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.


Messages - dyno

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]
511
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS
« on: January 14, 2008, 11:09:30 PM »
So the other planets are flat too are they?

I've seen Jupiter through an 8inch SC telescope. It wasn't enough to resolve detail on the cloud surface but it was powerful enough to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. 2 of them anyway.

If you visit a local astronomy club you should be able to attend a night at the local observatory. Their telescope are powerful enough to resolve surface detail. How do you account for the rotational appearance of the solar system's outer planets?

512
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Dealy Sun
« on: January 13, 2008, 06:04:04 PM »
The units were W/km^2
It doesn't really matter though as a comparison in magnitude of power production. The energy received from the Sun and can be determined from the radiation received on the ground, radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and radiation reflected from the Earth.

Nonetheless, it's poor form to dismiss RE scientific explanation without providing an alternative. You may as well just say, "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You aren't disproving facts or statements, you just aren't accepting them.

Tom - can you show your calculations for determining the Sun to be where it is? You mention you have done them. Please post them.

513
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Dealy Sun
« on: January 13, 2008, 03:28:11 PM »
There is evidence of fusion in stars by emission & absorption spectra. These allow the composition to be determined. Looking at other stars will give different spectra according to the different stages of their stellar evolution.
These experiments can be determined using university grade gas discharge lamps. Stellar spectra can be easily obtained as well.  This cannot be linked to any "conspiracy".

What is the FE opinion on this?

Whatever the FE Sun's method of energy production, it seems to produce the same spectra as the RE fusion star model.

514
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RESPOND IF YOU HOPE TO DEFEND YOUR THEORY
« on: January 10, 2008, 11:04:12 PM »
I have no idea. Is it relevant? What does the constitution of gravity waves have to do with gravity being real or GR gravity?


515
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RESPOND IF YOU HOPE TO DEFEND YOUR THEORY
« on: January 10, 2008, 09:49:32 PM »
Magnetic field lines are not virtual photons. What is your basis for this assertion?
Quantum Mechanics.

I was mistaken.
QM does indicate that virtual photons are the force carrier. QM can also allow for gravity to be caused by virtual particle interactions can it not? This is the so named graviton.

The argument was that gravitons must exist for gravity to be real. This doesn't seem to be the case at all. Gravitons must only exist for the QM model of gravity. Is this correct?


516
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets go diving part two
« on: January 10, 2008, 07:33:31 PM »
Going where? You want to tunnel through the bedrock on the bottom of the ocean?

517
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RESPOND IF YOU HOPE TO DEFEND YOUR THEORY
« on: January 10, 2008, 06:44:10 PM »
Virtual Photons.

Now, about that answer...

I did mention I don't know enough about that field. Your retort is ill informed. Magnetic field lines are not virtual photons. What is your basis for this assertion?

Again my understanding of the area is poor.

518
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RESPOND IF YOU HOPE TO DEFEND YOUR THEORY
« on: January 10, 2008, 06:31:44 PM »
I don't know enough on the subject but ask yourself:

What are magnetic field lines composed of?

519
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RESPOND IF YOU HOPE TO DEFEND YOUR THEORY
« on: January 10, 2008, 06:18:54 PM »
Hmm doesn't quantum gravity rely on the existence of gravitons which haven't been proven to exist?

No, I believe gravity waves are predicted. They are not a requirement of the theory.

520
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seasons
« on: January 10, 2008, 06:00:04 PM »
Prepare for nonsensical responses

521
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Dealy Sun
« on: January 10, 2008, 05:22:41 PM »
Accepted figures for the Sun
Energy emitted at the surface = 63 000 000Wm^-2
Radius = 700000km
Earth-Sun distance = 149 600 000km(rounded)

Inverse square law of radiation
S/(4*PI*r^2)=I

S/(4*PI*700000^2)=63*10^12W/km^2
S=(6.1*10^12)*63*10^12
S=3.9^10^26      387,923,860,865,267,669,085

Inverse square 149600000/700000=213 radius to Earth
1/213^2=1/45521
Intensity at Earth = 8.5*10^15

For the RE Sun

FE Sun
To receive the same amount of energy on Earth I at the Earth must be constant

Radius = 25.6km
Earth-Sun distance = 4800km

1/188^2=1/35344
8.5*10^15=(1/35344)*I
I=2.4*10^11


S/(4*PI*2400^2) = 2.4*10^11
S=72382294*241112097413
S=1.7*10^19

Volume difference
4/3*PI*r^3

RE Sun = 1.4*10^18 cubic kilometers

FE Sun = 70276 cubic kilometers

The FE Sun is 1.9^10^13 times smaller than the RE Sun.

