The FE sun is impossible

Yes, that the FE sun is impossible.  A ridiculous statement all by itself so why bother?

Tom Bulshit will show up saying that you are wrong any minute from now.

on a related topic: what's the FE explanation for the phases of the moon?

if the moon really was as small and close as THEY say, people on different parts of the earth would see different phases AT THE SAME TIME!

Bump.

on a related topic: what's the FE explanation for the phases of the moon?

if the moon really was as small and close as THEY say, people on different parts of the earth would see different phases AT THE SAME TIME!

shadow object, obviously.

Yes, that the FE sun is impossible.  A ridiculous statement all by itself so why bother?

Why is it ridiculous? Read before you post. 

yeah, right, the shadow object that blocks the moonlight and sometimes the sunlight, but NEVER blocks ANY star!

that still fails to explain the question on another thread: why don't people on different parts of the earth see different phases at the same time?

yeah, right, the shadow object that blocks the moonlight and sometimes the sunlight, but NEVER blocks ANY star!

that still fails to explain the question on another thread: why don't people on different parts of the earth see different phases at the same time?

They do. But the conspiracy covers it up, and the magic.

The FE sun is impossible. This is not a ridiculous statement, unless all of science is wrong. Oh wait, FE'ers think it is! The point I am trying to raise is that there is no theory regarding how the FE sun works, aside from "Unknown". RE has a theory, you do not even have a hypothesis.

All I want is simple: An FE hypothesis as to how the 32-mile diameter sun, 3,100 miles above the plane of the earth works.

You can either answer my challenge, or you can dodge the point. Doing the latter will result in FE folding on this subject.

Why is it ridiculous? Read before you post. 

Why? Impossibility is a stupid and incorrect notion. Thus, any such conclusion about a premature explanation for the Sun (that isn't even agreed upon by the way), and calling it impossible is just...ridiculous.

Ok, the FE sun is very very very very very very very very highly unlikely to work until proven otherwise.

I have an explanation for you:

The FE Sun is simply Tom Bishop, he orbits above the plain of the earth in a circular orbit. His arse is pointing downwards, and to create the seasons he simply pulls his buttocks apart to varying degrees and the sunlight shines out of his anus.

Quote from: L0gic on November 12, 2007, 09:13:37 AM

Why is it ridiculous? Read before you post. 

Why? Impossibility is a stupid and incorrect notion. Thus, any such conclusion about a premature explanation for the Sun (that isn't even agreed upon by the way), and calling it impossible is just...ridiculous.

Impossibility is impossible to prove also. The title was rounding down. The points I made on this thread are that that chances of FE sun functioning and being observed as the are leave chances of FE being possible at approximately .00000000000000000000000000001%.

Ok, the FE sun is very very very very very very very very highly unlikely to work until proven otherwise.

I have an explanation for you:

Quote

The FE Sun is simply Tom Bishop, he orbits above the plain of the earth in a circular orbit. His arse is pointing downwards, and to create the seasons he simply pulls his buttocks apart to varying degrees and the sunlight shines out of his anus.

Ah beat me to it.  Have to go now anyways.

There are a lot of variables and consequences in the actions and movements of the Sun. Creating a simple and understandable idea about how it operates and appears the way it does would be rather difficult. I'm not surprised that a better explanation doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about the actions and movements here, although they are silly, I am talking about how the sun produces light.

I'm not talking about the actions and movements here, although they are silly, I am talking about how the sun produces light.

Why is it any different than the RE again?

Because the RE sun is much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much bigger.

What does that have to do with how it produces light? I asked if there was a size requirement (and that's even using the FE size of the Sun, which is stupid) and no one has shown otherwise.

Planes are a lot bigger than birds, but they both produce this thing called lift.

Light on the FE sun comes from the earth.

Light on the RE sun comes from the sun.

Light on the FE sun comes from the earth.

Light on the RE sun comes from the sun.

wtf?

lol???

Quote from: divito the fascist on November 12, 2007, 01:37:04 PM

Quote from: L0gic on November 12, 2007, 09:13:37 AM

Why is it ridiculous? Read before you post. 

Why? Impossibility is a stupid and incorrect notion. Thus, any such conclusion about a premature explanation for the Sun (that isn't even agreed upon by the way), and calling it impossible is just...ridiculous.

Impossibility is impossible to prove also. The title was rounding down. The points I made on this thread are that that chances of FE sun functioning and being observed as the are leave chances of FE being possible at approximately .00000000000000000000000000001%.

What calculations did you use specifically to arrive at that particular ratio? 

Quote from: L0gic on November 12, 2007, 01:43:09 PM

Quote from: divito the fascist on November 12, 2007, 01:37:04 PM

Quote from: L0gic on November 12, 2007, 09:13:37 AM

Why is it ridiculous? Read before you post. 

Why? Impossibility is a stupid and incorrect notion. Thus, any such conclusion about a premature explanation for the Sun (that isn't even agreed upon by the way), and calling it impossible is just...ridiculous.

Impossibility is impossible to prove also. The title was rounding down. The points I made on this thread are that that chances of FE sun functioning and being observed as the are leave chances of FE being possible at approximately .00000000000000000000000000001%.

