The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 12:43:33 PM

Title: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 12:43:33 PM
(Alternate thread title.  "F***ing magnets!  How do they work?")

James has an idea of how the sun and moon are kept in place.  Apparently Tom Bishop supports it, even though neither of them have demonstrated even the slightest inkling of understanding on just what the hell they're talking about.

When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate.

I asked him how this could be and proposed the consequences of if it were true:

So the Earth is becoming more and more positive, while the sun and moon are somehow being bombarded with enough electrons to hold them up, grow incredibly negative?  You realize the charge difference would create either sun/moon-to-Earth lightning or (if there's no medium to move through) they'd both act like gigantic magnets and attract each other?

You're forgetting the Earth's magnetic field

Apparently I, the only person with an active thread (http://"http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38554.0") on the subject (which is conveniently ignored by FEers), am somehow forgetting the Earth's magnetic field.  Well, let's try to go through James's hypothesis logically.

(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1476/herpn.jpg)

There's the simplified FE model.  Here's how the photoelectric effect would work were Earth the "massice" metal slab James seems to think it is.

(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7668/derpn.jpg)

Notice the electrons being scattered about randomly?  James seems to think enough of those electrons are coming directly back into the sun to HOLD IT ABOVE THE CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING EARTH.  Just for the sake of going too far, let's go on and presume that's somehow possible.

(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1417/herpa.jpg)

Notice how the sun is now being bombarded with electrons, while the Earth is losing them at an equal rate?

(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1760/herff.jpg)

This means the sun is becoming increasingly negative as the Earth is becoming increasingly positive.  We can't forget that opposing charges attract.

(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/697/derpa.jpg)

So the sun and Earth attract each other indefinitely, and with forever increasing force.  It would have to because, in order to remain suspended, the sun must continually be hit by these electrons, which are given off by the Earth.  What happens when they get so close that Earth's atmosphere can act as a medium to allow this charge to return?

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9594/derff.jpg)

COSMIC LIGHTNING.   ::)


More points to consider:

The moon must do this as well, meaning it must emit light of equal or greater energetic frequencies than the sun.  This would also make the sun and moon HIGHLY OPPOSE EACH OTHER, as they would both be growing more negative indefinitely.  Even if, for the sake of argument, the moon was capable of putting out such energy for such a long time, where does it get that energy from?  According to James, "it eats itself," which is pure and total idiocy that only pushes the problem back one step further.

Additionally, there would be no life as we know it.  Positive ions would be pulled up into the sky towards the negative celestial bodies (repelled by the positive earth below), while negative ions would be pulled down towards the ground (repelled by the negative celestial bodies above).  Literally anything with a net dipole moment would orient itself vertically.  Not only do we observe no such distinctions or phenomena, it would make the formation of cells as we understand it completely impossible.

So, where did I forget Earth's magnetic field?  Well, on a flat planet, there is no working configuration of magnetic field lines that demonstrates what we observed experimentally through the simple use of compasses and the viewing of the respective northern and southern aurorae near the poles.  So until I'm shown how electromagnetic field lines can be configured on a flat planet while still keeping with observed phenomena, the book on photoelectric suspension is closed.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:08:05 PM
He should have used semi-conductor mag-lev ideas instead.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 21, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
The dangling on wires theory should be in the FAQ. It's more likely than this.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 21, 2010, 07:58:08 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 21, 2010, 08:02:04 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on May 22, 2010, 01:16:55 AM
I don't know about Johannes, but to me it is clear that either there is a repulsive force at work or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Deceiver on May 22, 2010, 06:03:03 AM
I don't know about Johannes, but to me it is clear that either there is a repulsive force at work or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.

Clear on what grounds...?
All I'm getting from that statement is that we're evoking yet another new force or creating a very specific exclusion to physics for the sole purpose of explaining away the suspended sun and moon mess, a problem which only came about because the premises before that were also explained away in a very similar manner. data and maths please  ???
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 22, 2010, 09:31:21 AM
there is a repulsive force at work

Damn right. Lots of repulsiveness.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 22, 2010, 03:31:56 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 03:39:08 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????
WOW!  The way you dodged that question!  Man, I felt the breeze from here you moved so fast!
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????