What method of energy production is assumed to power a sphere this size to produce the energies above?
What powers keep the FE Sun from exploding due to the contained energy?

522
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moonbounce echo delay - Need answer from FE'ers
« on: January 10, 2008, 04:22:34 PM »
Responses by the FE proponents in this thread make it abundantly clear that they are unable to see reason or listen both sides of an argument. The dismissal of broad field scientific fact and the production of fanciful theories(Molasses? please) illustrate this.

For some reason I can't stop reading this forum. No matter how devoid of reason the posts are I am always entertained.

Keep up the work, good and bad.

523
well this went off topic after a couple of posts.

Does anyone have anything to add that is on-topic? Global warming aside(ignore the scientists if you like), this was stated as a hypothetical question.
Engineer: you didn't state the ice wall was uniform height but the pictures I have seen posted by FE advocates of the Ross and Lawson ice sheets are of uniform height.

524
Neither have I. I was implying that to produce a smooth wall of uniform height which consists of snow/ice on top of a mountain range, that the underlying rocky structure must also be of uniform height.

525
The ice wall is actually a mountain range covered in ice and snow.

So with the removal of ice, a rocky moutain range would instead present an impassable barrier? Would this mountain range be exactly 150ft high or whatever the assumed height is? The present pictures of the ice wall show a smooth wall of uniform height. You are suggesting under/behind that is a smooth wall of uniform height composed of a mountain range?

What are the suggested mechanisms behind the production of a mountain range of uniform height, which are not observed throughout the rest of the planet?

526
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The rest of the Solar System.
« on: January 08, 2008, 11:03:01 PM »
Ok I understand that about the air not being perfectly transparent, but what about a radio signal or something of the sort?

Some frequencies of radio seem to be blocked by the thickness of the atmosphere, while other types of radio pass through it as if it were invisible.

FM radio is line of sight only, which means that the radio signal will be blocked by the thickness of the atmosphere just as visible light is. This is why FM radio transmitters typically have a short range.

AM radio seems to pass through (or bounce along) the atmosphere as if it were not even there. You can pick up AM stations many thousands of miles away when conditions are right as all ham radio enthusiasts can tell you.



Incorrect. Light will be blocked by a piece of paper or cardboard. FM radio waves will not. Your reasoning is flawed.

527
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global warming - hypothetical future
« on: January 08, 2008, 10:13:46 PM »
aantarctic ice is getting thicker.

Please provide the basis for this statement?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1148183.stm
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21469179-912,00.html

are two of a number of pieces stating to the contrary

528
Flat Earth Debate / Global warming - hypothetical future and the Ice Wall
« on: January 08, 2008, 09:58:53 PM »
Scientists predict that the Arctic circle could be free of ice within the century.

If Antarctica lost it's ice as well. What would be the FE position on the ice wall? Is the FE position that the ice wall is permanent? If the ice sheets melted and receded(as they are actually doing) and eventually the ice was gone in summer, what would you say?

This cannot be tested as I'm certain we shall all be dead by the time the South Pole gets this warm. I'm mean death by old age.

529
Flat Earth Debate / Re: my evidence
« on: December 21, 2007, 02:21:47 AM »
Tom Bishop is a zealot.

cpt-bthimes will never be able to convince him, regardless of the strength of the argument, because TB cannot see reason or accept evidence contrary to his belief. You may as well try to convince the Pope that God isn't real. He shows this time and again by his dismissal of evidence, refusal to counter arguments and one line "I say so" comments.

cpt-bthimes, I salute you but it's a losing battle.

530
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moutain/horizen round Earth proof
« on: December 21, 2007, 01:44:46 AM »
so how does FE theory explain this?

531
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moutain/horizen round Earth proof
« on: December 20, 2007, 09:25:05 PM »
Quote
What is the FE explanation?

The bottom half of the mountain is intersected with the vanishing point.

I didn't say half.
The amount of the mountain visible will vary directly in relation to the distance from the island. Since the base of the mountain is actually closer than the peak, both should remain visible until both recede beyond the vanishing point. Is this correct?
This will not happen. The peak will be the last thing visible as you move further and further away.

532
Flat Earth Debate / Moutain/horizen round Earth proof
« on: December 20, 2007, 08:54:23 PM »
If you were to get on a boat from Hawaii and travel out, you should reach a point at which the ground/water interface is no longer visible, even with magnification. You will still be able to see the mountain peaks though above the horizen. A RE allows for this.
What is the FE explanation?

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]