Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Ellipsis

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / Photoelectric Suspension
« 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?


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.

Flat Earth Q&A / Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 18, 2010, 09:10:13 PM »
Quote from: FAQ
Q: "Wouldn't the atmosphere be diffused into space?"

A1: In the general model, there is a vector field created during the interaction between DE and the Earth. This is known as the DEF, which it acts as a containment to prevent DE from affecting objects with mass on Earth. This explains why the atmolayer will not be diffused into space...

This is begging the question.  It presumes that the "dark energy field" exists as some kind of wall around the edge of the Earth, holding the "atmolayer" in place.  Vector field or not, if this field is strong enough to contain 100% of gases from escaping laterally, we should be able to detect it anywhere on the Earth (strengthening as we approach the geographic south pole).  We detect nothing of this field, but the FAQ merely waves this away by saying it must not affect us.

This magic wall must be presumed with a total lack of even indirect evidence.  Not only can it not be detected, we can (as the FAQ admits) NOT EVEN DETECT ITS EFFECTS.  That's neither zetetic nor scientific.  It's merely idiotic.  We might as well say "I see absolutely no evidence for a tiger in this office, therefor the tiger must still exist but simply be undetectable."

Because we can agree the FAQ model is completely idiotic, what do FEers actually believe?

It also fails to address how far "on the Earth" extends.  The masses of gas particles in the atmosphere certainly aren't "on" the Earth, but ABOVE it.  Since the sun and moon are also above the Earth, why does UA effect them?  Are they not still contained within the weird magic wall of DEF?

The Lounge / Public Service Announcement.
« on: May 10, 2010, 02:14:16 PM »
I've witnessed misunderstandings arise from a particular problem far too often as of late, so I propose the following Godwin-esque law within FES.

Dick's Law:  As an argument continues, the tendency to pick apart, question, or blindly accept dictionary definitions increases.  This includes: rejecting outright an obvious and commonly-accepted definition in order to justify an idiotic statement with a much more obscure definition (that makes no contextual sense), or being purposely vague to the extent that any idiotic statement can be justified by cherry-picking definitions.

Please keep in mind:
A dictionary is a useful tool to reference. It is not an all inclusive guide to everything. ...[the] assertion that it is such an all encompassing guide is well beyond moronic.
Brevity is the purpose of a dictionary... if it was to actually explain anything, then it would be called an Encyclopedia.
How to avoid:  Clarify exactly how you define potentially exploitable words as you use them, as demonstrated well in the following:
I will give you one final chance, what qualifications for animal do we not meet. I do not mean the dictionary definition of animal meaning "inhuman behavior" I mean the biological definition for animal. (lacks cell walls, etc.)

Flat Earth Q&A / The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: April 26, 2010, 10:31:53 PM »
Quote from: FAQ
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram). Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

This is wrong, and I'm going to show you why.

Let's say we have a magnet.  Most of you will be familiar with similar diagrams such as this:

What I'm showing here are the lines of magnetic flux decreasing in strength with greater distance, but this doesn't mean much if we don't know its polarity, so let's give it poles.

You'll notice now that the lines of magnetic flux move from the north pole to the south one while outside the object (and from south to north while inside it).  What does this have to do with the shape of the Earth?  Well, let's bring another magnet closer to this field and see how it acts.

The magnet I've put next to it is a compass, with its red side designating north and its blue side designating south.  We can move this compass anywhere around the magnet and watch it trace out exactly where the lines of magnetic flux are located.  Any dipole can do this.  Notice how it acts when we approach the poles; north opposes north but attracts south.  South opposes south, but attracts north.  Opposites attract and likes repel.  Now, let's see what happens when we change the shape of the magnet.  Let's have a spherical one (like a planet), as well as the disk-shaped one the FAQ says to use.

Let's check out the spherical one first.  Notice how (following the lines of magnetic flux) it is in most places horizontal (parallel to the ground), only acting strangely when we approach the poles.  This is completely consistent with what we observe in the real world.  The disk model, however, presents a problem.  Let's take a closer look.

The compass isn't horizontal--it is vertical, perpendicular to the ground.  Not only that, but it doesn't move much no matter where on the disk you are, regardless of which side of the disk you're on!  Since we know compasses don't act in this way, the disk model has a major flaw.  Compasses act only in the manner we would predict on a spherical planet.  The only way to stick to the disk model is to fix the magnetism problem.  I'll play devil's advocate and see exactly what kind of lines of magnetic flux we would need on a disk to have compasses act in the manner we know they do...

Now let's add the poles.

Well this is strange.  A magnet that is north in the middle, but south around the edge.  Not only does this never occur naturally, it is actually an impossible configuration for a permanent magnet!  Okay, let's not make it permanent.  I'll play devil's advocate one step beyond too far and say there are two gigantic copper coils with some serious current flowing through them to induce this magnetic field manually.

Hrmm, notice how the northern poles in the middle oppose each other?  That's why this doesn't occur naturally--it would fly apart.

So there you have it.  A simple compass hints at the shape of our planet--not telling us exactly what it is, of course, but certainly telling us exactly what it isn't.  Not only have I shown how magnets act in relation to each other, I bent over backwards to fit the disk model.  Using the model the FAQ states does not properly explain the direction of compasses (in the disk model, compasses point vertically instead of horizontally).  Trying to keep with the disk shape, I was forced to break from the failed model and bent over backwards to create a magnetic form that would explain compass directions.  There are no natural magnets of such a configuration, and artificially made ones would force themselves apart.  The planet can not be a disk, and magnets do not act in the manner proposed by the FAQ; therefor, I move that this section of the FAQ be altered or removed, as it does not fit the data.  If you have a problem with any steps in this process, please tell me exactly where it is.

Flat Earth Q&A / Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:05:42 PM »
According to an FE map I found, going from one side of the disk to the other in the shortest possible path means always going in a straight line directly through the north pole, correct?

So an FE person would say the red path is shorter and the green path is wasting time?  Why is it, then, that the red path is in fact the longest possible route, and the green is the shortest?  Which of these would you say is shorter?  Also note how the line curves south instead of north, as FE maps seem to dictate it should.  Is there an explanation for this, or is geometry in on the conspiracy as well?

Pages: [1]