Stars

Can anyone tell me what makes up FE stars?

No one knows what makes up the stars because the only appear to us as small points of light.

I suppose then I have another question...Where, are the stars?

Color key:  Utter bullshit
               Well known fact

No one knows what makes up the stars because the only appear to us as small points of light.

Wrong Tom, we can see what elements make them up with spectroscopes.

Yep. And hydrogen nuclear fusion doesn't form that small Which is why I asked where it is, because there are a myriad of problems no matter where he puts it. He puts it too far, and it fails to be seen. Too close, and it joins the sun/moon.

Wrong Tom, we can see what elements make them up with spectroscopes.

Spectrum Analysis is flawed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA6,M1

Bull. Explain why spectrum analysis has been successfully confirmed with unknown objects that are later confirmed directly. Just saying its flawed isn't good enough. Furthermore, where are the stars?

Bull. Explain why spectrum analysis has been successfully confirmed with unknown objects that are later confirmed directly.

Who has directly confirmed the makeup of the stars?

Furthermore, where are the stars?

Above the earth.

Idiot, I'm talking about random objects, that are set up through a double blind, that confirm spectral analysis's effectiveness. It changes the light spectrum. Check it out, maybe you can try something outside of your 33 book library, of which you read exclusively.

Did you ever take Chemistry Tom? I remember us specifically using spectroscopes to determine elements.

Idiot, I'm talking about random objects, that are set up through a double blind, that confirm spectral analysis's effectiveness. It changes the light spectrum.

Were any of those objects stars? If not, then there is no relation to the Astronomer's spectrum analysis of the stars and the Chemist's spectrum analysis of random earth-based objects.

Oh, hahahahahahaha. Tom's revisionary physics 101! So, objects on the Earth are special, and hydrogen gaseous objects, from the Earth, are amazingly, distinct from hydrogen gaseous objects in space! And amazingly, the stars just happen to line up perfectly with hydrogen gaseous objects on Earth spectrums? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fail.

Oh, hahahahahahaha. Tom's revisionary physics 101! So, objects on the Earth are special, and hydrogen gaseous objects, from the Earth, are amazingly, distinct from hydrogen gaseous objects in space! And amazingly, the stars just happen to line up perfectly with hydrogen gaseous objects on Earth spectrums? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fail.

Have you considered that the stars output a lot more light and energy than inert laboratory samples, being entities entirely different in nature than those found on earth?

Oh, that makes sense. More light changes the color composition. 

Oh, that makes sense. More light changes the color composition. 

What evidence do you have showing that the stars are made up of the same type of matter (if they are even made out of matter) as that which is found here on earth?

Spectroscopes. Each element has its own color scheme.

Spectroscopes. Each element has its own color scheme.

Spectrum Analysis is flawed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA6,M1

Wrong Tom. If you look at artificial lights, the spectrum analysis is much different. I did a lab on this. The colors are there, but the spectroscope for the sun is blurred between colors while the separation between colors in artificial lights is much more defined.

YOU LOSE!

Wrong Tom. If you look at artificial lights, the spectrum analysis is much different. I did a lab on this. The colors are there, but the spectroscope for the sun is blurred between colors while the separation between colors in artificial lights is much more defined.

Obviously the sun is much farther away than an artificial light, so there will be a few slight differences such as blurring as the sun's light is scattered by the atmosphere.

However, the main point is that an intense artificial light displays as much spectrum as the sun despite being composed of entirely different elements, as Thomas Winship informs us.

Quote

Wrong Tom. If you look at artificial lights, the spectrum analysis is much different. I did a lab on this. The colors are there, but the spectroscope for the sun is blurred between colors while the separation between colors in artificial lights is much more defined.

Obviously the sun is much farther away than an artificial light, so there will be a few slight differences as the sun's light is scattered by the atmosphere.

However, an intense artificial light still displays as much spectrum as the sun, as Thomas Winship informs us.

Tom,

I'm not a major expert on spectroscopy, but I would have thought the atmosphere would not "scatter" the spectrum (in the same way as it does the actual photons). 

Instead it would maybe absorb some bands of the sun's spectrum, which could be easily accounted for later on.  For example, at different altitudes this absolution would be change.

God, I hate agreeing with Tom.  But he's right.  We can't really know for sure that the spectroscope is accurately reflecting the make-up of the stars until we've proven it by observing the stars up close to check the results.  There's no actual falsifiability.  Since the results can't really be falsified, they can't be accepted as absolute fact.

EDIT: Please think before you say that the flat earth theory itself can't be falsified either.  That's not what we're talking about here.

Actually, Roundy, you don't quite realize what you're claiming. You're claiming that despite the fact that vacuum to atmosphere spectography changes don't happen in the lab, they happen in space...odd. Especially when there's no physical basis for that in how light works.

Much as I hate to use theoretic science (strictly, Tom is correct, we don't know), the idea has been advanced that the stars are the afterburns of distant planets.

Actually, Roundy, you don't quite realize what you're claiming. You're claiming that despite the fact that vacuum to atmosphere spectography changes don't happen in the lab, they happen in space...odd. Especially when there's no physical basis for that in how light works.

The problem is that we don't know what might be out there to affect the readings.

I agree

Quote from: fshy94 on February 11, 2008, 11:13:03 PM

Actually, Roundy, you don't quite realize what you're claiming. You're claiming that despite the fact that vacuum to atmosphere spectography changes don't happen in the lab, they happen in space...odd. Especially when there's no physical basis for that in how light works.

The problem is that we don't know what might be out there to affect the readings.

You guys are forgetting that spectrographs of the sun are tantalizingly similar to spectrographs taken from starlight.  This is strong evidence that stars and the sun are the same type of ojects.  Unless of course, this similarity is just a coincidence....

Much as I hate to use theoretic science (strictly, Tom is correct, we don't know), the idea has been advanced that the stars are the afterburns of distant planets.

Anyone can theorize anything.

I hereby promote the theory that the Earth was ejected from the Sun.

It does not mean the theory holds any water.

Anyone can theorize anything.

I hereby promote the theory that the Earth was ejected from the Sun.

It does not mean the theory holds any water.

That's why I'm a Zeteticist, not a Theoreticist (unlike most globularists).

Quote from: shadowstrife on February 13, 2008, 09:02:58 AM

Anyone can theorize anything.

I hereby promote the theory that the Earth was ejected from the Sun.

It does not mean the theory holds any water.

That's why I'm a Zeteticist, not a Theoreticist (unlike most globularists).

So you make up data when current data doesn't fit your ideas.  Thats why Rowbotham came up with it.