What calculations did you use specifically to arrive at that particular ratio? 

I assume it's an approximation. His point is that the likelyhood of FE is soooo freaking low that FE isn't really valid. Unless new laws of physics come to light.

The sun has to be sufficiantly large enough to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei of atoms (in particular hydrogen).
In RE, jupiter is thousands of times larger than earth, but does not undergo fusion. The sun, which accounts for 99.98% of all mass in the solar sytem, does.
 If there is no size requirement for stellar fusion, then you and I could do it with a bicycle pump. Pressurised tanks of hydrogen would spontaneously explode.

Now, the FE sun is smaller than the FE earth. How come it can undergo fusion while the earth, which is much bigger (even though apparently size doesn't matter) doesn't? Hm?

If the FE sun is powered by fusion, then do the math. Show us how dense it would need to be.

In RE, jupiter is thousands of times larger than earth, but does not undergo fusion. The sun, which accounts for 99.98% of all mass in the solar sytem, does.

Stop bringing up Jupiter; it has no relevance.

If there is no size requirement for stellar fusion, then you and I could do it with a bicycle pump. Pressurised tanks of hydrogen would spontaneously explode.

Now, the FE sun is smaller than the FE earth. How come it can undergo fusion while the earth, which is much bigger (even though apparently size doesn't matter) doesn't? Hm?

If the FE sun is powered by fusion, then do the math. Show us how dense it would need to be.

Sources? I've searched for quite awhile and the only thing I've seen as requirements seem to be the chemical makeup, temperature and mass. And mass != size.

The simple nature of this is that, either the mass of the FE Sun is greater than the RE Sun, or the FE Sun is the same size as the RE Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

notice that this says the sun's diameter is about 109 times the diameter of earth! so if it was only 3000 miles away, it would literally fill the entire sky, to say nothing about how hot it would be...

FErs can't even explain why they think it's 3000 miles, not 2999 or 3001 or-you get the idea.

So the FE sun is much much much denser than the RE sun, which would (I think) lead to stronger gravity.

Or the FE sun is the same size as the RE sun, and is the same distance as in RE, so the notion of night just goes out of the proverbial window.

So the FE sun is much much much denser than the RE sun, which would (I think) lead to stronger gravity.

Or the FE sun is the same size as the RE sun, and is the same distance as in RE, so the notion of night just goes out of the proverbial window.

If it was that dense, I imagine it would be a black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

notice that this says the sun's diameter is about 109 times the diameter of earth! so if it was only 3000 miles away, it would literally fill the entire sky, to say nothing about how hot it would be...

FErs can't even explain why they think it's 3000 miles, not 2999 or 3001 or-you get the idea.

Thanks for demonstrating how retarded RE'ers are. You applied the RE sun diameter to the FE sun distance. Nice work mixing your models there. Tom has explained, on oh so many occasions, the algebraic miscalculation of the RE sun and shown the correct measures and methods for our current sun's size and location. Feel free to use the search, never post, and stop dating your sister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

notice that this says the sun's diameter is about 109 times the diameter of earth! so if it was only 3000 miles away, it would literally fill the entire sky, to say nothing about how hot it would be...

FErs can't even explain why they think it's 3000 miles, not 2999 or 3001 or-you get the idea.

Wikipaedia is not a credible source. Who knows who posted that information it could have been Tinkers, Aussies, Japs, Americans or even Jews or FE'ers...

...Not being prejudiced  ,
Genmotty

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 13, 2007, 07:11:24 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

notice that this says the sun's diameter is about 109 times the diameter of earth! so if it was only 3000 miles away, it would literally fill the entire sky, to say nothing about how hot it would be...

FErs can't even explain why they think it's 3000 miles, not 2999 or 3001 or-you get the idea.

Thanks for demonstrating how retarded RE'ers are. You applied the RE sun diameter to the FE sun distance. Nice work mixing your models there. Tom has explained, on oh so many occasions, the algebraic miscalculation of the RE sun and shown the correct measures and methods for our current sun's size and location. Feel free to use the search, never post, and stop dating your sister.

Wow. Seriously Narc, you have to see a doctor, that brain tumor must have shorted out the part of your brain that reads.
Since you are so disabled in the thought department, I will spell it out. The post you refer to is in response to:

The simple nature of this is that, either the mass of the FE Sun is greater than the RE Sun, or the FE Sun is the same size as the RE Sun.

He was saying, "If the FE sun is the same size as the RE sun, and it's 3,000 miles away then..."
Although wikipedia is not the most accurate sources, not by a long way. Also, note the fact you quote the ratios of diameter, the ratios of area are even greater and of volume greater still.

Also, Divito, if the FE sun is the same size as the RE sun, and is 3,000 miles away, wouldn't that put a part of the earth in it?

I think we should put the "Tom Bishop arse sun" theory into the FAQ as the current theory of how FE sun works.

Also, Divito, if the FE sun is the same size as the RE sun, and is 3,000 miles away, wouldn't that put a part of the earth in it?

Er no, I wasn't suggesting that you keep the 3000 mile distance if you keep it as the RE size. That's just silly. That does change the aspect of days and nights though.