Obviously not the whole universe, otherwise we would be accelerating at that rate as well, making our velocity zero relative to the Earth...making us weightless.  Why doesn't universal acceleration directly affect us?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 22, 2010, 03:46:43 PM
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????

Obviously not the whole universe, otherwise we would be accelerating at that rate as well, making our velocity zero relative to the Earth...making us weightless.  Why doesn't universal acceleration directly affect us?
Why do you stop accelerating in an elevator moving upwards when you jump?

I believe dark energy has a relationship with mass such that small objects like asteroids and you are negligible.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 03:57:44 PM
Why do you stop accelerating in an elevator moving upwards when you jump?

That analogy sucks.

According to UA I should be able to let go of a ball and it remain stationary in the air.  UA is affecting it too, right?  No?  Well why not?  If UA affects the sun and moon, why not the ball?

Edit: well you've edited your post making this point moot, but it's idiotic nonetheless.  You're still making baseless claims about something you can't measure the effects of.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 22, 2010, 04:02:44 PM
Why do you stop accelerating in an elevator moving upwards when you jump?

That analogy sucks.

According to UA I should be able to let go of a ball and it remain stationary in the air.  UA is affecting it too, right?  No?  Well why not?  If UA affects the sun and moon, why not the ball?

Edit: well you've edited your post making this point moot, but it's idiotic nonetheless.  You're still making baseless claims about something you can't measure the effects of.
I can make rough approximations of the UA with this formula:

d=.5(ua)t^2
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 04:07:21 PM
Gonna need some units here.   ::)
Edit: also, mass isn't anywhere in that equation, so you've already invalidated your earlier idea of the accelerative force differing between masses.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 22, 2010, 05:24:42 PM
Gonna need some units here.   ::)
Edit: also, mass isn't anywhere in that equation, so you've already invalidated your earlier idea of the accelerative force differing between masses.
what part of "approximation" and "negligible" don't you understand. RE'ers just get dumber and dumber.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 06:07:54 PM
You've yet to explain anything about it being a substitute for the gravitational force, what you observed to come up with it, how it affects masses differently, or phenomena it can explain and predict--and you expect me to just take it at face value?  Get real.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Crustinator on May 22, 2010, 06:15:50 PM
or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.

Umm. Is there any possible way to find out if this is the case?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2010, 07:08:13 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????
How about the fact that without an absolute frame of reference, that is an untestable hypothesis?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Johannes on May 22, 2010, 08:48:15 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????
How about the fact that without an absolute frame of reference, that is an untestable hypothesis?
Doesn't make it wrong.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2010, 08:51:29 PM
I don't agree with Jame's radical views on the sun.

I'm curious.  If you are an FEer, how do you think the sun/moon/stars remain above us?
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????
How about the fact that without an absolute frame of reference, that is an untestable hypothesis?
Doesn't make it wrong.
Doesn't make it correct either.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on May 22, 2010, 09:21:11 PM
I don't know about Johannes, but to me it is clear that either there is a repulsive force at work or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.

Clear on what grounds...?
All I'm getting from that statement is that we're evoking yet another new force or creating a very specific exclusion to physics for the sole purpose of explaining away the suspended sun and moon mess, a problem which only came about because the premises before that were also explained away in a very similar manner. data and maths please  ???
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 10:03:29 PM
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Are you trying to use the expansion of space to explain why the sun and moon are held above the Earth?  If so, I'll gladly bite.  According to FET, the sun and moon are only 3000 miles from the Earth.  If there's enough repulsive force in the space between the Earth and those bodies to keep them at such a level above the accelerating Earth of 9.8m/s^2, then why isn't there a repulsive force of 9.8m/s^2 between New York and Alaska?  They're that far apart; why aren't they flying away from each other?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 23, 2010, 12:57:55 AM


Finally found what James means with "massice."

