04:46:41 AM
Bump.
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on December 08, 2007, 01:36:38 AM
Nudge
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2007, 01:45:56 AM
Wink
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Optimus Prime on December 08, 2007, 06:26:51 PM
Point
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 09, 2007, 06:29:00 PM
Click
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Gabe on December 10, 2007, 07:43:03 AM
Snap Crackle
Title: Re: Solar Energy
Post by: Loard Z on December 13, 2007, 01:09:07 AM
Pop?