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

When Alpha decay occurs, for example, the ejected helium nucleus is a massice object in relation to the main nucleus. In that case, it is a massice particle, not a massice disc (obviously). The relation between the Alpha particle and the other nucleus is electrostatic force, so the smaller "repulsed" object can be described as being massice.

Considering "massice" isn't actually a word, I'm willing to wager James first started using it after misinterpreting this post, which seems to have simply had a single misspelling of "massive."

...I believe that at some point in time the sun and moon were in fact massice disks of metal that were on top of the earths crust...

James's current theory appears to be a spin-off that makes even less sense.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 02:08:46 AM
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Are you trying to use the expansion of space to explain why the sun and moon are held above the Earth?  If so, I'll gladly bite.  According to FET, the sun and moon are only 3000 miles from the Earth.  If there's enough repulsive force in the space between the Earth and those bodies to keep them at such a level above the accelerating Earth of 9.8m/s^2, then why isn't there a repulsive force of 9.8m/s^2 between New York and Alaska?  They're that far apart; why aren't they flying away from each other?
I don't personally believe they are that close.   Nor do I hold the that the Earth is accelerating at some obscene rate hurtling upwards by some sort of godforce.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Ellipsis on May 23, 2010, 02:34:12 AM
Ah, alright. Sorry for making that assumption.

What is holding the sun/moon up, then?  The attractive force of mass and the repelling force of space reached a kind of equilibrium or something?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2010, 04:43:03 AM
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Are you trying to use the expansion of space to explain why the sun and moon are held above the Earth?  If so, I'll gladly bite.  According to FET, the sun and moon are only 3000 miles from the Earth.  If there's enough repulsive force in the space between the Earth and those bodies to keep them at such a level above the accelerating Earth of 9.8m/s^2, then why isn't there a repulsive force of 9.8m/s^2 between New York and Alaska?  They're that far apart; why aren't they flying away from each other?
I don't personally believe they are that close.   Nor do I hold the that the Earth is accelerating at some obscene rate hurtling upwards by some sort of godforce.

But others do.  That's why it can be so maddening trying to debate here.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Lorddave on May 23, 2010, 10:10:02 AM
I don't know about Johannes, but to me it is clear that either there is a repulsive force at work or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.

Clear on what grounds...?
All I'm getting from that statement is that we're evoking yet another new force or creating a very specific exclusion to physics for the sole purpose of explaining away the suspended sun and moon mess, a problem which only came about because the premises before that were also explained away in a very similar manner. data and maths please  ???
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Wait... you're going to use Redshift as evidence?

I'm not expert, but doesn't redshift require that the light travel several million light years before we can get anything significant?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Space Tourist on May 23, 2010, 10:28:36 AM
I don't know about Johannes, but to me it is clear that either there is a repulsive force at work or that space is expanding between us and the heavens.

Clear on what grounds...?
All I'm getting from that statement is that we're evoking yet another new force or creating a very specific exclusion to physics for the sole purpose of explaining away the suspended sun and moon mess, a problem which only came about because the premises before that were also explained away in a very similar manner. data and maths please  ???
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Wait... you're going to use Redshift as evidence?

I'm not expert, but doesn't redshift require that the light travel several milliuon light years before we can get anything significant?
Yes it does. It also needs relativistic speeds...
ANOTHER WIN FOR RET!
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 12:58:07 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Space Tourist on May 23, 2010, 02:11:38 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
You have just put the biggest whole ever it FET.
IF some thing are redshift x amount and other things arnt it means some thing are moving away faster.
The speed of light is consent.
No bendy light.
Spectrographs are correct there for one of an avg star when compared to the Sun proves it is a star.
We can detect plants around other stars by there wobble and brightness.
There for plants orbit stars just like the Sun.
Stars at the Zenith are not blueshifted there for no UA.
Stars in our galaxy are not redshifted very much at all again no UA.
Every thing is moving away from us not consent with us again no UA.
Should I go on?
Earth is round /forum
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Crustinator on May 23, 2010, 05:49:01 PM
I don't personally believe they are that close.

Hmm. Well I believe red shift data should be able to tell you how close they are.

It should also be able to tell you interesting things about the movement of the earth relative to the stars.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:20:41 PM
I don't personally believe they are that close.

Hmm. Well I believe red shift data should be able to tell you how close they are.

It should also be able to tell you interesting things about the movement of the earth relative to the stars.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?

They could any tell you interesting thigns if you assume things you don't know. 
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:24:03 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 

Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Sliver on June 05, 2010, 01:56:01 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 


This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 02:37:55 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 


This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!
I've never said to read the wiki.

I've never claimed belief in the UA or anything else you have stated.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 02:46:44 PM
I love how John Davis is basically saying the Wiki is junk even though the wiki is mostly filled with literature Tom Bishop has selected.

Hey, maybe if you help us get rid of tom bishop or at least totally discredit him, we'd be more open to your views?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Sliver on June 05, 2010, 04:15:05 PM
I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 


This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!
I've never said to read the wiki.

I've never claimed belief in the UA or anything else you have stated.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.
Ah, so the Wiki for the forum, of which you are a moderator, is wrong?  Why are you not doing anything to correct this? 

See, in my post, the term "all" is meant to refer to the FES in general, not you specifically.  However, it is funny that the part about the Wiki is all you chose to rebut, not the part about "moving the goalpost".
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Crustinator on June 05, 2010, 04:50:27 PM
They could any tell you interesting thigns if you assume things you don't know. 

Not sure how this obtuse reply helps your cause.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: markjo on June 05, 2010, 05:02:43 PM
I've never said to read the wiki.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

Or, maybe you should fill in the skeleton outline that you started in said wiki.  Or have you completely abandoned your model?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 05, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
in b4 electric field =/= magnetic field, so it isn't a magnet.
however thank you for posting a /b/ meme (seriously).

my biggest problem with the idea is that the earth doesn't have infinite supply of electrons. and wouldn't the pressure required to hold up the sun, make us fly up into the atmosphere as well? And as for the magnetic field, magnetic force is not based on the distribution of electric charges, rather the movement thereof. so the magnetic field of the earth would not be changed with the increase in charge. so unless the magnetic field increases proportionally too the electric field, to cancel it out, which would require a different mechanism because of the aforementioned reasons, then that theory is wrong
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on July 24, 2010, 04:46:16 AM
I've never said to read the wiki.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

Or, maybe you should fill in the skeleton outline that you started in said wiki.  Or have you completely abandoned your model?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
A good idea, one that I will do when I get the chance (when I have time outside of work and my book and studies.)
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Crustinator on July 24, 2010, 04:50:16 AM
Cool. Until then "photoelectric suspension" is not a valid FE theory.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 24, 2010, 04:55:19 AM
Cool. Until then "photoelectric suspension" is not a well-documented FE theory.
Fix'd
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on July 24, 2010, 05:13:08 AM
My model has nothing to do with photoelectric suspension.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Crustinator on July 24, 2010, 05:15:05 AM
My model has nothing to do with photoelectric suspension.

You mean you derailed this thread with irrelevant information?
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: John Davis on July 24, 2010, 05:16:51 AM
I was discussing, with you at times, why pest is bunk and possible other explanations.
Title: Re: Photoelectric Suspension
Post by: Nolhekh on July 24, 2010, 05:32:01 PM
my biggest problem with the idea is that the earth doesn't have infinite supply of electrons. and wouldn't the pressure required to hold up the sun, make us fly up into the atmosphere as well? And as for the magnetic field, magnetic force is not based on the distribution of electric charges, rather the movement thereof. so the magnetic field of the earth would not be changed with the increase in charge. so unless the magnetic field increases proportionally too the electric field, to cancel it out, which would require a different mechanism because of the aforementioned reasons, then that theory is wrong

Just to add to this post: If the earth became increasingly positively charged due to electrons being lost due to sunlight, would we not experience repulsion with everything we try to touch?  Would everyone's hair not stand on end like when someone touches a van-de-graff generator?